Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 30 seconds, and then 5 minutes to Senator Mikulski. Mr. President, we know a stall when we see one. This conference is a stall. And we know when we are on an endless road to nowhere. That is where we are. It isn't the Senator from Massachusetts saying it. It is here. It is the Republican principal leader in the House of Representatives, Charlie Norwood, I say to the Senator. He is the one who is saying it: ``The Senate had eight months to develop a concise alternative to the House liability proposal,'' says Norwood, ``and if all they have to show is a three page staff-level letter that could mean anything and everything, it's impossible to take this conference process seriously.'' Dr. Norwood is trained in the right profession. He is a doctor and he is a dentist; and he knows how hard it is to pull teeth around here. That is what we have been trying to do with our Republican conferees. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am reintroducing this important bill because of the seriousness of the problem it addresses and to spur this Congress to take action. I commend Senator Mikulski for her continued leadership on this legislation to close the critical gaps in our imported food safety laws. Citizens deserve to know that the foods they eat are safe and wholesome, regardless of their source. The United States has one of the safest food supplies in the world. Yet, every year, millions of Americans become sick, and thousands die, from eating contaminated food. Food-borne illnesses cause billions of dollars a year in medical costs and lost productivity. Often, the source of the problem is imported food. The number of reports in the press of illnesses caused by eating contaminated imported foods has grown steadily over the past few years. For example, in 1997, school children in five states contracted Hepatitis A from frozen strawberries served in the school cafeterias. Fecal contamination is a potential source of Hepatitis A, and the strawberries the children ate came from a farm in Mexico where workers had little access to sanitary facilities. Earlier this year, cases of typhoid fever in Florida were linked to a frozen tropical fruit product from Guatemala. Again, poor sanitary conditions appear to be at the root of the problem. Gastrointestinal illness has been linked to soft cheeses from Europe. Bacterial food poisoning has been attributed to canned mushrooms from the Far East. The emergence of highly virulent strains of bacteria, and an increase in the number of organisms that are resistant to antibiotics, make microbial contamination of food a major public health challenge. Ensuring the safety of imported food is a huge task. Americans now enjoy a wide variety of foods from around the world and have access to fresh fruits and vegetables year round. In 1997, the Food Safety Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture handled 118,000 entries of imported meat and poultry. The FDA handled far more--2.7 million entries of other imported food. Current FDA procedures and resources allowed for less than two percent of those 2.7 million imports to be physically inspected. Clearly, we need to do better. The FDA lacks sufficient authority to prevent contaminated food imports from reaching our shores. The agency has no legal authority to require that food imported into the United States has been prepared, packed and stored under conditions that provide the same level of public health protection as similar food produced in the United States. Under current procedures, the FDA takes random samples of imports as they arrive at the border. The imports often continue on their way to stores in all parts of the country while testing is being done, and it is often difficult to recall the food if a problem is found. Unscrupulous importers make the most of the loopholes in the law, including substituting cargo, falsifying laboratory results, and attempting to bring a refused shipment in again, at a later date or at a different port. The legislation we are reintroducing today will give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the additional authority needed to assure that food imports are as safe as food grown and prepared in this country. It will give the FDA greater authority to deal with outbreaks of food-borne illness and to bar further imports of dangerous foods until improvements at the source can guarantee the safety of future shipments. This authority covers foods that have repeatedly been associated with food-borne disease, have repeatedly been found to be adulterated, or have been linked to a catastrophic outbreak of food- borne illness. The legislation will also close loopholes in the law and give the FDA better tools to deal with unscrupulous importers. In addition, the legislation will authorize the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to target resources toward enhanced surveillance and prevention activities to deal with food-borne illnesses, including new diagnostic tests, better training of health professionals, and increased public awareness about food safety. Too many citizens today are at unnecessary risk of food-borne illness. The measure we are proposing is designed to reduce that risk as much as possible, both immediately and for the long term. We know that there are powerful special interests that put profits ahead of safety. But Americans need and deserve laws that better protect their food supply. This is essential legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that it is enacted as soon as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I am reintroducing this important bill because of the seriousness of the problem it addresses and to spur this Congress to take action. I commend Senator Mikulski for her continued leadership on this legislation to close the critical gaps in our imported food safety laws. Citizens deserve to know that the foods they eat are safe and wholesome, regardless of their source. The United States has one of the safest food supplies in the world. Yet, every year, millions of Americans become sick, and thousands die, from eating contaminated food. Food-borne illnesses cause billions of dollars a year in medical costs and lost productivity. Often, the source of the problem is imported food. The number of reports in the press of illnesses caused by eating contaminated imported foods has grown steadily over the past few years. For example, in 1997, school children in five states contracted Hepatitis A from frozen strawberries served in the school cafeterias. Fecal contamination is a potential source of Hepatitis A, and the strawberries the children ate came from a farm in Mexico where workers had little access to sanitary facilities. Earlier this year, cases of typhoid fever in Florida were linked to a frozen tropical fruit product from Guatemala. Again, poor sanitary conditions appear to be at the root of the problem. Gastrointestinal illness has been linked to soft cheeses from Europe. Bacterial food poisoning has been attributed to canned mushrooms from the Far East. The emergence of highly virulent strains of bacteria, and an increase in the number of organisms that are resistant to antibiotics, make microbial contamination of food a major public health challenge. Ensuring the safety of imported food is a huge task. Americans now enjoy a wide variety of foods from around the world and have access to fresh fruits and vegetables year round. In 1997, the Food Safety Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture handled 118,000 entries of imported meat and poultry. The FDA handled far more--2.7 million entries of other imported food. Current FDA procedures and resources allowed for less than two percent of those 2.7 million imports to be physically inspected. Clearly, we need to do better. The FDA lacks sufficient authority to prevent contaminated food imports from reaching our shores. The agency has no legal authority to require that food imported into the United States has been prepared, packed and stored under conditions that provide the same level of public health protection as similar food produced in the United States. Under current procedures, the FDA takes random samples of imports as they arrive at the border. The imports often continue on their way to stores in all parts of the country while testing is being done, and it is often difficult to recall the food if a problem is found. Unscrupulous importers make the most of the loopholes in the law, including substituting cargo, falsifying laboratory results, and attempting to bring a refused shipment in again, at a later date or at a different port. The legislation we are reintroducing today will give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the additional authority needed to assure that food imports are as safe as food grown and prepared in this country. It will give the FDA greater authority to deal with outbreaks of food-borne illness and to bar further imports of dangerous foods until improvements at the source can guarantee the safety of future shipments. This authority covers foods that have repeatedly been associated with food-borne disease, have repeatedly been found to be adulterated, or have been linked to a catastrophic outbreak of food- borne illness. The legislation will also close loopholes in the law and give the FDA better tools to deal with unscrupulous importers. In addition, the legislation will authorize the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to target resources toward enhanced surveillance and prevention activities to deal with food-borne illnesses, including new diagnostic tests, better training of health professionals, and increased public awareness about food safety. Too many citizens today are at unnecessary risk of food-borne illness. The measure we are proposing is designed to reduce that risk as much as possible, both immediately and for the long term. We know that there are powerful special interests that put profits ahead of safety. But Americans need and deserve laws that better protect their food supply. This is essential legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to see that it is enacted as soon as possible.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the amendment by the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner. It takes the next step toward honoring the promise of lifetime health care for our military retirees. It removes the Title 10 provision that limits eligibility for military health care benefits to retirees under the age of 65. The amendment expands health care benefits for Medicare-eligible military retirees by removing the age limitation on who qualifies for military health care programs. It gives all military retirees one consistent health care benefit, with TRICARE supplementing Medicare after the retiree reaches the age of 65. This is the right thing to do for our retirees. I also support the amendment offered by Senator Johnson. It corrects an inconsistency in access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Currently, our retired service members do not have the opportunity to participate in this program. While the out-of-pocket costs for some health plans offered under FEHBP may make this approach less attractive to senior military retirees, they should be given the option to join. Again, this is only fair. One, consistent health care program for all beneficiaries makes sense and is the right thing to do. I commend Senator Warner and Senator Johnson for their leadership in this important area. I support their amendments, and I urge my colleagues to approve them. This year is, indeed, the Defense Department's ``Year of Health Care!'' In the Armed Services Committee, we began the year considering how to improve health care for active duty service members and their families, and to address the well-documented health care needs of military retirees, especially those over the age of 65. The Administration's budget request was a major positive step for active duty service members and their families. It proposed to expand TRICARE Prime to the families of service members who live far from military hospitals. It also proposed to eliminate the co-payments by active duty service members' families for medical care by civilian health care providers in TRICARE Prime. We heard testimony from Secretary Cohen, General Shelton, the Service Secretaries, and each of the Service Chiefs, that the availability of health care for senior military retirees is a serious problem. They are conducting a variety of TRICARE demonstration programs to find the best way to address it. We also heard from retirees and the organizations that represent them that the problem is urgent, and that Congress needs to act now. A promise of lifetime health care was made to our service members at the time of their enlistment. We have an obligation to meet that commitment. It is wrong that service men and women who have dedicated their lives serving and defending our country should lose their military health care benefits when they reach the age of 65. We must fix this injustice, and we must do it now. The pending DOD Authorization Bill takes a first step towards honoring this promise by giving military retirees a retail and mail- order pharmacy benefit. Almost a third of them already have this benefit. 450,000 military retirees over the age of 65 have a pharmacy benefit under the base closing agreement. It provides a 90-day supply of prescription drugs by mail for an $8 co-payment, or a 30 day supply of prescription drugs from a retail pharmacy network for a 20 percent co-payment. The pending Defense Authorization Bill expands this benefit to all 1.4 million Medicare-eligible retirees. It makes sense, and it is fair that all military retirees over 65 have the pharmacy benefit, not just those affected by the base closing process. This pharmacy benefit addresses one of the most important concerns of the military retiree community--the high cost of prescription drugs. All of us are pleased that the Senate is taking this step to make good on our promise of health care to military retirees. But we should not forget the millions of other senior citizens who need help with prescription drugs too. It's long past time for Congress to mend another broken promise the broken promise of Medicare. Medicare is a guarantee of affordable health care for America's senior and disabled citizens. But that promise is being broken every day because Medicare does not cover prescription drugs. It is time to keep that promise. When Medicare was enacted in 1965, only three percent of private insurance policies offered prescription drug coverage. Today, ninety- nine percent of employment-based health insurance policies provide prescription drug coverage--but Medicare is caught in a 35-year-old time warp. Fourteen million elderly and disabled Medicare beneficiaries--one- third of the total have no prescription drug coverage today. The most recent data indicate that only half of all senior citizens have drug coverage throughout the entire year. The only senior citizens who have stable, secure, affordable drug coverage today are the very poor, who are on Medicaid. The idea that only the impoverished elderly should qualify for needed hospital and doctor care was rejected when Medicare was enacted. Republicans say they want to give prescription drugs only to the poor. But senior citizens want Medicare, not welfare. Too many seniors today must choose between food on the table and the medicine they need to stay healthy or to treat their illnesses. Too many seniors take half the pills their doctor prescribes, or don't even fill needed prescriptions--because they cannot afford the high cost of prescription drugs. Too many seniors are paying twice as much as they should for the drugs they need, because they are forced to pay full price, while almost everyone with a private insurance policy benefits from negotiated discounts. Too many seniors are ending up hospitalized--at immense cost to Medicare--because they aren't receiving the drugs they need at all, or cannot afford to take them correctly. Pharmaceutical products are increasingly the source of miracle cures for a host of dread diseases. But millions of Medicare beneficiaries will be left out and left behind if Congress fails to act. In 1998 alone, private industry spent more than $21 billion in conducting research on new medicines and bringing them to the public. These miracle drugs save lives--and they save dollars too, by preventing unnecessary hospitalization and expensive surgery. All patients deserve affordable access to these medications. Yet, Medicare, which is the nation's largest insurer, does not cover outpatient prescription drugs, and senior citizens and persons with disabilities pay a heavy price for this glaring omission. The ongoing revolution in health care makes prescription drug coverage more essential now than ever. Coverage of prescription drugs under Medicare is as essential today as was coverage of hospital and doctor care in 1965, when Medicare was enacted. Senior citizens need that help--and they need it now. So I say to my colleagues--while we are making good on broken promises, it's long past time to cover prescription drugs under Medicare for all elderly Americans. If we can cover military retirees, we can cover other senior citizens too. Elderly Americans need and deserve prescription drug coverage under Medicare. Any senior citizen will tell you that--and so will their children and grandchildren. It is time to make this need a priority as well.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, yesterday we passed the Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act. I commend everyone in the Senate who has worked so effectively on the issue of HIV and AIDS, beginning with Senator Jeffords, who has been a champion on this issue since the CARE Act was first authorized in 1990. I also thank the sponsors of this bill and our colleagues on the Health Committee who have sounded the alarm about the HIV/AIDS crisis through their unwavering support of the CARE Act reauthorization. There is no stronger or more effective support than a full Senate unanimous vote today to show that, in each and every one of our states, we stand behind a bill that will enable so many citizens to receive the benefits of advances in therapies and support developed through our efforts over the past ten years. At times of great human suffering or great tragedies or epidemics, it has often been the leadership of the federal government that has helped our fellow citizens deal with difficulties. It is in that very important tradition that this legislation was originally enacted and I urge the Senate to approve this important reauthorization of it today. Ryan White, the young boy after whom the CARE Act was named, would have celebrated his twenty-eighth birthday this year. If we had we been as far along as we are now in providing life-prolonging and life-saving therapies, Ryan might well have been here with us, thanking each of us for the lifeline and the hope provided through the CARE Act. Since the beginning of this epidemic, AIDS has claimed over 400,000 lives in the United States, and an estimated 900,000 Americans are living with HIV/AIDS today. AIDS continues to claim the most vulnerable among us. Like other epidemics before it, Aids is now hitting hardest in areas where knowledge about the disease is scarce and poverty is high. The epidemic has dealt a particularly severe blow to communities of color, which account for 73% of all new HIV infections. Women account for 30% of new infections. Over half of all new infections occur in persons under 25. This means that HIV infection of the nation's youth is a national crisis. AIDS continues to kill brothers and sisters, children and parents, friends and loved ones--all in the prime of their lives. From the 30,000 AIDS orphans in New York City to the 21 year old gay man with HIV living in Iowa, this epidemic knows no geographic boundaries and has no mercy. An estimated 34% of AIDS cases in the U.S. are in rural areas, and this percentage is growing. We know the challenges faced in rural communities where pulling together in the face of adversity is commonplace in other case. But where too often today there is silence and isolation because of the fear of condemnation over AIDS. In addition, access to good medical care is often a significant barrier for many of our citizens with disabling diseases, who have to travel to urban centers to receive the care they need and deserve. As the AIDS crisis continues year after year, it has become more and more difficult for anyone to claim that AIDS is someone else's problem. In a very real way, we are all living with AIDS or are directly touched by AIDS. The epidemic still kills over 47,000 persons a year. But we have good reason today to feel encouraged by the extraordinary medical advances made over the past ten years. AIDS deaths declined by 20% between 1997 and 1998. Many people with HIV and AIDS are leading longer and healthier lives today. In addition, we have witnessed the smallest increase in new AIDS cases--11% in 1998, compared to an 18% increase in 1997. More families are leading productive lives in our society, in spite of their HIV diagnosis. This is the good news. But unfortunately, the number of people living with AIDS who can't afford expensive medical treatment is growing which means that greater demands are being placed on community- based organizations and state and local governments that serve them. The advances in the development of life-saving HIV/AIDS drugs has come with an enormous price tag and these advances have been costly. An estimated 30% of person living with AIDS do not have health care coverage to pay for costly treatments. For these Americans, the CARE Act continues to provide the only means to obtain the health care and the treatment they need. In Massachusetts we have seen an overall 77% decline in AIDS and HIV- related deaths since 1995. At the same time, however, like many other states, the changing HIV/AIDS trends and profiles are serious problems. AIDS and HIV cases increased in women by 11% from 1997 to 1998. 55% of persons living with AIDS in the state are person of color. State budgets often provide funds for prevention, screening and primary care. But no state could provide the major financial resources needed to help person living with HIV disease to obtain the medical and support services they need, without the Ryan White CARE Act. By passing this legislation, we are making clear that the AIDS epidemic in the United States will receive the attention and public health response it deserves. The CARE Act reauthorization brings hope to over 600,000 persons each year in dealing with the devastating disease. It also brings hope and help to their families and their communities. The enactment of this legislation in 1990 was an emergency response to the devastating effects of HIV on individuals, families, communities, and state and local governments. The Act targets funds to respond to the specific needs of specific communities. Title I targets the hardest hit metropolitan areas in the country. Local planning and priority-setting requirements under Title I assure that each of the Eligible Metropolitan Area can respond effectively to the local HIV/ AIDS needs. Title II funds emergency relief to states. It helps them to develop HIV care infrastructure, and to provide effective and life-sustaining drug therapies through the AIDS Drug Assistance Program to over 61,000 persons each month. Title III funds community health centers and other primary health care providers that serve areas with a significant and disproportionate need for HIV care. Many of these community health centers are located in the hardest hit areas, serving low income communities. Title IV of the CARE Act meets the specific needs of women, children, and families. This reauthorization builds on these past accomplishments, while recognizing the challenge of ensuring access to HIV drug treatments for all who need them. Our goal is to reduce health disparities in vulnerable communities, and improve the distribution and quality of services. Senator Jeffords and I have worked together to address new challenges we face in the battle against AIDS. This reauthorization will create additional funding for states that have had to limit access to new therapies due to lack of resources. The bill also targets new funds to smaller metropolitan areas and to rural and urban communities, where the epidemic is growing and adequate infrastructure is lacking. In addition, the bill funds early intervention services to promote early diagnosis of HIV disease, referral to health care, and initiation of effective treatments to reduce the onset of the illness and its progression. Health disparities in communities of color will be reduced by requiring states and local communities funded by the Act to plan, set priorities, and fund initiatives to meet documented local needs in dealing with the epidemic. The reauthorization will also establish quality and accountability in HIV service delivery, by strengthening quality management activities to make them consistent with Public Health Service guidelines. Our action yesterday affirmed our long-standing commitment to citizens with HIV/AIDS and to sound public policy for all citizens, families and communities touched by this devastating disease. We have the resources to continue to battle AIDS. We must continue to deal with this disease with the same courage shown to us ten years ago by the valiant ten year old, Ryan White, who spoke out against the ignorance the discrimination faced by so many people living with AIDS. The lives saved by our efforts through the CARE Act will mean a chance for real hope as medical research comes closer and closer to finding a cure.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could briefly follow up, in 1994, the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, offered an amendment cosponsored by the Republican leader. There was no objection from that side of the aisle to that measure at that particular time. I don't know how the Senator voted at that time, or whether he indicated it was appropriate to bring it up at that time. But it was noted as the gun amendment. The Senate has addressed the gun issues. It was brought up by the Senator from Texas and was cosponsored by the majority leader at that time. I believe the Senator from Mississippi voted for it at that time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I could ask the majority leader, since probably the first priority of American families--even beyond having small class sizes, well-trained teachers, modern schools and computers, digital divide, afterschool programs, and safety and security in the schools--is the reduced opportunity for children to be able to have access to guns prior to going to school, it is not going to make much difference if we have small class sizes and guns are in the school. I am asking the majority leader if he is unwilling to permit a vote on the Senate floor of the Lautenberg amendment, which is really directed towards safety and security in the schools, as part of the measure. I think this is enormously important because we want to see the conclusion of the debate on ESEA. But I think it is important for Members to know whether we are going to be denied an opportunity to deal with what is the most important concern of parents; that is, safety and security in schools. I am wondering what the position of the majority leader is on that issue.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the leader yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to work with Senator Domenici on this important issue of mental health care, and I commend him for his leadership. In American medicine today, patients with biochemical problems in their liver are treated with compassion, but those with biochemical problems in their brain are treated harshly. That discrepancy is unacceptable. The stigma against the mentally ill is a blatant form of discrimination. The legislation that Senator Domenici and I are introducing is intended to correct this inequity and to assure that those with mental illness will get the treatment they need. The first-ever Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health was released last December. It provides a solid foundation on which to build. It is a powerful statement that treating the problems of mental illness more effectively must be one of our Nation's highest priorities. The Surgeon General's Report makes two basic points. Mental illness is a national crisis--and our treatment of the mentally ill is a national disgrace. One in five Americans will experience some form of mental illness this year. Mental illnesses are our second leading cause of disability. Yet success rates for treating mental illnesses are as high as 80 percent. Effective drugs with limited side effects have become available in recent years. Note that the success rates for treatment of other chronic diseases, such as hypertension and diabetes, are not quite as high. But people with high blood pressure or diabetes still seek treatment. Unfortunately, fear, stigma and lack of available treatment combine to prevent individuals with mental illness from seeking treatment. There are several reasons for this. First is stigma. People are afraid to admit mental illness to their doctors, or even to themselves. In fact, two-thirds of those with diagnosable mental illnesses do not seek treatment. Second, there is a very low public understanding of mental disorders and of the fact that they are treatable. Third, individuals with mental illness may not be correctly diagnosed or appropriately referred for treatment. Fourth, people who do seek treatment for mental illness find that it is not available or that their insurance plans will not cover it. One result of the lack of treatment is suicide. Fifty percent more Americans die by their own hand each year than are killed by other; 29,264 suicides occurred in 1998 compared with 17,350 homicides. Suicide is the third leading killer of the Nation's youth. What is happening to many of those who suffer from mental illness? Jails and prisons represent the largest residential center for those suffering from mental illnesses, but few prisoners receive treatment there. The bill that Senator Domenici and I are introducing today, ``The Mental Health Early Intervention, Treatment, and Prevention Act of 2000,'' is a giant step toward giving mental health the priority it deserves. But we cannot promote mental health without eradicating the stigma surrounding mental illness. Since fear and ignorance compound the problem, a campaign to improve public understanding about mental illness will combat the ignorance and decrease the fear. Increased public understanding is not sufficient, however. Successful treatment of those suffering from mental illness requires effective care by skilled professionals. Many individuals with mental illness do not realize the nature of scope of their problem, and those whom they might encounter in daily life are unable to assist them. Our bill will enable us to reach out to find persons with mental illness. It will train teachers, police and others to provide front-line help. Our legislation provides for the establishment of suicide prevention programs. It will also develop screening programs to identify and reach out to those with mental illnesses so that they seek effective treatment. We will also establish response teams and designate centers to provide patients with such treatment. Patients suffering from mental illness are more likely to experience a greater number of physical ailments as well. Their primary care physicians are often not equipped to recognize mental illness or to make the appropriate referral to a mental health professional. Our bill will develop programs to train primary care health providers to treat the physical symptoms of those who suffer from mental illness, while making sure that they obtain care for their mental well-being too. In addition, ignorance of the biology of the brain and the mind has often prevented the development of cures for many forms of mental illness. Our bill will develop educational programs to increase the numbers of researchers investigating the science of mental illness. Special emphasis will be given to training psychiatrists and psychologists in effective ways to bring the discoveries of the laboratory more quickly to the bedside of the patient. Our bill will develop new strategies to assist individuals with mental illness in the criminal justice system and to strengthen the understanding of mental illness by law enforcement officials. It is likely, as a result, that many who suffer from mental illness will receive treatment rather than punishment, so that they contribute to society instead of being incarcerated by society. Mental illness is a serious national problem that all of us must deal with more effectively. Our goal in this legislation is to give mental health the high priority it deserves. The enactment of this bill will help those millions of our fellow citizens who, at this moment, are suffering in silence.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at long last, the Senate is considering the nomination of Timothy Dyk for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mr. Dyk is an exceptional nominee who has waited far too long for action by the Senate. He is a nationally known and respected attorney who has been approved by the American Bar Association and was well received by the Senate Judiciary Committee. He deserves confirmation by the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan majority today. Mr. Dyk is an honors graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, where he was a member of the Law Review. After graduation, he served as a Supreme Court law clerk for Chief Justice Earl Warren, as well as for Justices Stanley Reed and Harold Burton. He served in the Justice Department for a year in the early 1960's and has spent the last 37 years as a distinguished and highly respected attorney in private practice in Washington, D.C.. He has argued cases before the Supreme Court and in numerous federal courts of appeals, including five cases before the Federal Circuit. He clearly has the qualifications and ability to serve on that Circuit with great distinction. Mr. Dyk's nomination is supported by a variety of corporations and organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Broadcasters, the Labor Policy Association, the American Trucking Association, Kodak, and IBM. He is also supported by the American Center for Law and Justice and has been described by that group as ``an exceptional advocate,'' who ``would be a fine jurist on the Federal Circuit.'' For a number of years, Mr. Dyk served as lead counsel for the Lubrizol Corporation in a number of patent litigations. Lubrizol's Chairman and CEO has written, Mr. Dyk was exceptionally effective in briefing and arguing the several appeals in the Federal Circuit that occurred in those cases and demonstrated the ability to provide exceptional service on the federal bench. He also performed an instrumental role in ultimate disposition of those cases through mediation, which he urged on the parties and skillfully guided through extensive and difficult negotiations. Mr. Dyk is also an active member of numerous bar organizations, and he has served as Chair of the D.C. Circuit Membership Evaluation Committee of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. In addition, he is an active participant in the community. In every respect, he is well-qualified for appointment to the Federal Circuit. He should have been confirmed long ago, and I urge my colleagues to approve his nomination today.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, and thank Senator Mikulski for offering this resolution. I join my friend from the State of Washington in urging that all Members--Republicans and Democrats alike--support it. But I commend Senator Mikulski for her initiation of this issue. And we express our appreciation to Senators Bennett and Feinstein for the action they have taken to express our full confidence and support for the police officers here at the Capitol. How time flies, as we remember those memorial services for Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson, who gave up their lives in order to try to save the lives of the Members of Congress. That is the kind of professionalism that is typical of this corps of men and women and that all of us too often take for granted. I strongly oppose any provision in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill that would slash the Capitol Police budget. Any such reduction would show a flagrant disregard for the security of the Capitol. It is shocking that House Republicans voted for this cut, after a non-partisan study concluded that even the ``current Capitol Police Force staffing is insufficient to meet today's threat environment.'' Members on both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on this basic necessity of our time. The budget must have room for adequate law enforcement. Police officers deserve a fair wage, equal to their risks and responsibilities. The way we treat Capitol Police officers is a measure of the respect we hold for them as professionals. No officers should have to jeopardize their lives to do their job because of inadequate resources and inadequate support. The Capitol Police deserve enormous respect for their dedicated service. What these officers do as professionals affects the welfare and the very lives of every member of Congress, every staff person, and every visitor to the Capitol. They deserve our highest praise and gratitude for the skill and commitment they bring to their work. The House Republican bill is a symptom of the larger problem facing communities across the country. Democrats have strongly supported the hiring of more local police officers and more school resource officers--giving communities and schools the tools they need to ensure the safety of citizens and students. Yet, Senate and House Republicans consistently fight us every step of the way. Last week, the Senate Republican leadership attempted to block debate on sensible and long overdue gun control measures. Last year, Republicans defeated an amendment to expand the Community Oriented Policing Program, which would have provided additional needed resources to communities across the United States in the ongoing battle against crime. And Republicans continue to target that successful program for elimination; On the Juvenile Justice bill, Republicans blocked a Democratic effort to create a National Center for School Safety and Youth Violence; On the same bill, Republicans rejected a Democratic amendment to encourage more effective after-school programs, so that one million additional children would be off the streets, out of trouble, and engaged in worthwhile school and community activities. Republicans also defeated one Democratic amendment to expand the Safe Schools/Healthy Students initiative, to enable 150 additional communities to build partnerships between schools, parents and law enforcement to reduce truancy. The initiative would also provide mentoring for troubled youth, and teach students how to resolve conflict without resorting to violence. Time and again, Democrats are placed in the position of fighting against Republican opposition in our effort to enact public safety measures that make sense--that keep families, schools and neighborhoods safe. Republicans would rather kowtow to the National Rifle Association and other special interest groups than listen to the American people. We too infrequently recognize the professionalism and also the dedication of these officers. The least we can do is to treat these men and women fairly. And more importantly, what we can do--and we should do--is to commend them for their continued professionalism and for their devotion to duty. I join my colleagues in expressing our appreciation to the two leaders on this appropriations bill, Senators Bennett and Feinstein, for what they have done in this area. I will mention one other area, though, that finds fault with the actions of the leadership in the House of Representatives, in this term, the Republican leadership. I find it difficult to understand what the Republican leadership has against low-income workers. Here we have the greatest prosperity in the history of this country, and the Republican leadership has been aligned to deny us a simple vote on a 50-cent increase in the minimum wage for 1 year, and a 50-cent increase in the next year. We have effectively been denied the opportunity to do so. We have had to go through extraordinary gymnastics here on the floor. And then, finally, we end up with a 3-year bill, which is an insult to even the 10 million Americans who are working at the lowest levels of the economic ladder, and then tying on to that $100 billion in unpaid tax goodies for the wealthiest individuals and the most powerful corporations of this country. I think that is shameful action by this body. But we have been battling, and we are going to continue to battle. We are going to remind our friends that even though they do not like voting on an increase in the minimum wage--and they use every effort to try to avoid that--they are going to be faced with the continued opportunities to do so until we get a fair adjustment in the minimum wage, which these working families are due. But now we have not only opposition in terms of an increase in the minimum wage, but opposition to an adjustment in the cost of living for those individuals who are at the lowest level of service in the National Government. The House Republican leadership wants to make sure that these employees are not going to get any cost of living increase, even though we have seen a generous cost-of-living increase for the Members. These workers are the ones who will get no increase--they are the press operators who work the presses, the bindery workers who bind the volumes of paper that we produce in this chamber, and the workers at the printing plant who haul paper and move the printed products. There is no increase for even these workers, the laborers in the printing office who publish the reports that go across to the libraries to inform the American people as to the actions of the Congress. But it is not just the Government Printing Office employees who will suffer from this cutting of the cost of living adjustment. Mail clerks and laborers in the Library of Congress, Secretaries in the Congressional Budget Office, and Information Receptionists, Library Aides, and Reference Files Assistants at the Congressional Research Service--those who carry and sort the mail, who type and file our various reports and documents, and those who assist with the cataloguing and researching of all the reports and documents that we in Congress generate--all of these employees will be denied a fair cost of living increase by the House Republican leadership. These are among the lowest of the low paid by the Federal Government. They are men and women who have a great sense of pride and dignity in the work they do. They are part of the team in terms of trying to serve this country. Nonetheless, the way we deal with them is to say: No, you are not going to be able to get the adjustment that others are going to be able to get in the Congress, and that those of the higher level pay scales are going to get in general. That is basically unfair, and it is unwise and unjust. I do not know what the explanation is. Why is it? Why is it that we effectively make sure that those individuals who are working in the darkest areas of the building and are absolutely key elements do not get an increase? If you take those individuals out of this whole process, you are not going to get the printing of the records, which are reflective of the Government in action, and you are going to basically paralyze, in a very important respect, the representatives of Government having the information which is necessary to make sound judgment. Maybe there is an explanation for it, but I do not see it. It is unfair and unjust. It is something where we have to say, if you have opposition to an increase in the minimum wage, you are hurting those workers. And who are those workers? They are primarily women because 60 percent of minimum-wage workers are women. This impacts children because fully one-third of the women who are earning the minimum wage have children under 18. It is a children's issue. It is a civil rights issue because a disproportionate percent of minimum-wage workers are men and women of color. Most of all, it is a fairness issue that men and women who are going to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, should not live in poverty in the richest country in the world, when we are having the most extraordinary economic prosperity in the history of this Nation. It just is wrong. We are facing that blind opposition by the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States that says no to those working members of our economy. Who are they? They are the men and women who work in our nursing homes looking after parents who may be in nursing homes. They are the men and women who are working in our schools as assistant teachers. They are men and women who are looking after children when their parents are out there working and trying to put food on their table. We are saying, no, they are not going to get an increase in the minimum wage. No, we are not going to give it to them. And no, we are not going to give a cost of living increase to other members who are at the lower level of the pay scale in our nation's Capitol. That is an absolutely unfair, unjust, and unacceptable position. I am delighted that here in the Senate, in a bipartisan way, that position has been rejected.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I once again bring the attention of the Senate to the importance of completing action on an issue that is of fundamental importance to families all across this country, and that is the role of the Congress in addressing the elementary and secondary education challenge which exists across our Nation in which local communities and States are taking action and in which the Federal Government is also a partner. We have had a total of 6 days debate. Of the 6 days, 2 were debate only. We were not permitted to have votes on 2 of those 6 days, so we had 4 days of debate and votes. We had a total of 8 amendments. One was a voice amendment. There were 7 rollcalls. Of the 7 rollcalls, 2 of those rollcalls were on amendments we had indicated we were prepared to accept. Essentially, we have had 4 days of debate and 5 votes on this legislation. This is what our good Republican friends have indicated to us about the priority of education. In January 6, we have our majority leader saying: Education is going to be a central issue this year. For starters, we must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is important. These are his remarks to the U.S. Conference of Mayors luncheon on January 29: But education is going to have a lot of attention, and it's not going to be just words. On June 22, he said: Education is No. 1 on the agenda of Republicans in the Congress this year. In remarks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on February 1, 2000, he said: We're going to work very hard on education. I have emphasized that every year I have been majority leader, and Republicans are committed to doing that. On February 3, in a speech to the National Conference of State Legislatures, he said: We must reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Education will be a high priority in this Congress. Congress Daily, on April 20, said this: Lott said last week that his top priorities in May include an agriculture sanctions bill, ESEA reauthorization, and passage of four appropriations bills. May 1: This is very important legislation. I hope we can debate it seriously and have amendments in the education area. Let's talk education. On May 2, I asked Senator Lott: On ESEA, have you scheduled a cloture vote on that? Senator Lott said: No, I have not. . . . But education is No. 1 in the minds of the American people all across the country, in every State, including my own State. For us to have a good, healthy, and even a protracted debate and amendments on education I think is the way to go. On May 9, at the time when the legislation was pulled down, I asked the majority leader: As I understand, we will have an opportunity to come back to ESEA next week. Is that the leader's plan? He said: That is my hope and intent. We are about to go out for a period of 10 days. We are reaching the end of May. We have no end in sight for the completion of legislation dealing with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We have been prepared to enter into short time agreements on the various proposals. I don't know of a single amendment on this side on which we could not enter into a time agreement of 1 hour equally divided. We put that forward and we have outlined in detail the various education amendments that we had intended to offer. But we are not getting focus, attention, and priority on this legislation. I don't believe the American people want us to stonewall on the issue of education. I don't think they want the Senate gagged from having a full debate, discussion and action. We have had other legislation, such as the bankruptcy bill, that went for 15 or 16 days of debate before completion. We can take the time that is necessary and also complete the work on the appropriations bills. But we are serious about bringing this matter to the floor. We are going to raise it continuously. We want to take action. We think families across this country know appropriations are important, but those appropriations are not going to actually be expended until the fall. Families want to know, as we go on into this year, what we are going to do on education and education policy. We owe it to the families, and we have every intention of pursuing it on this side of the aisle. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, literacy is the foundation of learning, but too many Americans today are not able to read a single sentence. Nearly 40 percent of the nation's children are unable to read at grade-level by the end of the third grade. In communities with high concentrations of at-risk children, the failure rate is an astonishing 60 percent. As a result, their entire education is likely to be derailed. In the battle against literacy, it is not enough to reach out more effectively to school-aged children. We must start earlier--and reach children before they reach school. Pediatricians like Dr. Barry Zuckerman at the Boston Medical Center have been telling us for years that reading to children from birth through school age is a medical issue that should be raised at every well child visit, since a child's brain needs this kind of stimulation to grow to its full potential. Reading to young children in the years before age 5 has a profound effect on their ability to learn to read. But too often the problem is that young children do not have access to books appropriate to their age. A recent study found that 60 percent of the kindergarten children who performed poorly in school did not own a single book. The Book Stamp Act that Senator Hutchison and I are introducing today is a step to cure that problem. Our goal is to see that all children in this country have books of their own before they enter school. Regardless of culture or wealth, one of the most important factors in the development of literacy is home access to books. Students from homes with an abundance of reading materials are substantially better readers than those with few or no reading materials available. But it is not enough to just dump a book into a family's home. Since young children cannot read to themselves, we must make sure that an adult is available who interacts with the child and will read to the child. In this day of two-parent working families, young children spend substantial time in child care and family care facilities, which provide realistic opportunities for promoting literacy. Progress is already being made on this approach. Child Care READS!, for example, is a national communications campaign aimed at raising the awareness of the importance of reading in child care settings. The Book Stamp Act will make books available to children and parents through these child care and early childhood education programs. The act authorizes an appropriation of $50 million a year for this purpose. It also creates a special postage stamp, similar to the Breast Cancer Stamp, which will feature an early learning character, and will sell at a slightly higher rate than the normal 33 cents, with the additional revenues designated for the Book Stamp Program. The resources will be distributed through the Child Care and Development Block Grant to the state child care agency in each state. The state agency then will allocate its funds to local child care research and referral agencies throughout the state on the basis of local need. There are 610 such agencies in the country, with at least one in every state. These non-profit agencies, offer referral services for parents seeking child care, and also provide training for child care workers. The agencies will work with established book distribution programs such as First Book, Reading is Fundamental, and Reach Out and Read to coordinate the buying of discounted books and the distribution of the books to children. Also, to help parents and child care providers become well informed about the best ways to read to children and the most effective use of books with children at various stages of development, the agencies will provide training and technical assistance on these issues. Our goal is to work closely with parents, children, child care providers and publishers to put at least one book in the hands of every needy child in America. Together, we can make significant progress in early childhood literacy, and I believe we can make it quickly. We know what works to combat illiteracy. We owe it to the nation's children and the nation's future to do all we can to win this battle. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and the accompanying letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, literacy is the foundation of learning, but too many Americans today are not able to read a single sentence. Nearly 40 percent of the nation's children are unable to read at grade-level by the end of the third grade. In communities with high concentrations of at-risk children, the failure rate is an astonishing 60 percent. As a result, their entire education is likely to be derailed. In the battle against literacy, it is not enough to reach out more effectively to school-aged children. We must start earlier--and reach children before they reach school. Pediatricians like Dr. Barry Zuckerman at the Boston Medical Center have been telling us for years that reading to children from birth through school age is a medical issue that should be raised at every well child visit, since a child's brain needs this kind of stimulation to grow to its full potential. Reading to young children in the years before age 5 has a profound effect on their ability to learn to read. But too often the problem is that young children do not have access to books appropriate to their age. A recent study found that 60 percent of the kindergarten children who performed poorly in school did not own a single book. The Book Stamp Act that Senator Hutchison and I are introducing today is a step to cure that problem. Our goal is to see that all children in this country have books of their own before they enter school. Regardless of culture or wealth, one of the most important factors in the development of literacy is home access to books. Students from homes with an abundance of reading materials are substantially better readers than those with few or no reading materials available. But it is not enough to just dump a book into a family's home. Since young children cannot read to themselves, we must make sure that an adult is available who interacts with the child and will read to the child. In this day of two-parent working families, young children spend substantial time in child care and family care facilities, which provide realistic opportunities for promoting literacy. Progress is already being made on this approach. Child Care READS!, for example, is a national communications campaign aimed at raising the awareness of the importance of reading in child care settings. The Book Stamp Act will make books available to children and parents through these child care and early childhood education programs. The act authorizes an appropriation of $50 million a year for this purpose. It also creates a special postage stamp, similar to the Breast Cancer Stamp, which will feature an early learning character, and will sell at a slightly higher rate than the normal 33 cents, with the additional revenues designated for the Book Stamp Program. The resources will be distributed through the Child Care and Development Block Grant to the state child care agency in each state. The state agency then will allocate its funds to local child care research and referral agencies throughout the state on the basis of local need. There are 610 such agencies in the country, with at least one in every state. These non-profit agencies, offer referral services for parents seeking child care, and also provide training for child care workers. The agencies will work with established book distribution programs such as First Book, Reading is Fundamental, and Reach Out and Read to coordinate the buying of discounted books and the distribution of the books to children. Also, to help parents and child care providers become well informed about the best ways to read to children and the most effective use of books with children at various stages of development, the agencies will provide training and technical assistance on these issues. Our goal is to work closely with parents, children, child care providers and publishers to put at least one book in the hands of every needy child in America. Together, we can make significant progress in early childhood literacy, and I believe we can make it quickly. We know what works to combat illiteracy. We owe it to the nation's children and the nation's future to do all we can to win this battle. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and the accompanying letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope our majority leader understands the friendship and the personal affection that many of us feel for him personally. This really isn't a personal issue. It is about how we are defining the role of the Senate. As I remember history, our Founding Fathers wanted this to be a place where there would be free and open discussion and the clash of ideas-- not a place for a narrow, partisan agenda; not where there was going to be, as the Democratic leader pointed out, effectively, the gagging of Members from being able to represent different ideas and different positions. We come from all different parts of the country. We represent a variety of interests. This institution is supposed to be, as I thought it was going to be, about representing various positions and having the clash of ideas. There isn't anyone who has questioned the majority leader's leadership in asking for a delay in terms of the consideration of various pieces of legislation. That is not what this is about. But there are many of us who believe it is a matter of importance that we deal with the availability of guns to children in this country. We don't think that this is just some simple Democratic proposal. We believe it is something that goes to the core of many families in this nation. We think we ought to be able to debate and then call the roll. We don't think it is just a matter of some narrow interest about whether we debate and finally resolve the issue of prescription drugs. We think that this is something of major importance and consequence. We had to go through the hoops in order to try to deal with the No. 1 issue of people in this country; that is, whether doctors are going to make the decisions in treating people or whether it is going to be insurance agents. We are being denied the opportunity to bring those up. We were denied that opportunity and we've had to go through gymnastics. We are denied the simple opportunity to have a vote in the Senate on the issue that affects 12 million of the neediest people in this country, the minimum wage. So the leader shouldn't take this as a personal matter. This is what we think this institution is all about. They have their agenda. They have the votes. But let us at least try to represent what we believe families in this country are all about. That is what I think our leader is attempting to make sure we do. With all respect to our leader and all the history he has represented, I have been here for a good period of time and we have never had this kind of termination and basic denial of individuals being able to raise these issues. We were here when Jim Abourezk, Howard Metzenbaum, and one other Senator closed down the Senate day in and day out because of their concerns on the deregulation of natural gas. People respected this. And at the end of 3 days and nights, Members of the Senate were going out and embracing and shaking hands because they respected the fact that people had strong views and that this institution responded to them. That is all we are asking. Let's let the Senate be the Senate of the United States. That is what we are going to fight for, and that is what we are going to insist on. I agree with my good friend, the Senator from South Dakota. This isn't about feeling threatened. No one is threatening. If you want to shut this thing down, go to it. If you are not going to let the work get done, so be it. If you want to threaten with being red in the face, so be it. No one is talking about that. We are talking about trying to advance the agenda that is of central concern to people in this country. That is what this institution is about. I thought Senator Daschle spoke for the institution. I think it is an agenda that should be pursued.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have a minute and a half, I believe. Mr. President, the possession of automatic weapons, to change this from the age of 18 to 21, we are opposed on that. This morning I looked on the web to see what has been happening in the last few days. May 15: Georgia boy 12, accused of killing a 10-year-old cousin. May 15: Chicago sees five youths injured by gunfire in 36 hours. May 15: Michigan boy 17, son of mayor and Congressman--one of our colleagues--dies from self-inflicted gunshot. May 11: Mississippi, 5-year-old shoots sister, 2, with mom's unlocked gun. May 11: Arkansas boy uses gun from home to shoot at officer. May 10: Florida, 5-year-old takes gun to prekindergarten. May 8: Montana, teen dies from accidental self-inflicted gunshot wound. The list goes on. That is in the last week alone. For how many more weeks will we have these lists? How many more weeks are we going to be denied by the Republican leadership the opportunity to do something about it? That is what this debate is about. That is why their position is irresponsible. That is why we are going to continue to battle during the course of this Congress to protect these children in this country who need our protection. To recap, since Columbine, the National Rifle Association and the Republican leadership in Congress have succeeded in blocking any action on new or stronger gun laws with a blunt response: ``We don't need new gun laws, just enforce the laws already on the books.'' We need to expose the National Rifle Association and the Republican hypocrisy. The NRA has systematically weakened federal gun laws over the past two decades and has made law enforcement's job of apprehending criminals more difficult. There are three major components of our weak gun laws that have the fingerprints of the NRA all over them: The McClure-Volkmer Act, the Brady Law, and the funding of ATF agents. The NRA-sponsored Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, also known as the McClure-Volkmer Act, is perhaps the strongest evidence of NRA hypocrisy on gun enforcement. With its passage, the NRA accomplished the following: It allowed unlicensed individuals to sell their personal firearms as a ``hobby.'' The result has been the sale of massive numbers of firearms to criminals and juveniles without background checks. This provision not only created a vast secondary market --it also opened up the ``gun show loophole,'' which many of us in Congress are now struggling to close. It facilitated the sale of guns to criminals and juveniles by turning gun shows into a booming business. It allowed criminals to keep or regain their rights to own guns. It severely restricted the ability of the ATF to conduct inspections of the business premises of federally licensed firearms dealers. It raised the burden of proof for violations of federal gun laws. The seven-year battle to pass the Brady Bill and the NRA's ongoing attacks on the National Instant Check System show that the NRA's claims to support background checks is utterly specious. Before the Brady Bill was passed, 32 states lacked a background check system. A criminal could walk into a gun store, sign a form stating he is not a prohibited purchaser, and walk out with a gun. The form would simply be filed away, with no follow-through to make sure that the purchaser's statements were accurate. The Brady Bill was designed to close this loophole by reducing an honest background check and waiting period, and the NRA worked tirelessly to defeat it. Only when the NRA realized that the Brady Bill was unstoppable did it shift its efforts to weaken the law as much as possible. It attempted to push through the immediate reliance on an ``instant check'' system-- a system that was not technically feasible at the time. Even after embracing an ``instant check'' system, the NRA has continually sought to undermine the system's integrity and efficiency, by preventing law enforcement from maintaining any records on the background checks it conducts. Most telling is the NRA's continued opposition to background checks on all gun purchasers, including all gun show sales and private sales. If the NRA supports background checks, why do they want to keep this gaping loophole open in our gun laws? Finally, it is no secret that the NRA has tried to undermine federal law enforcement, particularly the ATF. NRA rhetoric combined with its campaign to financially cripple the ATF demonstrate the gun lobby's single-minded thoroughness in carrying out its extremist agenda. The NRA makes the gun laws weak and difficult to enforce--and it also undermines the agency that has primary responsibility for enforcing those laws.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, of the 10 minutes, I yield myself 8\1/2\ minutes. I hope the American people are beginning to understand the difficulty those of us who want sensible and responsible opportunities are having in putting before the Senate proposals which we think can reduce youth violence and the availability of weapons to children in this country. We were stalled yesterday, and we have been stalled again to the point where we are acting only on a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. We are, because of what I consider an abuse of the rules of the Senate, denied an opportunity for accountability by the Members. I hear a great deal about responsibility. I hear the speeches about how we ought to be responsible and parents ought to be responsible. I say the Senate ought to be responsible. The Senate of the United States ought to be responsible, the House of Representatives ought to be responsible, and at least have a debate about these issues rather than relying on the gymnastics of parliamentary procedures to deny us that opportunity. When our good friends talk about responsibility, let's start right where it should begin, and that is right in the Senate. It ought to be self-evident that children in the United States of America have the easiest access to guns of any country in the world. We know we have more youth deaths than the next 25 industrial nations combined. Easy access to weapons has been demonstrated. The argument is: Why aren't we doing more in terms of prosecutions? Or, Why aren't we doing more in terms of helping children? I daresay, that those of us who are in strong support of the Daschle amendment take a back seat to no one in trying to find ways to help and assist parents, schools, local communities, and church leaders in local communities to try to deal with the problems of violence in the community. What we have also seen from Justice Department statistics is that there has been vigorous enforcement of the laws in sending people off to jail who are violating gun laws. Where the penalty is above 3 years, there is a 30-percent increase in prosecutions. In State law, there is a 25-percent increase in prosecutions for those with a penalty below 3 years. There are 25 percent more criminals going to jail today than 7 years ago in relation to gun offenses. Let's free ourselves from the adage: we have enough laws on the books--let's just enforce them. The statistics respond to that statement. The second question is, if we go ahead and pass these laws, that isn't the only problem. We understand it is not the only problem. But we are stalemated in trying to deal with the underlying problems, as well. Let's think of where we are. We have a number of different proposals to try to help and assist parents and schools and local communities. For example, we have our Safe and Drug Free Schools Program that provides help and assistance to every school in this country. We have found that any effort to increase the funding for that program has been opposed by the Republicans. That is the principal instrument to try to help our schools develop their own kinds of programs to deal with the problems of violence in the schools. The Justice Department's Safe Schools and Healthy Students Program attempts to help schools. And it too has been sidetracked by the majority. The various prevention programs in the Juvenile Justice bill like the juvenile drug and alcohol treatment programs, school counseling, and other school-based prevention programs like the FAST Program--which is the Families and Schools Together Program--and the centers of excellence to treat children who have witnessed or suffered serious violent crimes, all of those programs are put on the back burner. We cannot get funding or support for those programs. Let's not stand out here and say that there are other causes of violence. We understand that. We also understand that people in other countries are seeing our movies, they are viewing our games, and yet they do not have this proliferation of violence. Maybe we ought to be taking a look at some of those issues, but we are being denied now on the most basic and fundamental issue, and that is the issue of the proliferation of weapons. With all due respect to our friends on the other side of the aisle, let's look at what their position has been in terms of the proliferation of weapons. I was here when we passed the McClure-Volkmer Act. I voted in opposition to that bill, which opened up the whole gun show loophole. The McClure-Volkmer bill effectively facilitated the sale of guns to criminals and juveniles by turning gun shows into a booming business. It severely restricted the ability of the ATF to conduct inspections of the business premises of federally licensed firearms dealers. It raised the burden of proof for violations of federal gun laws. That is what the NRA has supported on the McClure- Volkmer bill. Then we had the Brady bill. They resisted it every step of the way. It took 7 years to pass the Brady Bill. And the NRA's ongoing attacks on the National Instant Check System show that their claims to support background checks are utterly specious. Then we had the whole question about the ATF. As I have mentioned previously, the NRA and the Republicans oppose sufficient numbers of law enforcement officials in the ATF. We have the same number of law enforcement officials now as we had 25 years ago, with basically flat funding. Everyone around here knows what that means. It means a real drop in the funding by about 30 percent. So to our good friends on the other side: untie the hands of law enforcement. Their hands are tied behind their backs, and you ask: why aren't they enforcing the laws? Come on now. We are prepared to do something in terms of these other issues, as I mentioned. We have passed the SAMSHA program, which deals with issues of mental health and tries to provide resources to local communities to work with schools, religious organizations, and law enforcement, to reduce the proliferation of weapons. What are the radical proposals we keep hearing about that are going to basically undermine the Constitution of the United States? We have a gun show loophole. We want to go back to where we were prior to the time of the McClure-Volkmer Act. That is where we basically want to go. It has passed the Senate and we cannot even get consideration of it. I listened to my good friend from Montana talk about holding parents responsible. That is the proposal of the Senator from Illinois, what is called the CAP proposal. We have it in Massachusetts. Is the Senator from Montana, or anyone on the other side, willing to sponsor that and bring it up this afternoon? Of course they are not. Holding parents responsible is what we want and what they oppose. We listened to how we want family responsibility, parental responsibility. That is what this child access prevention legislation is all about. But we are denied even the opportunity to debate it. So don't lecture us about it. Don't lecture us about it. Safety locks, to try to make sure the 1,200,000 guns which are loaded and unlocked in households across America--where children will go this afternoon--have safety locks. Requiring that every new gun have a safety lock, and trying to hold parents responsible, is that so dramatic? Of course it is not.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. We have a short period of time remaining. As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, we have responsibilities to try to pass education legislation. We had seven votes over a period of 5 days. That legislation was pulled. We are saying we don't have enough time, we don't have enough time to consider this, although we had all day Friday where there were no votes and all day Monday where there were no votes. What we see now is that during the whole course of the afternoon, we were denied the opportunity to have just an expression of the Senate. As I mentioned, this resolution is a simple, straightforward measure. Fact: Over 400 young people have been killed by gun violence since 1997. Fact: In the year since the Columbine tragedy, the Senate and House juvenile justice conference has not taken action to ensure the passage of meaningful gun legislation. Fact: Our continued inaction poses a threat to public safety. The sense of the Senate does only two things. It commends the participants of the Million Mom March and calls upon the conference to pass the language of the Lautenberg measure on the gun show loophole that has passed the Senate, and to take action that is sensible and responsible. I will take a few moments of the Senate's time to respond to an argument and to discuss some of the facts which are so compelling, particularly about the children, because we as a country and as a society refuse to take action. The latest data released in 1999 shows in a single year--and this can't tell the story because for every statistic, for every individual there is a name and a face behind this--what has been happening: 4,205 children and teens were killed by gunfire--1 every 2 hours, nearly 12 a day; 2,562 were murdered by gunfire; 1,262 committed suicide using a firearm--more than 3 every day; 306 died from accidental shooting; 2,357 were white and 1,687 were black; 629 were under 15; 191 were under 10; 84 were under 5 years of age; nearly 3 times as many children under 10 died from gunfire as the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. We know that the American children under 15 are 12 times more likely to die from gunfire than children in 25 other industrial countries combined; homicide is the third leading cause of death among children 5 to 14; 61% of the 80,000 children killed by gunfire since 1979 were white; 36% were black; children are twice as likely as adults to be victims of violent crime, and more likely to be killed by adults than other children; white youths are six times more likely to commit suicide than black youths although the suicide rate for black youths is up more than 100 percent since 1980. We do not believe this legislation is necessarily going to be the only answer. We understand that. We do understand this is a step that can be taken now to make a difference about the proliferation of weapons and the easy access to weapons. Various studies and polls show the number of children who say how easy it is for them to acquire weapons in our country today. We want to reduce that availability and that accessibility. We understand there are legitimate issues with which we have to deal. I want to dispose of a few of them. One has been the argument that has been raised that there hasn't been a sufficient effort in the area of law enforcement. Reading through our Republican sense of the Senate, they talk about law enforcement. It is an interesting fact that Republicans have cut back on the total number of agents who have been most involved in law enforcement--the ATF agents--over the last 15 years. Back to the prosecutions and the important point which our Republican friends ought to understand because their sense-of-the-Senate resolution is basically flawed in what they say about the prosecutions: Although the number of Federal prosecutions for lower level offenders-- persons serving sentences of 3 years or less--has dropped, the number of high-level offenders--those sentenced to 5 years or more--is up by nearly 30 percent. Do we understand that? If we are talking about the more serious aspect of gun prosecutions, they are up by 30 percent. I hope our Republican friends acknowledge their findings which are flawed in their presentation on this issue. At the same time, the total number of Federal and State prosecutions is up sharply. About 25 percent more criminals are sent to prisons for State and Federal weapons offenses than in 1992. The number of high-level offenders is up nearly 30 percent. The total number of Federal and State prosecutions is up 25 percent or more. The total number of prosecutions--local, Federal, and State--are up significantly. We hear from the National Rifle Association that all that is needed is further prosecution under the law, but that is happening at the present time. What we need is action over the proliferation of weapons. We have tried in recent times on our side, with strong support, to make progress regarding the proliferation of weapons. Moving along to some of the other challenges that children are facing, in November of last year in the Senate, the mental health bill was passed unanimously, by Republican and Democrats alike. We are still waiting over in the House of Representatives for the Republican leadership to call that up. What does that bill do? That bill directly addresses the problems of violence in children's lives. The first section of the bill provides grants to public entities for programs in local communities to help children deal with violence. Community partnerships are created among law enforcement, education systems, mental health, and substance abuse systems. These partnerships provide a comprehensive response to violence, and include security, education reform, prevention, and early intervention services for mental health and substance abuse problems, as well as early childhood and development and social services. Recognizing what is happening in many of our urban areas, I know in my city of Boston, a third of the children who come to school each day come from schools where there is abuse--physical abuse and substance abuse. Those children need help. They have problems. Those who are the strongest supporters of eliminating the proliferation of weapons available to children have been fighting for these kinds of efforts. Nonetheless, our Republican leadership is opposed to all of our efforts and refuses to take action in those areas. It wasn't that long ago, in 1995, when we tried to get the Center for Disease Control to have a survey of gun violence and our House Republican budget proposed a phaseout of the Center for Injury Control because it was just collecting information about violence and guns in schools. Not only are they opposed to trying to take direct action on the proliferation of guns, not only are they opposed, evidently--because they are refusing to take up legislation to deal with some of the other aspects of guns--but on the other hand, they are absolutely opposed to even permitting the Center for Disease Control, the premier organization in the world in terms of public health services, from having any collection of material on gun violence. In 1996, the appropriation was cut by $2.6 million, the appropriation of the Center for Disease Control, for injury control. That is the exact amount CDC was spending to survey gun violence. Since then, the CDC found other ways to continue the survey of gun violence, but Republicans have fought us every step along the way. That is what we are pointing out. We are pointing out a number of things. First of all, if you can do something for effective law enforcement as well as prevention programs, you can have a dramatic impact on violence in communities. I want to show what has happened in my own State of Massachusetts where we have passed some of the toughest gun laws. We have a ban on carrying concealed weapons. A permit is required to do so. Local law enforcement has discretion to issue permits, and an individual must show a need in order to obtain the permit. We have a minimum age of 21 for the purchase of a handgun. We have increased penalties for felons in possession of firearms. We require the sale of child safety locks with all fire arms. We have an adult responsibility law. Adults are liable if a child obtains an improperly stored gun and uses it to kill or injure himself or any other person. We have gun-free school laws. We have a licensing law for the purchase of guns. We have strict standards for the licensing of gun dealers. We have a waiting period for handgun purchases. It takes up to 30 days to obtain a permit. We have a permit requirement for secondary and private sales of guns. We have a ban on Saturday night specials, and we have a requirement for reporting lost or stolen firearms. What have been the results? In the city of Boston, we see what the difference has been. In 1990, homicides of those 16 and under: 10 a year. See how this has gradually been phased out as these measures have been passed, down to the year 2000 where, in the first 3 months of the year, for youth homicides, we have not had one yet. Does that mean something to anybody? Obviously we have had a very powerful impact. That is not just because of this legislation which has been enormously important, but we have also had a very effective program in prevention and intervention as well as enforcement. As Commissioner Paul Evans said, you have to have all the legs of the stool to be effective. Commissioner Evans also states: To be effective, efforts must be targeted and cooperative. Police officers must be able to work closely with churches, schools, health and mental health providers. Afterschool programs are essential to help keep juveniles off the streets and out of trouble, away from guns and drugs. In developing an effective approach like this, Boston has become a model for the rest of the country. On this chart, here is the city of Boston: Firearm homicides, 50 a year in 1990, and now we are down, in the year 2000, to 3 this particular year. That is because of tough laws with effective efforts that include many of the different provisions we have talked about here in our SAMSHA program: Working with troubled youth; trying to work with children to deal with violence in their communities; community partnership among law enforcement, education, and mental health and substance abuse systems. Those have been local efforts--some supported by the States--that are effective. Prevention and tough laws; we are finding out the scores, the hundreds of children who are alive today that I dare say probably would not be if we did not have an effective effort against the proliferation of weapons as well as prevention. There are partnerships between the Boston public schools and local mental health agencies. School districts are employing mental health professionals. Teachers and staff focus on identifying problems in order to prevent violence by students. Boston police work actively with parents, schools, and other officials discussing incidents in and out of schools involving students. The Boston Public Health Commission promotes programs by the Boston Police Department and the results have been impressive. From January 1999 through April of 2000, no juvenile in Boston was killed with a firearm. We ought to be able to at least debate this issue in the Senate. If there are those who take issue with what we have represented tonight about the effectiveness of a strong prevention program in terms of proliferation weapons, and also a prevention program working with a range of different social services, come out here on the floor and let's debate it and call the roll. But, oh, no, the Republican leadership says. Oh, no, we are not even going to let you, over 5 hours, pass a resolution commending the Million Mom March, or that we ought to get the bill out of the conference, where we have been for 8 months. Why is it they are so nervous about it? Why is it, when we have results that we are prepared to defend that can demonstrate we can save lives in this country, but that we are denied the opportunity to do so? That is what is unacceptable. People are milling around saying: when are we going to end this evening? We have places to go. We have places to go--here on the floor of the Senate. We have things to do, and that is here in the Senate. That is what we are elected for. The leader, Senator Daschle, has outlined what we want to be able to do. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. KENNEDY. I say to the Senator from California, it defies every logical explanation. The alleged explanation is that we do not need these additional laws; what we need is the enforcement of existing laws; why waste our time on the floor of the Senate in considering these measures because if we dealt with these other measures, our problems would be resolved. That is, of course, a flawed factual representation, as I mentioned, in terms of total prosecutions, and it is wrong in terms of fact, not only, as I mentioned, in total prosecutions, but it is wrong in terms of what can be done in States across this country. I thank the Senator from California for raising these questions this evening for Americans. The question is, At least, why can't we vote? Why can't we vote? Why can't we have accountability? Why aren't they proud of their position? Why aren't they proud of their position and willing to take a stand on it? That is what this office is about: making choices and decisions; exercising some judgment. Why constantly try to frustrate the ability of Members to make some difference on this? I think that is the inexcusable position which hopefully the American public will find unacceptable in the remaining weeks of this session and, if not, then during the election. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Two days ago, to honor Mother's Day, hundreds of thousands of mothers from across the United States marched on the nation's Capitol, to insist that Congress do more to protect children from the epidemic of gun violence that continues to plague our country. The Million Mom March has focused the attention of the entire country on this critical challenge--and the question now is whether Congress will at long last end the stonewalling and act responsibly on gun control. The National Rifle Association is not the Majority Leader of the United States Senate. It shouldn't be dictating our agenda. It's irresponsible for the Republican Senate leadership to stonewall every opportunity to enact responsible gun control legislation. For many months, Democrats have continued to ask the Republican leadership for immediate action on pending legislation to close the loopholes in the nation's gun laws, but every request so far has been denied. Gun laws work. Experience is clear that tough gun laws in combination with other preventive measures have a direct impact on reducing crime. In Massachusetts, we have some of the toughest gun laws in the country. We have a ban on carrying concealed weapons. A permit is required to do so. Local law enforcement has discretion to issue permits, and an individual must show a need in order to obtain the permit. We have a minimum age of 21 for the purchase of a handgun. We have increased penalties for felons in possession of firearms. We require the sale of child safety locks with all firearms. We have an adult responsibility law. Adults are liable if a child obtains an improperly stored gun and uses it to kill or injure himself or any other person. We have a Gun-Free Schools Law. We have a licensing law for purchases of guns. We have strict standards for the licensing of gun dealers. We have a waiting period for handgun purchases. It takes up to 30 days to obtain a permit. We have a permit requirement for secondary and private sales of guns. We have a ban on the sale of Saturday Night Specials. We have a requirement for reporting of lost or stolen firearms. As Boston Police Commissioner Paul Evans testified last year in the Senate Health Committee, ``Any successful approach to youth violence must be balanced and comprehensive. It must include major investments in prevention and intervention as well as enforcement. Take away any leg and the stool falls.'' Commissioner Evans also stated that to be effective, efforts must be targeted and cooperative. Police officers must be able to work closely with churches, schools, and health and mental health providers. After- school programs are essential to help keep juveniles off the streets, out of trouble, and away from guns and drugs. In developing an effective approach like this, Boston has become a model for the rest of the country. There are partnerships between the Boston Public Schools and local mental health agencies. School districts are employing mental health professionals. Teachers and staff focus on identifying problems in order to prevent violence by students. The Boston police work actively with parents, schools and other officials, discussing incidents in and out of school involving students. The Boston Public Health Commission promotes programs by the Boston Police Department. The results have been impressive. The success of Boston's comprehensive strategy is borne out in these outstanding results: From January 1999 through April 2000, no juvenile in Boston was killed with a firearm. In 1990, 51 Boston young people, ages 24 and under, were murdered by a firearm. Last year, there were 10 such murders. Reports from emergency rooms about firearm injuries are also down dramatically. It's no coincidence that the firearm death rate in Massachusetts is significantly lower than the national average. We've taken strong and effective steps to protect our citizens, our children, and our communities. When we compare states with tough gun laws to those that have weak gun laws, the differences are significant: In 1996, across the nation, the number of firearm-related deaths for persons 19 years old or younger was 2 deaths per 100,000 persons. In states that have the weakest gun laws, the number was significantly higher: Utah had 5.1 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people--two and a half times higher than the national average. Indiana had 5.9 firearm-related deaths per 100,000--three times higher. Idaho had 6.9 firearm-related deaths per 100,000--three and a half times higher. Mississippi had 9.2 firearm-related deaths per 100,000--four and a half times higher. No other major nation on earth tolerates such shameful gun violence. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control in 1997, the rate of firearm deaths among children 0-14 years old is nearly 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrial countries combined. Every day we fail to act, the tragic toll of gun violence climbs steadily higher. In the year since the killings at Columbine High School in Colorado, 4,560 more children have lost their lives to gunfire, and countless more have been injured. We intend to do all we can to see that the Senate votes on these common sense measures as soon as possible. Today is a new dawn for gun control. On Sunday, finally, the immoveable object we call Congress met the irresistible force of the Million Mom March--and the immoveable object moved. I believe that at long last, Congress will say no to The National Rifle Association, and yes to the hundreds of thousands of mothers from across the United States who marched on the nation's Capitol to demand an end to the epidemic of gun violence that continues to plague our children, our homes, our schools, and our country. The Million Mom March focused the attention of the entire country on this critical challenge. It is time--long past time--for Congress to end the stonewalling and act responsibly on gun control. We already know what needs to be done to reduce the irresponsible proliferation of guns and gun violence in communities across the country. This is not rocket science. We should close the gun show loophole. We should require child safety locks for guns. We should insist on licensing for all handgun owners. We should take guns out of schools and let children learn in safe classrooms. Enough is enough is enough is enough. I am sure those Americans who have been watching the Senate now for the last 2 hours wonder whether we are going to be able to take very much action on matters which they consider important to their families. In this particular instance, the issue is whether we are going to pass a sense-of-the-Senate resolution--not even an amendment that would be the basis for legislative action, but just an expression of the Members of this body, as the Senator from California has pointed out, effectively commending the participants of the Million Mom March. They should be commended for rallying to demand sensible gun safety legislation. Congress should pass a conference report on violent juvenile offender accountability before the Memorial Day recess and include the Lautenberg gun show provision which passed in the Senate, and other Senate-passed provisions to limit access to firearms by juveniles, convicted felons, and other persons prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms. That took just over 2 hours of the Senate's time primarily because of the Republican leadership saying they were not going to permit the Democratic leadership to go on record in the Senate this evening just for the sense of the Senate commending the Million Mom March, and also asking that the Senate do what it already should do--that is, pass the violent juvenile offender legislation out of conference where it has been for 7 months. As a member of the conference committee, we met on two different occasions: on the opening occasion, and on the organization. And that was it. It has taken the Republican leadership 2\1/2\ hours to say that we can vote on this tomorrow with their permission. They ought to get used to the fact that we are going to continue to press this issue--2 hours to get a sense of the Senate to say the mothers, the 750,000 moms who marched with their daughters on Sunday--that they are to be commended. That is troublesome, evidently, to the other side. These moms came from all different parts of the country. Many of them had never participated in any political process at all. They came here because they wanted the Congress of the United States to debate and take action. They had different views about what specifically should be out there. But they had a common sense and a common purpose that we should take some action. We are commending them for doing so. That evidently was unacceptable to the Republican leadership. That is what we are facing here, for those who are watching this program tonight and who saw the march. In the last 2 hours we have been unable to get action. It is as clear as can be. There has been objection, parliamentary maneuvering, and gymnastics using the rules of the Senate to deny an expression that we ought to commend the Million Mom March and that we ought to complete what is our responsibility to complete; that is, the conference, and pass sensible and commonsense gun control. You would have thought we were repealing the first amendment of the United States. That is what we are facing here. It is so interesting for us to find that out at this time in this session--the difficulty and the complexity we are going to have. But we are going to continue to pursue it. I see my friend and our leader from California, Senator Boxer. I am glad to yield for a question.

Mr. KENNEDY. Let me point out, when we compare States with tough gun laws to those that have weak gun laws--let's take a look at that. We are constantly told tough gun laws do not make any difference, they really do not make any difference. Listen to this. In 1996, across the Nation the number of firearm- related deaths for persons 19 years old or younger were 2 deaths per 100,000. That is across the country, 2 deaths per 100,000. In the States that have the weakest gun laws, the number was significantly higher. Utah had 5.1 firearm-related deaths per 100,000, 2.5 times higher than the national average. These are, effectively, for children under 19 years of age. Indiana had 5.9 firearm-related deaths per 100,000, 3 times higher; Idaho, 6.9 firearm-related deaths per 100,000, 3.5 times higher; Mississippi, 9.2 firearms-related deaths per 100,000, 4.5 times higher. No other nation on Earth tolerates such shameful gun violence. Where we have had effective laws and preventive programs we have reduction in the violence against children. Where we have weaker laws, we see the expanded number of deaths of children in our country. There may be other reasons for it, but come out here and defend it. We are prepared to debate these issues. But we are unable to do so because of these magic words: ``I suggest the absence of a quorum.'' If you took away the words, ``I suggest the absence of a quorum,'' perhaps we could get some action around here. But we cannot and therefore we are stymied, at least to date, although we will have some opportunities to get some expressions tomorrow, and we are going to try to get action on these measures before the end of the session. We are prepared to insist that action be taken on these measures. I will just conclude by reading some of the comments of children. These are the words of Columbine students who witnessed a horrible tragedy last year. This is a quote from Valeen Schnurr: The nights are always the worst. Inevitably, I find my thoughts drifing into nightmares, terrifying images of the library at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999. The sound of students screaming as explosive and gunshots echo through the school; the burning pain of the bullets penetrating my body; the sound of my voice professing my faith in God; seeing my hands fill with my own blood; and my friend Lauren Townsend lying lifeless beside me as I try to wake her. In the mornings when I look in the mirror, the scars I see on my arms and upper body always remind me that it's not just a nightmare, but the memory of a real event that will stay with me for the rest of my life. The scars are a part of me now, but they help me to remember that I've been blessed with a second chance at life. From Garrett Looney: I've never been ashamed to be an athlete. I started playing football when I was eight, and baseball and basketball too. This spring, I'll run track. Sports have always been part of me. * * * I'd been in the library that day, about 11 a.m., making some copies. Then I left with friends for lunch. We were heading back to school and thought there was a bad wreck because a fireman stopped us. We went to Clement Park, next to Columbine, and saw a sea of kids running from the building. We couldn't believe it. It's beyond me how two kids could go that crazy * * * A friend of mine, Corey Depooter was killed. I had one [woodworking] class with him, and we did projects together. It was hard going back to that class. The seniors on the football team took memorial pictures of a columbine flower to the victims' houses, including Mrs. Depooter's. She wanted to know how we were doing and told us stories about Corey. That was tough for me. The list goes on, Mr. President. Here is Nicole Nowlen: I was only at Columbine for seven weeks be fore (the shooting). My parents are divorced, and I had been living in Sioux Falls, S. Dak., with my mother and younger brother, Adam. When my mom moved to California, I chose to live with my dad in Colorado. * * * On April 20, I was sitting alone at a table in the library doing my math homework when this girl ran in and yelled. ``There are guys with guns downstairs:'' I thought it was a senior prank * * * The time seemed to go in slow motion. And then they came in. I don't remember much until they got over into our area. I could see John watching where they were walking. I was trying to pick up expressions from his face, and I could hear them walking over to this table full of girls next to us. I remember this gun going off, and one of the gunmen saying, ``Do you believe in God?'' And I remember thinking, ``These people are sick.'' The stories go on. We have had Paducah, KY. We have had Jonesboro, AR. We have had Columbine. Those who forget history are fated to repeat it. We have failed to take action. America has witnessed these shootings over the years. Every single day in cities, in communities, in rural areas, 12 children die. These are dramatic incidents which catch the heart, as they should, and the soul of every American, and it is happening every single day. We can make a difference. We can reduce these incidents. Perhaps we cannot eliminate them all, but we can reduce significantly the total number of children who are lost every day. We fail to reduce the number if we refuse to take action in this area. I hope the Senate will go on record in support of the Daschle sense- of-the-Senate amendment. I hope this will just be the beginning. I know it will be for many of our colleagues, including my two dear friends, the Senators from California and Illinois, who have been providing leadership for our Nation in this area. We are going to respond to the Million Mom March. They asked for action. We committed ourselves to taking action. I look forward to working with them and others in making every effort we possibly can to reduce the proliferation of weapons that should not be available to children in this country. We can make a difference. I look forward to working with them.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to give the Food and Drug Administration board authority to regulate tobacco products for protection of the public health. With the recent 5 to 4 decision by the Supreme Court rejecting FDA's claim that it had authority to regulate tobacco products under current law, it is now essential for Congress to act. We cannot in good conscience allow the federal agency most responsible for protecting the public health to remain powerless to deal with the enormous risk of tobacco, the most deadly of all consumer products. The provisions in this bill are identical to those in the bipartisan compromise reached during Senate consideration of comprehensive tobacco control legislation in 1998. Fifty eight Senators supported it at that time. That legislation was never enacted because of disputes over tobacco taxation and litigation, not over FDA authority. This FDA provision is a fair and balanced approach to FDA regulation. It creates a new section in FDA jurisdiction for the regulation of tobacco products, with standards that allow for consideration of the unique issues raised by tobacco use. It is sensitive to the concerns of tobacco farmers, small businesses, and nicotine-dependent smokers. But, it clearly gives FDA the authority it needs in order to prevent youth smoking and to reduce addiction to this highly lethal product. I had hoped to be introducing this bill with the same bipartisan support we had for this FDA provision in 1998. Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach agreement. I believe the changes in the 1998 language now being proposed by Republicans will undermine the FDA's ability to deal effectively with the enormous health risks posed by smoking. This concern is shared by a number of independent public health experts who have reviewed the proposed Republican changes and by the FDA officials who would be responsible for administering the law. The bipartisan compromise agreed to in 1998 is still the best opportunity for Senators to come together and grant FDA the regulatory authority it needs to substantially reduce the number of children who start smoking and to help addicted smokers quit. Nothing less will do the job. The stakes are vast. Three thousand children begin smiling every day. A thousand of them will die prematurely from tobacco-induced diseases. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in the nation today. Cigarettes kill well over four hundred thousand Americans each year. That is more lives lost than from automobile accidents, alcohol abuse, illegal drugs, AIDS, murder, suicide, and fires combined. Our response to a public health problem of this magnitude must consist of more than half-way measures. We must deal firmly with tobacco company marketing practices that target children and mislead the public. The Food and Drug Administration needs broad authority to regulate the sale, distribution, and advertising of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The tobacco industry currently spends five billion dollars a year to promote its products. Much of that money is spent in ways designed to tempt children to start smoking, before they are mature enough to appreciate the enormity of the health risk. The industry knows that more than 90% of smokers begin as children and are addicted by the time they reach adulthood. Documents obtained from tobacco companies prove, in the companies' own words, the magnitude of the industry's efforts to trap children into dependency on their deadly product. Recent studies by the Institute of medicine and the Centers for Disease Control show the substantial role of industry advertising in decisions by young people to use tobacco products. If we are serious about reducing youth smoking, FDA must have the power to prevent industry advertising designed to appeal to children wherever it will be seen by children. This legislation will give FDA the ability to stop tobacco advertising which glamorizes smoking from appearing in publications likely to be read by significant numbers of children. FDA authority must also extend to the sale of tobacco products. Nearly every state makes it illegal to sell cigarettes to children under 18, but surveys show that those laws are rarely enforced and frequently violated. FDA must have the power to limit the sale of cigarettes to face-to-face transactions in which the age of the purchaser can be verified by identification. This means an end to self- service displays and vending machine sales. There must also be serious enforcement efforts with real penalties for those caught selling tobacco products to children. This is the only way to ensure that children under 18 are not able to buy cigarettes. The FDA conducted the longest rulemaking proceeding in its history, studying which regulations would most effectively reduce the number of children who smoke. Seven hundred thousand public comments were received in the course of that rulemaking. At the conclusion of its proceeding, the Agency promulgated rules on the manner in which cigarettes are advertised and sold. Due to litigation, most of those regulations were never implemented. If we are serious about curbing youth smoking as much as possible, as soon as possible; it makes no sense to require FDA to reinvent the wheel by conducting a new multi- year rulemaking process on the same issues. This legislation will give the youth access and advertising restrictions already developed by FDA the immediate force of law, as if they had been issued under the new statute. The legislation also provides for stronger warnings on all cigarette and smokeless tobacco packages, and in all print advertisements. These warnings will be more explicit in their description of the medical problems which can result from tobacco use. The FDA is given the authority to change the text of these warning labels periodically, to keep their impact strong. Nicotine in cigarettes is highly addictive. Medical experts say that it is as addictive as heroin or cocaine. Yet for decades, tobacco companies have vehemently denied the addictiveness of their products. No one can forget the parade of tobacco executives who testified under oath before Congress as recently as 1994 that smoking cigarettes is not addictive. Overwhelming evidence in industry documents obtained through the discovery process proves that the companies not only knew of this addictiveness for decades, but actually relied on it as the basis for their marketing strategy. As we now know, cigarette manufacturers chemically manipulated the nicotine in their products to make it even more addictive. The tobacco industry has a long, dishonorable history of providing misleading information about the health consequences of smoking. These companies have repeatedly sought to characterize their products as far less hazardous than they are. They made minor innovations in product design seem far more significant for the health of the user than they actually were. It is essential that FDA have clear and unambiguous authority to prevent such misrepresentations in the future. The largest disinformation campaign in the history of the corporate world must end. Given the addictiveness of tobacco products, it is essential that the FDA regulate them for the protection of the public health. Over forty million Americans are currently addicted to cigarettes. No responsible public health official believes that cigarettes should be banned. A ban would leave forty million people without a way to satisfy their drug dependency. FDA should be able to take the necessary steps to help addicted smokers overcome their addiction, and to make the product less toxic for smokers who are unable or unwilling to stop. To do so, FDA must have the authority to reduce or remove hazardous ingredients from cigarettes, to the extent that it becomes scientifically feasible. The inherent risk in smoking should not be unnecessarily compounded. Recent statements by several tobacco companies make clear that they plan to develop what they characterize as ``reduced risk'' cigarettes. This legislation will require manufacturers to submit such ``reduced risk'' products to the FDA for analysis before they can be marketed. No health-related claims will be permitted until they have been verified to the FDA's satisfaction. These safeguards are essential to prevent deceptive industry marketing campaigns, which could lull the public into a false sense of health safety. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of death in America. Congress must vest FDA not only with the responsibility for regulating tobacco products, but with full authority to do the job effectively. This legislation will give the FDA the legal authority it needs to reduce youth smoking by preventing tobacco advertising which targets children--to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors--to help smokers overcome their addiction--to make tobacco products less toxic for those who continue to use them--and to prevent the tobacco industry from misleading the public about the dangers of smoking. The 1998 compromise we reached in the Senate is still the right answer. We cannot allow the tobacco industry to stop us from doing what we know is right for America's children. I intend to do all I can to see that Congress enacts this legislation this year. The public health demands it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes, the Senator from Minnesota, 7 minutes, and the Senator from Iowa, the remaining time. First of all, I join with our colleagues who spoke earlier about the extraordinary events we saw on The Mall this past weekend. I was here a few moments ago when we listened to the majority leader talk about the urgency of passing a comprehensive energy program. Energy programs are important, and we have a great interest in it in our part of the country, particularly as we are looking forward to another fall and another winter, and the importance of developing some protections in the form of reserves and other factors. That is a very important policy issue. I am glad our Republican leader thinks that is of such urgency. But the fact is, the issues which the Senator from California and others have spoken about, and taking sensible and responsible and commonsense actions on guns, particularly to ensure greater safety and security in the schools of this country, are also a matter of enormous importance. I am reminded of the debate we had on elementary and secondary education. We had 6 days of debate, although some of that was limited in terms of being able to debate only a handful of amendments. We took 16 days on the bankruptcy bill and had 67 amendments. Many of us on our side believe we ought to put our priorities straight. One of them is to take action in terms of sensible and commonsense issues on the proliferation of guns. Second, we ought to be addressing the education issue, which is of such importance to families across this country. We reject the position of the majority in giving short shrift on the issue of education. We want to debate that, and we want action on it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, we are in morning business, and we have some 22 minutes remaining.