Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Wellstone's amendment to require states to collect data on the employment, jobs, earnings, health insurance, and child care arrangements of former welfare recipients. This information is essential. The most important indicator of welfare reform's success is not just declining welfare caseloads. It is the well-being of these low-income parents and their children after they leave the welfare system. We do not know enough about how they have fared, and states should be required to collect this information. Millions of families have left the welfare rolls, and we need to know how they are doing now. We need information on their earnings, their health care, and other vital data. The obvious question is whether former welfare recipients are doing well, or barely surviving, worse off than before. The data we do have about former welfare recipients is not encouraging. According to a study by the Children's Defense Fund and the National Coalition on the Homeless, most former welfare recipients earn below poverty wages after leaving the welfare system. Their financial hardship is compounded by the fact that many former welfare recipients do not receive the essential services that would enable them to hold jobs and care for their children. The cost of child care can be a crushing expense to low-income families, consuming over one-quarter of their income. Yet, the Department of Health and Human Services estimates that only one in ten eligible low-income families gets the child care assistance they need. Health insurance trends are also troubling. As of 1997, 675,000 low- income people had lost Medicaid coverage due to welfare reform. Children comprise 62 percent of this figure, and many of them were still eligible for Medicaid. We need to improve outreach to get more eligible children enrolled in Medicaid. We also need to increase enrollment in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which offers states incentives to expand health coverage for children with family income up to 200 percent of poverty. it is estimated that 4 million uninsured children are eligible for this assistance. In addition to problems related to child care and health care, many low-income families are not receiving Food Stamp assistance. Over the last 4 years, participation in the Food Stamp Program has dropped by one-third, from serving nearly 28 million participants to serving fewer than 19 million. But this does not mean children and families are no longer hungry. Hunger and undernutrition continue to be urgent problems. According to a Department of Agriculture study, 1 in 8 Americans--or more than 34 million people--are at risk of hunger. The need for food assistance is underscored by he phenomenon of increasing reliance on food banks and emergency food services. Many food banks are now overwhelmed by the growing number of requests they receive for assistance. The Western Massachusetts Food Bank reports a dramatic increase in demand for emergency food services. In 1997, it assisted 75,000 people. In 1998, the number they served rose to 85,000. Massachusetts is not alone. According to a recent U.S. Conference of Mayors report, 78 percent of the 30 cities surveyed reported an increase in requests for emergency food in 1998. Sixty-one percent of the people seeking this assistance were children or their parents; 31 percent were employed. These statistics clearly demonstrate that hunger is a major problem. Yet fewer families are now receiving Food Stamps. One of the unintended consequences of welfare reform is that low-income, working families are dropping off the Food Stamps rolls. Often, these families are going hungry or turning to food banks because they don't have adequate information about Food Stamp eligibility. A Massachusetts study found that most people leaving welfare are not getting Food Stamp benefits, even though many are still eligible. Three months after leaving welfare, only 18 percent were receiving Food Stamps. After one year, the percentage drops to 6.5 percent. It is clear that too many eligible families are not getting the assistance they need and are entitled to. Every state should be required to collect this kind of data. We need better information about how low-income families are faring after they leave welfare. Adequate data will enable the states to build on their successes and address their weaknesses. Ultimately, the long-term success of welfare reform will be measured state by state, person by person with this data. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Ignorance is not bliss. We can't afford to ignore the need that may exist.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment, which will at long last restore the reputations of two distinguished military officers who were unfairly scapegoated for the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan at the beginning of World War II--Admiral Husband E. Kimmel of the United States Navy and General Walter C. Short of the United States Army. This amendment gives us an opportunity to correct a serious wrong in the history of that war. Admiral Kimmel and General Short were the Navy and Army commanders at Pearl Harbor during the attack on December 7, 1941. Despite their loyal and distinguished service, Admiral Kimmel and General Short were unfairly singled out for blame for the nation's lack of preparation for that attack and the catastrophe that took place. Justice for these men is long overdue. Wartime investigations of the attack on Pearl Harbor concluded that our fleet in Hawaii under the command of Admiral Kimmel and our land forces under the command of General Short had been properly positioned, given the information they had received, and that their superior officers had not given them vital intelligence that could have made a difference, perhaps all the difference, in America's preparedness for the attack. These conclusions of the wartime investigations were kept secret, in order to protect the war effort. Clearly, there is no longer any justification for ignoring these facts. I first became interested in this issue when I received a letter last fall from a good friend in Boston who for many years has been one of the pre-eminent lawyers in America, Edward B. Hanify. As a young Navy lawyer and Lieutenant J.G. in 1944, Mr. Hanify was assigned as counsel to Admiral Kimmel. As Mr. Hanify told me, he is probably one of the few surviving people that heard Kimmel's testimony before the Naval Court of Inquiry. He accompanied Admiral Kimmel when he testified before the Army Board of Investigation, and he later heard substantially all the testimony in the lengthy Congressional investigation of Pearl Harbor that followed by the Roberts Commission. In the 50 years since then, Mr. Hanify has carefully followed all subsequent developments on the Pearl Harbor catastrophe and the allocation of responsibility for that disaster. I would like to quote a few brief paragraphs from Mr. Hanify's letter of last September, because it eloquently summarizes the overwhelming case for long undue justice for Admiral Kimmel. Mr Hanify writes: The odious charge of ``dereliction of duty'' made by the Roberts Commission was the cause of almost irreparable damage to the reputation of Admiral Kimmel, despite the fact that the finding was later repudiated and found groundless. I am satisfied that Admiral Kimmel was subject to callous and cruel treatment by his superiors who were attempting to deflect the blame ultimately ascribed to them, particularly on account of their strange behavior on the evening of December 6th and morning of December 7th in failing to warn the Pacific Fleet and the Hawaiian Army Department that a Japanese attack on the United States was scheduled for December 7th, and that intercepted intelligence indicated that Pearl Harbor was a most probable point of attack. Washington had this intelligence and knew that the Navy and Army in Hawaii did not have it, or any means of obtaining it. Subsequent investigation by both services repudiated the ``dereliction of duty'' charge. In the case of Admiral Kimmel, the Naval Court of Inquiry found that his plans and dispositions were adequate and competent in light of the information which he had from Washington--adequate and competent in the light of the information he had from Washington. Mr. Hanify concludes: The proposed legislation provides some measure of remedial Justice to a conscientious officer who for years unjustly bore the odium and disgrace associated with the Pearl Harbor catastrophe. I have also heard from the surviving son of Admiral Kimmel. He and others in his family have fought for over half a century to restore their father's honor and reputation. As Edward Kimmel wrote: Justice for my father and Major General Short is long overdue. It has been a long hard struggle by the Kimmel and Short families to get to this point. No public action can ever fully atone for the injustice suffered by these two officers. But the Senate can do its part by acting now to correct the historical record, and restore the distinguished reputations of Admiral Kimmel and General Short. I commend Senator Biden and Senator Roth for their leadership on this amendment, and I urge the Senate to support it, and I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Hanify's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support Senator Kerry's amendment on early childhood development. The nation's highest priority should be to ensure that all children begin school ready to learn. Our governors realized this a decade ago when they said that the country's number one goal should be to prepare all children to enter school ``ready to learn.'' We aren't going to meet our school readiness goals by the year 2000, but we must do all we can to reach this objective soon. We cannot afford to let another decade pass without investing more effectively in young children's educational development. As we debate how to prevent youth violence, it is gratifying that Senators on both sides of the aisle are recognizing the importance of investing in children while they are young. During these early, formative years, constructive interventions have the potential to make the greatest impact. Early learning programs--including pre- kindergarten, Early Head Start, Head Start, and other activities for young children--are building blocks for success. Scientific research confirms that in the first few years of life, children develop essential learning and social skills that they will use throughout their lives. Quality early education stimulates young minds, enhances their development, and encourages their learning. Children who attend high quality pre-school classes have stronger language, math, and social skills than children who attend classes of inferior quality. Low-income children are particularly likely to benefit from quality programs. These early skills translate into greater school readiness. First graders who begin school with strong language and learning skills are more motivated to learn, and they benefit more from classroom instruction. Quality early education programs also have important long range consequences and are closely associated with increased academic achievement, higher adult earnings, and far less involvement with the criminal justice system. Investments in these programs make sense, and they are cost effective as well. Economist Steven Barnett found that the High/Scope Foundations' Perry Preschool Project saved $150,000 per participant in crime costs alone. Even after subtracting the interest that could have been earned by investing the program's funding in financial markets, the project produced a net savings of $7.16--including more than $6 in crime savings--for every dollar invested. At risk 3 and 4 years olds in the High/Scope program were one-fifth as likely, by age 27, to have become chronic lawbreakers, compared to similar children randomly assigned to a control group. In other words, failure to provide these services multiplied by 5 times the risk that these infants and toddlers would grow up to be delinquent teenagers and adults. Over 23 million children under 6 live in the United States, and all of these children deserve the opportunity to start school ready to learn. To make this goal a reality, we must make significant investments in children, long before they ever walk through the schoolhouse door. Our children cannot wait, nor can we. In March, Senator Stevens and I introduced a bill, S. 749, cosponsored by Senators Dodd, Jeffords, and Kerry, to create an ``Early Learning Trust Fund'' to improve funding for early education programs. This bipartisan bill provides states with $10 billion over 5 years to strengthen and improve early education programs for children under 6. By increasing the number of children who have early learning opportunities, we will ensure that many more children begin school ready to read. The ``Early Learning Trust Fund'' will provide each state with resources to strengthen and improve early education. Governors will receive the grants, and communities, along with parents, will decide how these funds can best be used. Grants will be distributed based on a formula which takes into account the relative number of young children in each state, and the Department of health and Human Services will allocate the funds to the states. To assist in this process, governors will appoint a sate council of representatives from the office of the governor, other relevant state agencies, Head Start, parental organizations, and resource and referral agencies--all experts in the field of early education. The state councils will be responsible for setting priorities and approving and implementing state plans to improve early education. One of the great strengths of the ``Early Learning Trust Fund'' is its flexibility. States will have the flexibility to invest in an array of strategies that give young children the building blocks to become good readers and good students. Essentially, our proposal does four things: (1) it enhances educational services provided by current child care programs and improves the quality of these programs; (2) it builds on the momentum of states like Georgia and New York, which are expanding their pre-kindergarten services; (3) it expands Head Start to include full-day, full-year services to help children of working parents begin school ready to learn; and (4) it ensures that children with special needs have access to as wide a range of these services as possible. This legislation will give communities what they have been asking for--funding for coordinated services to ``fill in the gaps.'' Communities needs this so-called ``glue'' money to strengthen their early education services, and this approach will give them much needed support. As a result, many more children will benefit and begin school ready to learn, ready to reach their full potential. The nation's future depends on how well today's children are prepared to meet the challenges of tomorrow. If we are serious about improving our children's lives, I urge my colleagues to support the Early Learning Trust Fund that Senator Stevens and I will bring to the floor soon.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Harkin in his amendment to reduce juvenile crime by helping schools to maintain safe environments while ensuring that troubled students get the help they need. Students who bring guns or other dangerous weapons to school should be removed. But they should also be provided with the appropriate interventions and services. This amendment clearly supports the removal of a child from school who carries or possesses a weapon, including a child with a disability. This amendment clearly supports an agency reporting a crime committed by a child, including a child with a disability, to the appropriate authorities. This amendment clearly supports law enforcement and judicial authorities in exercising their responsibilities with regard to crimes committed by a child, including a child with a disability. But this amendment, unlike the Frist-Ashcroft amendment, will ensure that immediate, appropriate interventions, including mental health services, are provided to a troubled child. We know that when educational services for students are stopped, those students show increased drop out rates, increased drug abuse, and increased rates of juvenile crime and incarceration. I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of the Harkin-Kennedy amendment. It will help to ensure that our schools remain conducive to learning and our communities remain safe.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, an important provision in the Statement of the Managers on the 1999 Kosovo Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act recommends $13 million above the administration's request for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. It also recommends $10 million more than the administration requested for the State Department's Human Rights and Democracy Fund. The conferees on this legislation have recommended these additional resources to help support a more effective human rights response to the Kosovo crisis. Many of us are deeply concerned over the escalation of human rights abuses in Kosovo since the breakdown of the Rambouillet negotiations. The additional funding for the War Crimes Tribunal will enable it to expand its investigative efforts to see that justice is done. Justice Arbour has made a strong case that this funding is needed immediately for forensic investigative teams, mass grave exhumations, investigations, Albanian translators, equipment, and other associated costs. America is the strongest support of the War Crimes Tribunal, and it is essential for us to provide provide the additional resources the tribunal needs without delay to ensure that those responsible for the gross violations of international law in Kosovo are brought to justice. I also strongly support the work of the State Department's Human Rights and Democracy Fund. The HRDF's ability to respond quickly to emergencies has enabled the Department to begin documenting mass executions, rape, deportations, and torture. Unfortunately, its resources are stretched thin as a result of the large scale of these atrocities. the additional funds recommended by Congress for the HRDF will enable the State Department to enhance its ability to obtain information promptly and methodically from fleeing refugee victims and witnesses and provide the information to the U.S. Government, the War Crimes Tribunal, and the public to ensure that those responsible for these atrocities will be held accountable. The funds will also enable the State Department to provide documents to refugees whose passports, identity papers, and property titles were stripped from them when Serb forces compelled them to leave Kosovo. Doing so will help counter President Milosevic's cynical policy of ``identity cleansing'' and facilitate the return of the refugees to their homes. The funds are also intended to enhance our government's efforts to ensure that victims receive proper counseling for the unconscionable trauma they have suffered. I commend the conferees for making these additional resources available to achieve an effective human rights response on Kosovo.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senate has spent the past week attempting to clean up the mess that our Republican colleagues have made over the gun show loophole. Now, again we have a chance to do the job correctly, by closing the gun show loophole the right way, not the NRA way. As they say in the circus, it's a big job cleaning up after a big elephant, especially when the National Rifle Association is the trainer of the elephant. The first two attempts by our Republican colleagues to close the gun show loophole were a travesty. They left the loophole open, and they created new loopholes while they were doing it. While the Senate dithers, the need grows greater. Gun violence has struck again at one of the nation's schools--this time at a school in a suburb of Atlanta. Enough is enough. We will decide today whether the United States Senate is serious about closing the gun show loophole, or whether we will continue to allow young people to have almost unlimited access to guns. The Lautenberg amendment will close this deadly loophole in our gun laws, and close it all the way, not just part of the way. The Smith amendment only goes part way. It closes the loophole our Republican friends opened for pawn shops last week--but it leaves unchanged the other serious loopholes that put guns in the wrong hands at gun shows. Our Republican colleagues still refuse to close another major loophole they created last week--the 24 hour loophole, which makes a farce out of the background checks on gun purchasers. These background checks have kept thousands of guns out of the hands of criminals and others who have no business owning guns. But the NRA opposes that law, so it wants to undermine it in a way that will protect illegal transactions at gun shows. The Lautenberg amendment closes this loophole too. Our Republican colleagues still refuse to close a third loophole they created last week, which makes it much more difficult for police to trace guns used by criminals. They have set up a new class of gun dealers called ``special registrants,'' who can sell as many guns as they want to anyone they want, without keeping the records needed to trace guns used in crimes. The Lautenberg amendment closes this loophole, too. Since the tragedy in Littleton, parents and children across the country have lived in fear that their school--their community--could be next. Now, it has happened in Georgia. On some days in recent weeks, parents have kept their children away from school in an effort to shelter them from violence. Families cannot continue to live this way--in constant fear that their children and their school could be the next gun battleground. There is only one way to close the gun show loophole, and that's to adopt the Lautenberg amendment. In a few minutes, we will have two important votes. The Senate can act on the urgent needs of the American people, or it can continue to play ostrich--head in the sand, ignoring the national crisis of gun violence. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of the American people want Congress to pass responsible gun control measures. Eighty-nine percent of the people say that it is important for this country to pass stricter gun control laws. Now, we have the opportunity to get it right. Gun laws work. The facts speak for themselves. It is time--long past time--for the Senate to act, to say enough is enough is enough is enough. I thank the Senator from New Jersey and hope his amendment will be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a significant provision in the 1999 Kosovo supplemental appropriations bill will enable the Justice Department to pay for the travel expenses of the Pan Am 103 families who wish to attend the upcoming Lockerbie bombing trial in The Netherlands this summer. Existing law prevents the Department from using federal funds to pay for this travel. Under this provision, the Justice Department's Office of Victims of Crime will be able to use an existing reserve fund to pay for the transportation costs, lodging, and food at government per diem rates for immediate family members of the Pan Am 103 victims. The Department also plans to establish an 800 number and a web site to keep family members informed during the trial. In addition, the Department plans to establish a compassion center, staffed with counselors, at the base in The Netherlands where the trial will be held, in order to help the families cope with the emotional strains of the trial. The families of the victims of this terrorist atrocity have been waiting for more than ten years for justice. They have suffered the deep pain of losing their loved ones, and that pain has been compounded by the Libyan Government's refusal for many years to surrender the suspects accused of the bombing. Now the suspects are finally in custody and the trial will begin soon. We can never erase the pain of the loss that the families have suffered, but we can enable them to attend the trial and see that justice is finally done. I commend the House and Senate conferees for including this important provision to help these long-suffering families.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. President, this amendment is harmless, though I question how effective and useful it is. It provides for some coordinated mental health services at the level. But there is already some limited mental health coverage in the underlying bill. And I find it interesting that the Senator from Missouri rejected our proposal to give SAMHSA the resources to really do the job. The amendment provides for background checks on school employees. That's already allowable under current law. It allows schools to require uniforms. There is nothing to prohibit that now. It creates a Commission on Character. That is fine. But if we really wanted to make a difference, we would fulfill the commitment made last year to reduce class sizes by hiring 100,000 new teachers. Teachers should not have to do crowd control. If we really wanted to make a difference, we would help communities build new classrooms and schools and modernize their facilities. This means smaller classes and smaller schools, so teachers and school officials get to know the children they teach. You have heard of ``road rage.'' Well some schools have ``hall rage,'' where hallways are so crowded they actually increase violence in schools. If we really wanted to make a difference, we would expand after school programs to attend to children in the afternoons--keeping them off the streets and out of trouble. Each day, 5 million children are left home alone after school, and that is unacceptable. If you asked parents what is most important to reducing youth violence--uniforms or smaller classes--I am certain that smaller classes would win hands down. If you asked parents what is most important--a character commission or after school programs--the after school programs would win hands down. If you asked parents what is most important--to reiterate that you can conduct background checks on teachers or building more classrooms and better classrooms--the better classrooms would win hands down. So I see nothing harmful in this amendment, but I hope we can get to the real issues that concern parents and communities--smaller classes, better schools, more after school programs. I withhold the remainder of the time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the 1992 Carnegie Corporation report, ``A Matter of Time,'' called for a major national investment in after- school programs for youth. It said, ``Risk can be transformed into opportunity for our youth by turning their non-school hours into the time of their lives.'' But, we have not done enough to give children the kind of opportunities they need after school. Just ask children if this is true. Amy, age 14, said ``Sometimes there are so many things you can't do. I can't have company or leave the house. If I talk on the phone, I can't let anyone know I'm here alone. But I really think they've figured it out, you know.'' Cindy, age 16, said, ``We need someone to listen to us--really take it in. I don't have anybody to talk to, so when I have a problem inside, I just have to deal with it myself. I wish there would be more adults that ask questions because that shows that they care and want to know more.'' Each day, 5 million children, many as young as 8 or 9 years old, are left home alone after school. Children unsupervised are more likely to be involved in anti-social activities and destructive patterns of behavior. We also know that juvenile delinquent crime peaks in the hours between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. A recent study of gang crimes by juvenviles in Orange County, California, shows that 60 percent of all juvenile gang crimes occur on school days and peak immediately after school dismissal. We need to do all we can to encourage communities to develop activities that will engage children and keep them off the streets, away from drugs, and out of trouble. Crime survivors, law enforcement representatives, and prosecutors have joined together in calling for a substantial federal investment in after-school activities. Over 450 of the nation's leading police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, and leaders of local fraternal orders of police, which represent over 360,000 police officers, have called upon public officials to provide more after-school programs for school-age children. Clearly, financial assistance is needed for such activities in states across the country. Too often, parents cannot afford the thousands of dollars a year required to pay for after-school care, if it exists at all. In Massachusetts, 4,000 eligible children are on waiting lists for after-school care, and tens of thousands more have parents who have given up on getting help. Nationwide, half a million eligible children are on waiting lists for federal child care subsidies. The need for increased opportunities is obvious and this amendment helps to meet it. Senator Boxer's plan will triple the funds for the 21st Century Community Learning Center initative so that more than 1 million children each year will have access to safe and constructive after- school activities. It also strengthens the current program by including mentoring, academic assistance, and anti-drug, anti-alcohol, and anti- gang activities as allowable uses of the funds. Additional federal support is essential for communities across the country. This year, the initiative was funded at $200 million. Over 2,000 applicants from across the country submitted proposals to the U.S. Department of Education for that assistance--but only 184 new grants could be funded. We must do more to meet the high demand for after-school programs across the country. Communities are working hard to provide these after-school activities for children--but they can't do it alone. They want Uncle Sam to be a strong partner in the effort. Boston's 2:00-to-6:00 After-School Initiative was created in 1998 to expand and enhance quality after-school programs across the city. It has already succeeded in increasing the number of school-based after- school programs by nearly 50 percent. A total of 43 programs now serve over 2,000 students. This year, Mayor Menino has pledged to open 20 more school-based programs. Boston and communities like it throughout the country deserve more assistance in meeting these needs. Federal support under the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program is helping to meet these needs. Last year, Boston received $305,000 to help the Lewis Middle School and the Tobin Community Middle School in Roxbury, and the Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School in Dorchester to create after-school programs for children. Springfield received $315,000 to expand their ``Time Out for Communities'' initiative that is helping the Springfield Public Schools to provide after-school programs to 15,000 students, in conjunction with the Springfield Libraries and Museums, the YMCA, Springfield College, and other organizations in the community. Worcester received $3.6 million over 3 years to support ten community centers that will serve 4,000 students and 5,000 community members. The Worcester after-school program, called the ``Community Learning Centers for Worcester's Children of Promise,'' will provide a wide range of services, including academic support to help students meet state academic standards; drug and violence prevention programs; information on family health; day care for school-age children; tutoring and mentoring; access to technology for students and their families; summer activities; and adult education. But much more needs to be done in Massachusetts and across the country, if we are going to keep children safe and help them succeed in school. We know that after-school programs work. In Waco, Texas, students participating in the Lighted Schools program have demonstrated improvement in school attendance and decreases in juvenile delinquent behavior over the course of the school year. Juvenile crimes have dropped citywide by approximately 10 percent since the program began. The Baltimore City Police Department saw a 44 percent drop in the risk of children becoming victims of crime after opening an after- school program in a high-crime area. A study of the Goodnow Police Athletic League center in Northeast Baltimore found that juvenile arrests dropped by 10 percent, the number of armed robberies dropped from 14 to 7, assaults with handguns were eliminated, and other assaults decreased from 32 to 20 from 1995 to 1998. In addition to improved youth behavior and safety, quality after- school programs also lead to better academic achievement by students. At the Beech Street School in Manchester, New Hampshire, the after- school program has improved reading and math scores of students. In reading, the percentage of students scoring at or above the basic level increased from 4 percent in 1994 to one-third in 1997. In math, the percentage of students scoring at the basic level increased from 29 percent to 60 percent. In addition, Manchester saved an estimated $73,000 over three years because students participating in the after- school program avoided being retained in grade or being placed in special education. One student in the Manchester program said, ``I used to hate math. It was stupid. But when we started using geometry and trigonometry to measure the trees and collect our data, I got pretty excited. Now I'm trying harder in school.'' In Georgia, over 70 percent of students, parents, and teachers agreed that children received helpful tutoring through The 3:00 Project, a statewide network of after-school programs. Over 60 percent of students, parents, and teachers agreed that children completed more of their homework and the homework was better prepared because of their participation in the program. One 7th-grade student from Georgia said, ``I just used to hang out after-school before coming to The 3:00 Project. Now I have something to do and my school work has improved!'' In 1996, over half of the students who attended Chicago's summer program raised their test scores enough to proceed in high school. As Mayor Daley of Chicago said, ``Instead of locking youth up, we need to unlock their potential. We need to bring them back to their community and provide the guidance and support they need.'' We should do all we can to improve and expand after-school opportunities--the nation's children deserve no less. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 12 minutes. Mr. President, I want to first of all, thank my friend and colleague, Senator Wellstone, for offering this amendment and say that I welcome the opportunity to join with him and urge the Senate to accept this amendment, and to say that I think it is very basic and fundamental to the underlying purpose of the legislation, which is to try to deal with the challenge of juvenile violence in our country today. Mr. President, the fact is that we should not have to be taking the time of the Senate on this amendment, because I am sure, as Senator Wellstone has pointed out, that this language which we are attempting to place into the juvenile justice bill is effectively the language that has been there since 1992. It was placed there as a result of extensive hearings that were held by Congress and the Senate--during that period of time--that showed the disparity of treatment between blacks and whites in the juvenile justice system. There is a range of different aspects of this particular provision. I say at the outset that we will include in the Record a very comprehensive review on the constitutionality of this issue. It is interesting to hear that argument raised at this particular time, because the language has been in effect since 1992 and not challenged on a constitutional basis. It has just been mentioned during the course of this evening. But, Mr. President, we should not look at this particular undertaking really in the abstraction of just juvenile justice. What we have to understand is that we as a country inscribed slavery in the Constitution of the United States, and we have been trying to free ourselves from that admonition for some 200 years. We fought a civil war over it. Over the very recent times, with the leadership of Dr. King and many others in the late 1950s and 1960s, we began to make some very important progress in knocking down the walls of discrimination. But still those elements of bigotry exist. Why else would we have the greatest number of hate crimes against blacks in our society? That happens to be a fact. We don't like it. We don't want it. We all deplore it. We are going to try to address that with hate crimes legislation. It is not going to solve all of the problems, but we are going to at least try to recognize that this is an issue. Why is it that even after all the legislation we have passed to try to have fair and equitable employment on the basis of an individual's value and what they can do in terms of their skills in doing a job, why is it that we still find those barriers out there to knock out blacks and Hispanics and individuals whose skin is not white? That happens to be the case. We don't have to make that case tonight on the floor of the Senate. Why, in 1988, did we have to revisit the Housing Act that we passed in 1968? Because of the continuation of racism in housing. To listen to the Senator from Utah, you would think, maybe we do have problems there, but we don't have any problems in juvenile justice. Where are the studies? What studies have they looked at? That is just absolutely preposterous. That is absolutely preposterous. It exists in each of these areas I have mentioned. It exists in the criminal justice system. It exists between individuals who are white and black, out there tonight on the interstate highways, where you have racial profiling and where the number of people who are pulled over because their skin is black is sometimes four, five, six, seven times what it is if someone else's skin is white--and done over a long period of time. They can't demonstrate any higher percentage of incidents of violations of the law, not in terms of the growth percentage, but just in the incidental percentages. You can make that case. That is happening everywhere. We had provisions in the juvenile justice that say to communities that we hope you will be encouraged to try to see in the areas of juvenile justice what we might be able to do--to try to see if we can't stem some of this problem among the young people in our society. Why should we always have to wait until this problem exists? Why can't we try to see what can be done in the early days of young people to see what progress might be made? This has not been used as a way or device to terminate funding for any of the States. You can't say that. You can't demonstrate that. If we had a fair time to talk about this and to debate it, you would find that States are making important progress in many different areas to try to deal with fundamental and underlying causes in their various communities. That is what we want to encourage--quiet, competent, effective work that is being done that can have an impact in terms of trying to make our juvenile justice system fair and equitable for all of the young people in our society. Mr. President, this issue is of such importance, to be brought back in the time of the evening with the limitations I think really does a disservice to the importance of it. But we are where we are. Let me mention the particular quote from the director of our Massachusetts Department of Youth Services, Mr. Miller, a very thoughtful, distinguished leader in terms of understanding the problems of juvenile justice. This is what Mr. Jerome Miller wrote about the cumulative effect of decisions made throughout the juvenile justice process: I learned very early on that when we got an African American youth, virtually everything, from arrest summaries to family history to rap sheets to psychiatric exams to waiver hearings as to whether he would be tried as an adult, the final sentence was skewed. The middle-class white youth sent to us was more likely to be dangerous than the African American teenager with the same label. Usually the white kid had been afforded competent legal counsel, appropriate psychiatric and psychological testing, been tried in a variety of privately funded options, and all in all had been dealt with more sensitively and individually at every level of the juvenile justice process. For him to be labeled dangerous, he usually had to have done something very serious, indeed. By contrast, the African American teenager was dealt with by stereotype from the moment the handcuffs were first put on, to be easily and quickly moved along to the most dangerous end of the violent/ nonviolent spectrum, albeit accompanied by an official record meant to validate the series of decisions. It goes on and on. That is the state of the juvenile justice system in too many constituencies across this country. All this language does is remind us when we are talking about using the word ``justice,'' we are talking about equal justice, equal justice for blacks and browns in our system, equal justice for young people, equal justice for all. Fundamentally, when we understand the problems we have in our society, to represent here on the floor of the Senate that somehow the juvenile justice system is an exception to all the kinds of challenges that we have in this Nation, fails, I think, the basic reason and rationality about what is going on in this country. It is not the accepted. That is the effect of this, to try and not prescribe quotas, not get into the numbers game. That has never been part of the accusation on this provision, but just to hope that communities and States will, hopefully, develop a process and system that will be somehow more sensitive to the challenges we are facing as a country, as a community and in our States in juvenile justice. This amendment cannot solve the problem and it won't even probably solve the majority of the problem, but perhaps because of it, there will be communities and there will be States that will have a truer system of justice for all the young people of this country. That is really what we ought to be undertaking and what we should be about. The statistics on the treatment of minorities in the criminal justice system require an immediate response--especially the treatment of juveniles. I strongly support this amendment and I commend Senator Wellstone for his leadership. It deals with one of the most serious problems in current law--the disproportionate confinement of minority youths in state juvenile justice systems. In fact, the underlying bill will only make the problem worse, because it eliminates all references to ``minority'' or ``race'' and instead refers only to ``segments of the juvenile population.'' In 1988, after extensive testimony concerning the significant over representation of minority youth in state juvenile justice systems, Congress amended the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act to require states to address this issue. In the 1992 amendments to the Act, disproportionate confinement became a core requirement, by linking future funding to a State's compliance with addressing this basic issue. Under current law, states are required to do three things: (1) identify the extent to which disproportionate minority confinement exists in their states; (2) assess the reason that it exists; and (3) develop intervention strategies to address the causes. The law does not require and has never resulted in the release of juveniles. It does not require numerical quotas for arrest or release of any youth from custody based on race. In fact, no state's funding has ever been reduced as a result of non-compliance with this provision. This issue has festered in the juvenile justice system for years. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the facts. Over the past 10 years, documented evidence shows that disproportionately occurs at all stages of the system: African-American youth age 10-17 constitute only 15% of the U.S. population. But they account for 26% of juvenile arrests, 32% of the delinquency referrals to juvenile court, 41% of juveniles detained in delinquency cases, 46% of juveniles in secure corrections facilities, and 52% of juveniles transferred to adult criminal court after judicial hearings. As these statistics indicate, the over representation of minority youth increases as juveniles become more and more involved in the criminal justice system. The result is that African-American youths are twice as likely to be arrested and seven times as likely to be placed in a detention facility as white youths. Black males are 6 times more likely to be admitted to state juvenile facilities for crimes against persons than white youths--4 times more likely for property crimes--and 30 times more likely for drug offenses. Black youths are also much more likely to end up in prison with adult offenders. In 1995, nearly 10,000 juvenile cases were transferred to adult criminal court, and black youths were 50% more likely to be transferred than white youths. A study of the juvenile justice system in California found that minority youth consistently receive more severe punishment than white youth, and are more likely to be incarcerated in state institutions than white youth for the same offenses. A 1998 University of Washington study confirms the justice within the juvenile system Narrative reports prepared by probation officers prior to sentencing portrayed black juveniles differently from white juveniles. Black youth offenders were perceived as having character defects-- condoning criminal behavior. White youth offenders were perceived as victims of bad circumstances. For example, two 17-year-old boys, one black and one white, are charged with first degree robbery. Neither had a criminal history; both used firearms and were accompanied by two friends. Listen to the probation officers' evaluation of the two boys--keeping in mind that 99% of the time, judges follow the recommendation of probation officers: For the African-American youth, the probation officer wrote: This appears to be a pre-meditated and willful act by Ed. . . . . There is an adult quality to this referral. In talking with Ed, what was evident was the relaxed and open way he discusses his lifestyle. There didn't seem to be any desire to change. There was no expression of remorse from the young man. There was no moral content to his comment. For the white youth, the probation officer wrote: Lou is the victim of a broken home. He is trying to be his own man, but . . . is seemingly easily misled and follows other delinquents against his better judgment. Lou is a tall emaciated little boy who is terrified by his present predicament. It appears that he is in need of drug/alcohol evaluation and treatment. In 1993, Allen Iverson--who is the NBA's leading scorer and so far has led his team to the second round of the playoffs--was a senior in high school in Virginia. At the time, he was the top rated high school point guard and quarterback in the nation. One night, he and a group of other friends, all of whom were black, went to a local bowling alley and a racially-motivated fight broke out after a white kid directed a racial epithet toward Iverson. Although punches and chairs were thrown by both blacks and whites during the fight, no white kids were arrested or charged with a crime. Iverson, however, was convicted of ``maiming by mob'' and was sentenced to 15 years in prison with 10 years suspended. He was denied bail pending the appeal, even though felons convicted of more heinous crimes were routinely granted bail. It was not until then-Governor Wilder granted Iverson partial clemency, that he was released from jail. He then went on to play basketball for John Thompson at Georgetown. He then left for the NBA where he became the first-round draft pick of the Philadelphia 76'ers. The only reason why Allen Iverson's case has a happy ending is because he is a star athlete. Otherwise, he would still be in jail like the thousands of other young black men who find themselves behind bars in much larger numbers than their white peers. It is wrong to deny minority youth the right to fair treatment by the criminal justice system. Yet this legislation says to the African- American community, the Hispanic community and other minorities that Congress will continue to look the other way while minority youths are confined at disproportionately high rates by the current system. What this bill says to minorities is that although we recognize that your children are more likely to be arrested than their white counterparts, we don't care, that although your children are being referred to juvenile court and adult court, at significantly higher rates than white youths, we're turning our backs on you. It is essential for this legislation to retain fair requirements to deal effectively with this crisis. Current law does not require the release of juveniles. It does not require incarceration quotas. It does not require any other specific change of policy or practice. It does not take prevention money away from white youths and give it to minorities. Disproportionate minority confinement is a serious problem requiring an ongoing and continuous effort to achieve a juvenile justice system which treats every youth fairly, regardless of race or background. Examples of what the states are doing to address this challenge are numerous. In Pennsylvania, the State Commission on Crime and Delinquency provided funds to initiate prevention and intervention programs, including: A drop-out prevention program; a program to help young minority females learn work and life skills; a program to decrease the delinquency rate and increase the level of school retention and success among targeted youth through life skills workshops, tutoring and homework assistance, physical fitness and sports, community service projects, and monthly parent group meetings. By contrast, the underlying legislation encourages states to prosecute even more juveniles as adults. It allows records of juvenile arrests--not necessarily convictions--to be made available to schools, colleges and vocational schools. It requires school districts to mandate policies to mandate expulsion from school for regular possession of drugs, alcohol, or even tobacco. The consequences of disproportionate minority confinement are harsh and unacceptable: The Sentencing Project reported that \1/3\ of all African-American males age 20-29 in the United States are under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system--either in jail, in prison, on probation, or on parole. The juvenile justice system often acts as a feeder system for minority youth into the adult criminal justice system. In most states, the result of an adult felony conviction is the loss of voting rights. 1 in 7 of the 10 million black males of voting age are now either currently or permanently disenfranchised from voting- diluting the political power of the African-American community. A significant impact of arrest or incarceration is often the reduction of future wage earning and employability. One study showed a 25% reduction in the number of hours worked over the next 8 years. The truly tragic consequences of disproportionate minority confinement are removal of large numbers of potential wage earners, a disruption of family relationships and a growing sense of isolation and alienation from the larger society. These statistics only give us a small glimpse of the harsh consequences. They don't begin to tell the story of young black youth being targeted, harassed, intimidated, and treated differently because of their race. The United Methodist Church has said that ignoring discrimination in juvenile sentencing * * * is `careless, callous, and discriminatory enforcement of law.' '' Ed Blackmon, Jr., Mississippi State House of Representatives, has said the ``So many of these young people have great potential for overcoming their troubles, and becoming successful young men and women in their communities. However, with the absence of good legal representation, and families that are not `well-connected', they find themselves locked up, with very little hope.'' Kweisi Mfume, President and CEO of the NAACP, has said, ``The fact that S. 254 eases the requirement that states address the disproprotionatly high numbers of children of color in juvenile detention facilities is, in itself, a crime.'' Marian Wright Edelman, Founder of the Children's defense fun, has said ``With troubling reports of police brutality and racial profiling, Congress must continue to work with the states to ensure that the juvenile justice system affords our youth equitable and fair treatment, and not repeal the previous decade's worth of progress.'' This past weekend, in her address to the National Conference on Public Trust and Confidence in the Justice System, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor emphasized the need for racial equality and better legal representation, and called for improvements in family and juvenile courts. She also cited a 1999 survey entitled ``How the Public Views the State Courts''. According to that survey, 70% of African- American respondents said that African-Americans as a group, receive ``Somewhat Worse'' or ``Far Worse'' treatment from the courts than whites. A substantial number of whites agreed with this assessment. As Justice O'Connor so aptly stated, ``Concrete action must be taken'' to erase racial bias. At the very least, we cannot offered to retreat from the requirements of current law that the states must recognize and address this festering problem. To do less is unacceptable. I urge the Senate to accept our amendment and do the right thing on this critical issue of racial justice.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the Parenting As Prevention Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support Gregg's ``Partnerships for High Risk Youth'' amendment. This amendment establishes a national demonstration project to identify the most effective practices and programs for reducing youth violence. This initiative will provide 12 high-risk cities across the nation with funds to carry out local demonstration projects. These initiatives will help us learn much more about the best programs for reducing youth violence. Communities across the country will benefit from the knowledge. The most successful violence prevention programs take a comprehensive approach to youth violence. The goal is to reach out to youth and their families on a variety of levels. Diverse groups--law enforcement, schools, mental health professionals, religious organizations, parents, and teachers--all need to join forces. This amendment supports this vital type of cooperation. The knowledge we gain will save lives. Communities across the country will be able to learn from these successful models and develop similar programs in their own towns and cities. Boston has long understood the importance of community cooperation, and many of the ideas we have discussed have proven effective there. Boston's strategy is based on three strong commitments--tough law enforcement, heavy emphasis on crime prevention (including drug treatment), and effective gun control. Neglect of any one of these commitments undermines the whole strategy. Several years ago, concerned groups in Boston joined forces to develop community-based solutions that made youth violence ``everyone's business.'' Successful partnerships have included the pairing of mental health professionals, police and probation officers and school administrators with clergy, community leaders, and even gang members themselves. Statistics show that this strategy works. During the period from July 1995 through December 1997, there was only one juvenile death in Boston that involved a firearm. Boston's Ten Point Coalition has received national acclaim for its work with troubled youth. This is exactly the type of program that Senator Gregg's amendment will support. The Ten Point Coalition which was founded by Rev. Eugene Rivers, is an ecumenical group of clergy and lay leaders who are working to mobilize the community on issues affecting African-American youth--especially those at risk. The Coalition is committed to helping at-risk children reach their full potential, and it offers training, technical assistance, resource development, and networking opportunities to churches and other community groups interested in mentoring, advocacy, economic alternatives, and violence prevention. Its goal is to build a coalition of churches nationwide, united in their commitment to changing children's lives and reducing violence. This amendment will help outstanding initiatives like this across the country, and I urge the Senate to support it. violence prevention training for early childhood educators

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have been engaged over the last week in the important, and at times difficult, task of defining how the nation will address the problem of youth violence and crime. Our goal is to develop steps that will be more effective in protecting society against juvenile crime and enabling youth to become productive and successful members of our society. We must also protect the rights of the men and women in the criminal system responsible for working with juvenile offenders. It is in the nation's interest to ensure that states which receive federal dollars for their juvenile justice programs administer these programs in a manner that protects the worker, the juvenile offender, and ultimately, the taxpayers and citizens. This amendment will ensure that workers who provide juvenile justice services do not lose their jobs, their existing bargaining rights, or a loss of benefits if their program receives federal funds. This is not a new concept. Since enactment of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act in 1974, Congress has recognized the importance of making sure that the rights of state workers are protected in juvenile justice programs funded with federal money. Current law provides that the distribution of federal funds for state juvenile justice programs will not displace workers, negatively reduce their wages, or impair existing collective bargaining agreements. The intent of the current law, and of this amendment, is two-fold: to protect workers' rights, and to protect the safety of juvenile offenders. For almost 25 years, the law has protected the employment rights of tens of thousands of state workers in the court system and the juvenile justice system. These men and women, whose jobs are funded through grants to the states, are at the core of our juvenile justice system. They perform vital work, supervising and training troubled youths in the courts and in the parole system. Even with the protections under current law, and even when workers are covered by collective bargaining agreements, these are not high paying jobs. Salaries go from the high teens to the low thirty thousand dollar range. The law also ensures the quality of the services provided by these workers. Protecting the rights of current, experienced workers maintains the stability of the workforce and ensures that well-trained, qualified personnel are staffing the juvenile justice system. If we are serious about protecting society against violent youth--if we are serious about rehabilitating young people and safely returning them to society, then we need well-trained and experienced workers and a stable workforce with adequate skills and training in our juvenile justice system. This amendment will make sure that existing collective bargaining agreements, and the rights under those agreements, would not be disturbed when a state program receives a federal grant. The amendment will prevent displacement of current workers when a program receives a federal grant. For workers who are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, this amendment may be the only job protection they have when their program is funded under a federal grant. We all agree that the juvenile justice system must be improved. Let's also agree that preserving the existing rights of state juvenile justice workers, and preventing disruption of existing employment relationships, are essential components that must be part of an improved system. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. demonstration program for high risk youth

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today we are offering an amendment to the juvenile justice bill to authorize funding for the National Institutes of Health to carry out a broad-based initiative for basic research into youth violence. This research will look into the fundamental cause of such violence and will be linked to research on the most effective ways to prevent it. Clearly, we must do more to enhance our understanding of the fundamental psychological, behavioral, and social factors that contribute to violence by young people. NIH currently provides modest support for behavioral research related to violence, but the research is seriously under-funded in light of the obvious magnitude of the problem. In addition, the current funding is spread across many NIH Institutes and some important areas are not funded at all. This coordinated initiative, relying on the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research at NIH, will enable NIH to respond more quickly to the crisis of youth violence, eliminate the gaps in current knowledge, and focus more effectively on the important high priority questions that scientists in the field have identified. Violence is also a public health problem, and it is as perilous as any epidemic. The tragic shooting rampage by the two students in Colorado shocked the country into a greater sense of urgency about youth violence. Many elements contribute to violent behavior, and it is seldom traced to any single cause. These causes need to be better understood if we are to design effective methods for treatment and prevention. We also need a greater understanding of how to apply the knowledge that we already have. More effective school, family and community prevention activities can be designed on the basis of what we learn from research and from the practical experience of clinicians, educators, and social scientists. The goal of part of this research effort will be to develop better organizational models of effective partnerships among scientists, public agencies, and community members. The research will also address the psychological impact of violence on the victims, since many perpetrators of violence were themselves victims of violence earlier in their lives. Our proposal for greater NIH research is an essential part of the answer we are seeking to the tragedies of juvenile violence, and I urge the Senate to support it. FAST Program

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is no need for this amendment. IDEA already contains provisions to ensure that schools are able to remove truly dangerous children from the classroom. But it also ensures that these children receive the services they need--not only educational services, but counseling, behavior modification, and other related services--so that their bad behavior will hopefully not happen again. This makes more sense than simply sending kids out of the streets, which is exactly what the Frist-Ashcroft amendment proposes to do. The worst example of what happens when students are sent home without necessary services happened last year in Springfield, Oregon. When Kip Kinkle brought a weapon to school, he was immediately suspended. He went home with his gun, killed his parents, then returned to school and started firing. The greatest protection a school can provide to its students and community is to be aware of the warning signs of danger and provide the services that can prevent the student from using violence. Why would we want to strip those very protections from our schools and communities by amending IDEA to end all services to students with disabilities? In fact, why don't we have these protections in place regarding all children, not just those children served under IDEA? Although several of our colleagues here today have pointed to all sorts of horror stories allegedly involving IDEA students, I would urge my colleagues to be get the facts straight. (1) For the vast majority of children with disabilities, most discipline problems can be handled by implementing their individualized educational plan, which now includes behavior management strategies. (2) IDEA currently allows a school to suspend a child for up to 10 days per incident. (3) Moreover, IDEA allows a school to discipline a child with a disability just like it would discipline any other child, so long as that child's behavior is not a manifestation of his or her disability. Mr. President, IDEA took three long years to reauthorize, and was the product of bipartisan negotiations involving both chambers of Congress and the Administration, with extensive public input. The IDEA regulations have just been issued, and they particularly strengthen the area of disciplinary procedures. In many places, schools are only starting to use the tools that are available to them under current law in cases where disciplinary actions that could be prevented with early intervention. In fact, GAO is currently doing a study as to whether schools have enough flexibility to discipline children with disabilities. In this letter I received dated April 29, they stated that work on this study should be delayed for two reasons: (1) ``Nationwide data on school discipline for special education students is not currently available, but is being collected this year,'' and (2) ``IDEA regulations have only recently been published, allowing insufficient time for their results to be felt and measured.'' I ask that the text of this letter be printed in the Record following my remarks. Mr. President, at this point I believe it is not necessary and in fact it would be unconscionable and premature to amend the IDEA and risk compromising the implementation of this landmark legislation. Special education students should not be the scapegoats here. And let me state again, not one of the children involved in the tragedies that we have witnessed over the past two years was a special ed. student. We need to focus this legislation on strengthening all schools for all of our children, and stop blaming IDEA. Mr. President, I want to join with the sheriffs, district attorneys, leaders of police organizations, violence prevention scholars, and school psychologists and counselors, in urging all my colleagues to vote against the Frist-Ashcroft amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. I notice that the cosponsor of the amendment is on the floor. I wonder if he might be able to speak since he is the principal cosponsor. Traditionally, we have let principal sponsors be allowed to speak. The Senator is always courteous in all these occasions. Would the Senator be willing to let him proceed?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the past several days, we have debated the best practices and programs for preventing youth violence. We have disagreed on a number of issues including the need to restrict guns, invest in after-school care, and expand counseling services and mental health services for troubled youths and children. But there is one issue that members on both sides of the aisle agree on--parents play an important role in their children's lives. Everywhere we look, children are under assault: from violence and neglect; from the break-up of families; from the temptations of alcohol, tobacco, sex, and drug abuse; from greed, materialism, and the media. These are not new problems, but in our time, they have become increasingly serious. Against this bleak backdrop, the struggle to raise children and to support families, emotionally as well as practically, has become more difficult. Parents bear the first and primary responsibility for their sons and daughters--to feed them, to shelter them, to talk to them, to teach them to ride a bike, to encourage their talents, to help them develop physically and emotionally, and to make countless daily decisions that influence their growth and development. Parents are the most important influence in their children's lives, but they are being pulled in many different directions. Healthy development depends on strong parental guidance. Spending time together is an essential part of building positive parent-child relationships. Yet time together is increasingly scarce. Parents are eating fewer meals and having fewer conversations with their children. Between 1988 and 1995, a significant drop took place in parent-child activities. Sixty-two percent of mothers reported eating dinner with their child on a daily basis in 1988, but only 55% reported doing so in 1995. Fifty percent ate dinner with their child in 1988, but this rate dropped to 42% in 1995. We need to support parents, not attack and blame them. Sylvia Hewlett and Cornel West said it best in the title of their recent book, ``The War Against Parents.'' That's exactly how it feels for many of today's parents. Like parents before them, they struggle to keep children at the center of their lives. But major obstacles stand in their way, undermining their efforts. Over the course of the last thirty years, public policy and private decision-making have often tilted heavily against the activities that comprise the essence of parenting. A myopic government increasingly fails to protect or support parents, while the competitive forces in the marketplace are allowed to take up more and more time. We talk as though we value families but act as though families are a last priority. Sooner or later, worn-out parents get the message that devoting their best time to raising children is a lonely, thankless undertaking that cuts against the grain of other activities that are apparently valued more highly by society. Last week, I spent time in Boston talking to students about violence and other issues affecting their lives. I asked them whether they felt their parents were too busy to talk to them--and 3/4ths of the students raised their hands. Parents need to spend more time listening to children--and the nation agrees. A recent Newsweek poll asked, ``How important is it for the country to pay more attention to teenagers and their problems?'' Eighty-nine percent of those polled replied that it is very important. If parents are not raising their children, we need to worry about who is. The wrong kind of parenting can cause problems as well. Inconsistent or overly harsh discipline, may lead children to develop aggressive behavior. Inconsistent discipline is often associated with poor behavior in school and at home. These children also tend to have more trouble establishing strong relationships with their family, their teachers and their fellow students. Parenting and coaching classes can make a significant difference in avoiding such problems. A recent study published in the American Psychological Association's Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that mothers who participated in Head Start parenting programs showed a decrease in their use of harsh criticism and an increase in their use of positive and competent discipline. The children were happier and their behavior was more satisfactory than children whose mothers did not receive parenting education. When parents have the skills to deal effectively with their children, they are less likely to be abusive. Unfortunately, too many parents lack these essential skills. Each year over 3 million children are identified as victims of abuse or neglect. The consequences are devastating. Traumatized children are more likely to have alcohol and substance abuse problems and learning problems. They are also more likely to be arrested as juveniles and to engage in abusive behavior toward their own children when they become parents. We know that suffering abuse as a child is strongly related to subsequent delinquency and abusive behavior later in life. But improved parenting skills can help break this vicious cycle. Parenting support and education have been proven to reduce abuse. In the Prenatal and Early Infancy Project, high-risk mothers were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group received visits by specially trained nurses who provided coaching in parenting skills and other advice and support. The other group received no services. For those who received the assistance, child abuse was reduced by 80% in the first 2 years. 15 years after the services ended, these mothers had only one-third as many arrests, and their children were only half as likely to be delinquent. Law enforcement officials also recognize the benefits of training parents. More than 9 out 10 police chiefs (92%) agreed with the statement, ``America could sharply reduce crime if government invested more in programs to help children and youth get off to a good start'' by ``fully funding Head Start for infants and toddlers, preventing child abuse, providing parenting training for high-risk families, improving schools, and providing after school programs and mentoring.'' These law enforcement officers are right. Parenting classes in conjunction with early education programs improve caregiver skills they also reduce crime dramatically and they reduce the likelihood of later delinquent behavior. A High/Scope Foundation study at the Perry Preschool in Michigan provided at-risk 3 and 4 year-olds with a quality Head Start-style preschool program, supplemented by weekly in-home coaching for parents. Two decades later years later, by age 27, those who had been denied the services as toddlers were five times more likely to be chronic lawbreakers. A similar program in Syracuse provided child development and health services for at-risk infants and toddlers and parenting support for their mothers and fathers. The study found that kids denied the services were ten times more likely to be delinquent by age 16. We pay a high price for abuse and neglect. In addition to its damaging psychological consequences, it is estimated that $22 billion is spent each year on services for abused children, their families, and foster care families. Investing in prevention programs, particularly parent support and education, will significantly reduce these abuse- related expenditures. There is no question that investing in parents will pay-off. When we don't make this investment, we all pay more later, not just in terms of lives and fear, but also in tax dollars. The ``Parenting As Prevention'' Act, which Senator Stevens and I are proposing, will fund several initiatives that will improve parenting skills. To identify the best parenting practices, a National Parenting Support and Education Commission will be established. The Commission will identify the most effective parenting practices, including the best strategies for disciplining children and youth, the best approaches for building integrity and character, and the best techniques for ensuring healthy brain development. The Commission will also conduct a review of existing parenting support and education programs, and will provide Congress and the Administration with a detailed report of its findings. Perhaps, most important, essential parenting information will also be provided to parents--no new family will leave a hospital or adoption agency without information on how to best care for a baby. In Massachusetts, such an initiative is already underway. Our amendment also supports the establishment of a grant program to strenghthen state initiatives for supporting and educating parents. Block grants will go directly from the Department of Health and Human Services to the states. Each state will establish their own Parenting Support and Education Council to award local grants. States will use their funds to establish support and education resource centers for parents and to strengthen support programs for children and teenagers. The grant program will support a wide variety of parental support initiatives including: home visitation for mothers of new babies; the distribution of parenting and early childhood development materials; the development of support programs for parents of young children and teenagers; respite care for parents of children with special needs; and the creation of a national toll free number that will offer counseling and referral services for parents. Finally, our amendment will improve mental health services for violence-related stress. Regional centers around the country will be established to provide special training and research in psychological counseling and treatment. We know that the early years are essential to healthy development and that inadequate care during this critical period can have a devastating impact on future behavior. To reverse the impact of negative early experiences, regional centers on psychological and trauma response will identify the best practices for dealing with these problems. In the long run, successful early intervention is the best way to modify the culture of violence instilled in so many youth. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Investing in parents and children is one of the best ways to prevent youth violence and we clearly need to do more in order to achieve this important goal. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for this amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. I believe we have 5 minutes. Is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, during the debate and discussion here on the floor of the Senate in regard to the prosecution of Federal crimes, and also during the period of the Judiciary Committee, I think we ought to really set the record straight. The record was set straight in the Judiciary Committee by the Attorney General, but it has been misrepresented here on the floor of the Senate by those who ask why are we considering this amendment when we are not really prosecuting all the gun laws on the books with regard to this and somehow suggesting that those of us who are concerned about the easy access of weaponry to children and criminal elements in our society really should pay more attention to the prosecutions and doing something to make it more difficult for children and for those who should not own the weapons to own them. The fact is, overall firearms prosecutions are up. Although the number of Federal prosecutions for low-level offenders--persons serving sentences of 3 years or less--is down, the number of higher-level offenders--those serving sentences of 5 or more years--is up by nearly 30 percent in recent years. At the same time, the total number of Federal and State prosecutions is up sharply. About 25 percent more criminals are sent to prison for State and Federal weapons offenses than in 1992, 20,000 to 25,000. As the Attorney General pointed out, those that ought to be handled at the local level are being handled by State prosecutors, and those that are more serious are being handled by Federal prosecutors. That record has been made in the Judiciary Committee. Maybe those who oppose this kind of common sense gun legislation get some kind of thrill out of misrepresenting the facts. The facts have been laid out by the Attorney General before the Judiciary Committee and they are as I have stated them, and as represented by the Justice Department. By misrepresenting and saying total prosecutions by the Federal Government are down, they are telling half the story. They are not saying what is happening in State and local prosecutions. When you look at State prosecutions, local prosecutions, and Federal prosecutions, they are up, and up significantly. I think we ought to put that aside. We are making worthwhile progress in the Senate on these gun control issues. I join in paying tribute to my colleagues--Senator Lautenberg, Senator Kerrey, Senator Schumer, Senator Boxer, Senator Durbin, and others on both sides of the aisle--who have been advancing sensible and responsible and what I call common sense recommendations. That is what they are. They are common sense recommendations which, when put into effect, are going to reduce the opportunity for easy access to weapons which are too often used either accidentally or intentionally, perhaps even in the increased incidents of suicide, or purposely by children or young people in this country. One of the most important measures, which is before us, is closing the gun show loophole and closing it not just part way but all the way. As was pointed out, last week the Senate failed twice to close that flagrant loophole, and the inadequate amendments adopted were riddled with so many loopholes of their own that the country was outraged by the Senate's hypocrisy. Now, on the third try, we have a chance to do the job right and close the gun show loophole lock, stock, and barrel. The gun show loophole is a hole below the waterline of our gun control laws. It makes a mockery of responsible gun control. Yet, the initial attempt by our Republican friends to close it was a travesty, as has been pointed out. It left the gun show loophole wide open. It created a pawnshop loophole. It reduced background checks from 3 business days to 24 hours, including Sundays. It allowed the interstate sale of firearms, potentially undermining State laws across the country. It prevented gun tracing. And it created a sweeping immunity for gun sellers. That action was the Senate at its irresponsible worst. It is time for us to stop buckling to the gun industry and do what is right. There is a real chance that the tragedy in Littleton would never have happened without the easy access to guns that the gun show loophole supplies. One incredible statistic summarizes the magnitude of the problem we face. In 1996, the most recent year for which information is available, handguns were used to murder 9,390 people in the United States. I might mention why it is difficult to get gun figures. We are using 1996 figures because the power of the NRA prohibits the Centers for Disease Control from collecting that information. The only way they can get the information is to look at the death certificates, and that is enormously costly and takes an incredible amount of time. We are prohibited--the country is prohibited--from actually having the most recent and accurate information about gun deaths. If it is not a problem, why does the National Rifle Association oppose us in having that kind of information? And they have opposed it. They prohibit us from getting that information, so we use the 1996 figures--9,390 people in the United States. In countries with tough gun control laws, the firearm homicide rate is over 97 percent lower--97 percent. The number of handgun murders in 1996 were 2 in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, and 213 in Germany. The case for strong gun control is overwhelming. It saves lives. It saves children. It saves whole communities. Another shocking statistic makes the same point. Each day across America, 13 more children die from gunshot wounds. That is the equivalent of one Littleton each day, every day somewhere in America. How can the Senate continue to play ostrich--head in the sand, ignoring this overwhelming need? How many more Littletons do we need? How many more wake-up calls will it take? When will we finally do what it takes to keep children safe and stop sleepwalking through crisis after crisis after crisis after crisis of gun violence? If the Senate cannot even close the gun show loophole, we may well be condemning communities across the country to a future Littleton tragedy of their own. It is wrong for the Senate to say that easy access to guns had nothing to do with what happened at Columbine High School. It is wrong for the Senate to whistle past the graveyard of Littleton. It is wrong for the Senate to pretend to make minor adjustments in the gun laws when gaping loopholes, like the gun show loophole, needs to be closed. It is wrong for the Senate to give the National Rifle Association a veto over the reforms that cry out to be taken in the wake of that tragedy. Littleton shocked the conscience of the country, and it finally seems to have shocked the conscience of the Senate. It is clear that the Senate should return to the gun show loophole and try again to close it before more innocent lives are lost. And, like closing the gun show loophole, there are other urgent steps that need to be taken. Gun laws work. The facts speak for themselves. It is long past time for the Senate to act to say enough is enough. We know many examples of how tough gun laws, in combination with other preventive measures, are having a direct impact in reducing crime. In Massachusetts, we have some of the strongest gun laws in the country. There are tough restrictions on carrying concealed weapons. Local law enforcement has discretion in issuing the permits required by law, and an individual must show a clear need. The minimum age for sale of handguns across the board is 21. There are increased penalties for felons who possess firearms. Adults are liable if a child gets an improperly stored gun and uses it to kill or injure himself or someone else. Firearms must be stored with child safety locks. We have a gun-free schools law. We have enhanced standards for licensing of gun dealers. A permit is required for private sales. Saturday night specials are banned. Lost or stolen firearms must be reported. These are common sense requirements that save lives and impose no problem whatsoever for legitimate hunters and sports persons. Look at what has happened in terms of firearm homicides in Boston. These figures are reflected across our Commonwealth. We have seen in 1993, 65; 62 in 1994; 64 in 1995; and then 39, 24, 26, 4. So far this year, there has not been a single youth homicide in 128 schools. Tough law enforcement, tough gun control, tough preventive action. That is what we stand for. And the results are out there. When we compare States with strong gun laws to those that have weak gun laws, the differences are significant. In 1996, for Massachusetts, the number of gun deaths for persons 19 years old or younger was 2 per 100,000. In States that have the weakest gun laws, the numbers were significantly higher: 5.9 gun deaths per 100,000 in Indiana; 9.2 gun deaths per 100,000 in Mississippi; 5.1 gun deaths per 100,000 in Utah; 6.9 gun deaths per 100,000 in Idaho--2 gun deaths per 100,000 in Massachusetts. It is clear that strong gun laws help reduce gun violence, yet when Democrats have proposed steps to take guns out of the hands of young people--proposals that would save lives--the Senate has too often said no. The overwhelming majority of the American public wants to pass reasonable gun control measures. The American people clearly want these common sense laws on the books, and they will just as clearly hold Congress accountable if we fail to act or only pretend to act. The lesson of the Senate's past failed attempts to close the gun show loophole is clear: The American people will hold us accountable if we refuse to act. Nothing concentrates the minds of Members of Congress like the knowledge that they are about to be hung out to dry at the next election. So let's concentrate on closing the gun show loophole and the other blatant loopholes in the Nation's gun laws. Just finally, I put in the Record that the ATF has examined the number of crime guns traced during 1996 and 1997 to federally licensed firearm dealers and to federally licensed pawnbrokers. While 13 percent of the federally licensed dealers had one or more crime guns traced to them, 35 percent of the federally licensed pawnbrokers had one or more crime guns traced to them. It seems that everything cries out for this particular amendment. Let's take action and do what is right for the children in America, the families in America, and to reduce violence in America. I thank the Chair. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Probably less than 15 minutes. I would like to just be able to proceed.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I have no objection. I understand that Senator Harkin is not here.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a recent article in the New York Times demonstrates the importance of clinical trials in treating cancer and the serious problems that patients and researchers are now facing because of the lack of adequate enrollment in these trials. Clinical trials are the primary means of testing new therapies for serious diseases. In fact, these trials may be the only available treatment for patients whose conditions have failed to respond to conventional therapies. The survey by the American Society of Clinical Oncologists discussed in the article found that less than five percent of cancer patients in the country are enrolled in clinical trials--although 20 percent are eligible to participate and would often receive better quality care if they did. As the article points out, ``Patients who participate receive at least state-of-the-art treatment and often get to take advantage of otherwise unavailable approaches.'' Several barriers exist to enrolling patients in clinical trials. But a critical element is the increasing reluctance of HMOs and other managed care plans to allow their enrollees to participate in such trials or to pay the routine hospitals costs of their participation is a critical element. Until recently, health insurance routinely paid for the doctor and hospital costs associated with clinical trials. But managed care is reducing that commitment. Today, managed care plans often will not permit their patients to enroll in clinical trials, and they will not pay for their participation when they choose to do so on their own. The American Association of Health Plans--the HMO trade association-- has recognized that plans should encourage patients to participate in clinical trials, where medically appropriate. But, too often, there is little or no participation. The decision to enter a clinical trial should be made by the treating physician and the patient. Yet the survey showed that only about half of eligible patients are even told such trials are available. S. 6, the Patients' Bill of Rights, and its companion bill, HR 358, require health insurance plans to allow their enrollees to participate in quality clinical trials sponsored by the NIH, the Department of Defense, and the Veterans Administration. The lack of access highlighted by the article clearly demonstrates the need for passage of the Patients' Bill of Rights. Without the protections in that bill, patients will not be guaranteed the right to participate in these life- saving trials. Virtually every major cancer group in the nation has endorsed the Patients' Bill of Rights, and highlighted the clinical trials provision as a major reason for enactment. Patients are dying and cures of the future are being delayed. Patients deserve this opportunity for life. The rights guaranteed in the Patients' Bill of Rights are essential for patients with cancer, congestive heart failure, lupus, Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, diabetes, and many other deadly illnesses. Every day we delay more patients suffer. Congress has an obligation to act. I ask unanimous consent that the article from the New York Times may be printed in the Record.