Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, the Senator has asked for rollcalls on those two votes, but then he asked for consent after that to sequence which amendments and in what order?

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I would say 15 minutes. If other Senators have amendments and want to debate them, I will wait until they conclude that. If I can just have the assurance that I do it at the end of the debate on amendments tomorrow, that is fine with me.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine. I had indicated to the floor manager that after the disposition or the general debate, I would wish to address the Senate on the underlying bill. I am glad to yield an hour, or do it tomorrow afternoon. I am glad to do whatever.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator from Utah yield? Are we under controlled time?

Mr. KENNEDY. On which amendment?

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Cochran in sponsoring the ``Digital Education Act of 1999.'' I commend him for his leadership in improving technology for children and families, so that more children come to school ready to learn. In the early 1990's, Dr. Ernest Boyer, the distinguished former leader of the Carnegie Foundation, gave compelling testimony to the Senate Labor Committee about the appallingly high number of children who enter school without the skills to prepare them for learning. Their lack of preparation presented enormous obstacles to their ability to learn effectively in school, and seriously impaired their long-term achievement. In response, Congress enacted the Ready-to-Learn program in 1992, and two years later its promise was so great that we extended it for five years. Because of the Department of Education and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Ready-to-Learn initiative became an innovative and effective program. By linking the power of television to the world of books, many more children have been enabled to become good readers much more quickly. Many children who enter school without the necessary basic skills are soon placed in a remedial program, which is costly for school systems. It is even more costly, however, for the students who face a bleaker future. Today, by the time they enter school, the average child will have watched 4,000 hours of television. That is roughly the equivalent of four years of school. For far too many youngsters, this is wasted time--time consuming ``empty calories'' for the brain. Instead, that time could be spent reading, writing, and learning. Through Ready-to-Learn television programming, children can obtain substantial education benefits that turn T.V. time into learning time. As a result of Ready-to-Learn television, millions of children and families have access to high-quality television produced by public television stations across the country. Tens of thousands of parents and child- care providers have learned how to be better role models, to reinforce learning, and to be more active participants in children's learning from programs funded through Ready-to-Learn. For many low-income families, the workshops, books, and television shows funded through this program are a vital factor in preparing children to read. These programs help parents and child-care providers teach children the basics, preparing them to enter school ready to learn and ready to succeed. Ready-to-Learn provides 6.5 hours of non-violent educational programming a day. These hours include some of the best programs available to children, including Arthur, Barney & Friends, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, The Puzzle Place, Reading Rainbow, and Sesame Street. One of the most successful aspects of Ready-to-Learn is that it helps parents work more effectively with their children. Parents who participate in Ready-to-Learn workshops are more thoughtful consumers of television, and their children are more active viewers. These parents have more hands-on activities with their children, and they read more often with their children. They read less often for entertainment, and more often for education. They take their children more often to libraries and bookstores. The workshops provided by the Ready-to-Learn program are considered the best of their kind. It also brings needed literacy services to parents and children at food distribution centers, homeless shelters, employment centers, and supermarkets. Many of the innovations under Ready-to-Learn have come from local stations. WGBH in Boston is one of the nation's leaders in public broadcasting. It created the Reading Rainbow, and Where in the World is Carmen San Diego, which are leaders in educational programming across the country. Last year, WGBH hosted 34 Ready-to-Learn workshops in Massachusetts. 1,100 parents and 265 child-care providers and teachers attended. These parents and providers in turn worked with 3,400 children, who are now better prepared to succeed in their schools. WGBY of Springfield is the mainstay of literacy services for Western Massachusetts. This station trained 250 home day-care providers, who serve 2,500 children. A video lending library makes PBS materials available to teachers to use in their classroom. Workshop participants receive training on using children's programs as the starting point for educational activities. Participants receive free books. For some, these are the only books they have ever owned. They receive the PBS Families magazine, in English or Spanish, and they also receive the broadcasting schedules. Each of these resources builds on the learning that begins with viewing the PBS programs. Through partnerships with the Massachusetts Office of Child Care Services and community-based organizations such as Head Start, Even Start, and the Reach Out & Read Program at Boston Medical Center, Ready-to-Learn trainers are reaching many low-income families with media and literacy information. In Worcester, the Clark Street Developmental Learning School offers a family literacy program that uses Reading Rainbow or Arthur in every session with families. In addition, the school has now expanded its efforts to create an adult literacy center in the school. Many of the parents involved in the Ready-to-Learn project now attend the adult education program there. Similar successes are happening across the nation. Since 1994, the sponsors of Ready-to-Learn workshops have given away 1.5 million books. Their program has grown from 10 television stations in 1994 to 130 television stations today. They have conducted over 8,500 workshops reaching 186,000 parents and 146,000 child care providers, who have in turn affected the lives of over four million children. The ``Digital Education Act of 1999'' we are introducing today will continue this high-quality children's television programming. Equally important, it will take this valuable service into the next century through digital television, a powerful resource for delivering additional information through television programs. The Digital Education Act will also increase the authorization of funds for Ready-to-Learn programs from $30 million to $50 million a year, enabling these programs to reach even more families and children with these needed services. The Digital Education Act also authorizes $20 million for high- quality teacher professional development. Building on the success of the MATHLINE program, the bill will expand the program to include materials for helping teachers to teach to high state standards in core subject areas. Participating stations make the teachers workshops available through districts, schools, and even on the teachers' own television sets. In this way, at their own pace, and in their own time, teachers can review the materials, observe other teachers at work, and reflect on their own practices. They can consider ways to improve their teaching, and make adjustments to their own practices. Teachers will also receive essential help in integrating technology into their teaching. Teachers themselves are very supportive of the contribution that television can make to their classrooms. 88% of teachers surveyed in 1997 by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting said that quality television used in the classroom helped them be more creative, 92% said that it helped them be more effective in the classroom. Finally, the Act will create a new ``Digital Education Content Collaborative,'' with an authorization of $25 million. Its goal is to stimulate quality content and curriculum through video and digital programs that will enable students to meet high state standards. Local public telecommunications agencies will create the programs, so that teachers can teach more effectively to the state standards and assess how well children are learning. Again, I commend Senator Cochran for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this important legislation, so that many more children can come to school ready to learn.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today we are introducing a bill that will require all private insurers to provide coverage for screening tests for colorectal cancer. More than 56,000 Americans die from colon cancer each year and we know that the vast majority of these tragedies could have been prevented by early detection and treatment. Millions of Americans are at risk of contracting colon cancer during their lifetime. Persons over age 50 are particularly vulnerable, and so are family members of those who have had this illness. Effective treatments are well-established for this disease, but it must be detected early in order for the treatment to be successful. Unfortunately, fewer than 20 percent of Americans take advantage of the routine screening tests that can identify those who have the disease or who are at risk. Too many physicians fail to recommend or even mention it. The cost of screening those at risk is minor compared to the savings gained by reducing the overall costs of treatment, suffering, lost productivity, and premature death. As many colon cancer survivors have told us, early recognition and treatment are essential to winning this battle. Over 90% of people who have been diagnosed as a result of these screening tests and then treated for this cancer have resumed active and productive lives. People on Medicare already have the right to these screening tests. The legislation we are introducing today will extend the same benefit to everyone else who has private insurance coverage. Under our proposal, coverage for screening tests will be available to anyone over age 50, and also to younger persons who are at risk for the disease or who have specific symptoms. The type of tests and frequency of tests would be determined by the doctor and the patient. This is a very reasonable and cost-effective measure that is essential to prevent thousands of unnecessary deaths. Our bill has already received support and endorsements from all the major gastrointestinal professional organizations, the American Cancer Society, the American Gastroenterological Association, the Cancer Research Foundation of America, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, STOP Colon and Rectal Cancer Foundation, the United Ostomy Association, the Colon Cancer Alliance, Cancer Care, Inc., and the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging. A companion bill is being introduced in the House with the bipartisan leadership of my respected colleagues, Congresswomen Louise Slaughter and Connie Morella. They have rightly emphasized that this disease is one that affects women as much as men. I look forward to working with them and my colleagues here in the Senate to get this very important protective legislation passed.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to join with Senator Daschle in expressing our heartfelt thoughts to the members of her family. Meg Greenfield put up an extraordinary fight against cancer for a very long period of time and did so with incredible bravery and extraordinary elegance, style, and class. For the past two decades, she was the editor of the editorial page at The Washington Post, and in her long and brilliant career, the editorial page set an unsurpassed standard of excellence on all the great issues of the day in the nation's foreign and domestic policy. She earned a Pulitzer Prize and many other honors during her outstanding career. For a quarter century, her extraordinary columns in Newsweek Magazine were a consistent voice of insight and reason that we looked forward to and learned from. I had the opportunity to visit her just about 2 weeks ago. She was always immensely understanding and respectful of the political process. She admired those who were part of the political process in the finest sense, and believed that those who were really committed to public life could make a difference in our society. She was a hopeful, idealistic person who wrote with great clarity, great eloquence, and great passion about the state of our nation. She established a high standard by which political leaders of both parties could try to measure themselves. She made an extraordinary difference with her life. She had scores of friends and was highly regarded and respected in her business. To those who knew her and respected her, she was a giant in the writing press. A graduate of Smith College, Meg Greenfield became one of the greatest women and greatest journalists or our time, and we will miss her very much.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, since we have had the measure on the juvenile crime bill before us, this is really the first opportunity we have had to deal with one of the compelling aspects of reducing violence, not only in our schools but in our communities. We are talking about youth violence. We have had debate and discussion on how we can help schools, how we can help parents, and how we can help teachers. We have also considered, under the Leahy proposal, a series of different strategies to effectively use law enforcement to reduce violence. Now, we really begin the debate about the proliferation and availability of guns in our society. There are many who choose not to talk about this particular issue, but, hopefully, we will have an opportunity to debate and have votes. We will find out who in this body is serious about trying to reduce the availability and accessibility of guns whose only purpose is not for hunting, but for killing and maiming individuals. It is particularly important that we have this discussion about children. Every single day, 13 children die because of the use of guns--almost the equivalent of Littleton, every single day. We know that when we reduce the availability and accessibility of guns, it extends children's lives and the lives of others. I have just a few moments now. I will, later in the course of the debate, clearly demonstrate, how the United States compares to other countries in terms of the incidence of violence and the incidence of violence and the utilization of guns. One of the most extraordinary examples we have seen in recent times is what has happened in my own city of Boston. But before discussing Boston's success, I think it is important to understand the weakness of the Craig proposal. This proposal fails to meet the minimum standards of doing anything about guns because, as has been pointed out, this is a completely voluntary program. Those who are not interested in participating, will not participate in the program. It fails to meet the minimum standard of responsibility in dealing with the loophole which the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, has identified. If we are going to do something about gun shows, the Lautenberg amendment is the way to do it. I think any fair reading or listening to the debate will reveal that the Craig amendment fails, and fails abysmally, in reducing the availability and accessibility of guns. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from California. I believe most of our time has been used. I will address the Senate on the matters which I had intended to address later in the afternoon. I see my friend and colleague from Ohio on the floor, so I will seek recognition later.

Mr. KENNEDY. Is that agreeable?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, thank you very much. I was listening to my good friend from Tennessee talking about what we need to do, that we need to give more time for research and evaluation of where we are in terms of violence among young people in this country. Quite frankly, I would invite our colleagues and Members of Congress--Members of the Senate in this instance--to look at what has happened up in my own home city of Boston, MA, in recent years. In Boston, Mr. President, we have had a dramatic strengthening of various gun laws in recent years, stricter enforcement of existing laws, and the implementation of very important programs in terms of help and assistance for the students, the teachers, and the parents, and the schools. We have had the community police men and women working in the schools, working with the superintendents, working with the parents, working with the children. There has been the development of support groups for the children. There has been the development of violence prevention and mediation programs; an important 2 to 6 program; an afterschool program which is so important in terms of helping and assisting children in the afternoon with their various academic endeavors so when the children do go home in the late afternoon and see their parents--in most situations both of whom have been working hard--they will have quality time with them. It is an effective approach. We are not here to suggest this will be the only approach. I am not here to suggest that there shouldn't be additional reviews or studies. But as we look at the various challenges we are facing today, we shouldn't just throw up our hands and say because there are so many things to do, we can't do anything at all. There are important things that we can do. The Senate has made some judgments on some of those recommendations-- those which have been offered by Senator Robb, Senator Leahy, and others during the course of the last day or so. Now we are beginning a debate on another, I think, extremely important provision. That is the accessibility and the availability of these weapons, particularly to children, in our society. It is uncontrovertible that various societies that deny easy access and easy availability of these weapons do not have the kind of homicide records we have seen in the United States. Industrial nations that have strict restrictions on the access and availability of weapons see a fraction of the number of homicides that we have seen. There is a direct correlation. We have seen that ourselves over the years. We have had leadership from our colleagues, including Senator Feinstein, Senator Lautenberg, and others here on the development and the support of the Brady bill. We have made important progress. In my own State of Massachusetts, we have made significant progress in a variety of ways regarding gun laws. This chart describes firearm homicides by all ages in recent years in Boston. We see the dramatic reduction: 1993, 65; 1994, 62; 1995, 64; 1999, 4. It seems to me it would be worthwhile to look and listen to those who are out there in the streets, in the schools, in law enforcement, who have witnessed this kind of result. We hear a great deal of postulating and theorizing about what may be done or what should be done, but we have a very practical example in this chart of what has been done and what is being done. So far in this particular year, with 128 schools, we have not had a single homicide in Boston, MA. The school lots of the city of Boston were fire zones, not too many years ago, but we have made important progress. One of the most important reasons is the gun laws that have been passed. The age for juvenile possession of handguns in Massachusetts is 21-- it is 18 nationwide--but it is 21 in my State of Massachusetts. We enacted the cap law, a law that says we are going to hold individuals who have weapons in their homes responsible, so that there will be a separation of the gun from the ammunition. We hear a great deal of talk about the second amendment, about responsible Americans. We say that is fine; we will hold you responsible. You are going to store your gun separate from your ammunition. If you don't and there is a crime, we are holding you responsible. That has had an important impact. There have been 16 States that have adopted similar laws, and we are beginning to see important progress made. In Massachusetts, we have a waiting period for handgun purchases. We have a State ban on all assault weapons, and we have yet to hear from any hunters that they need to have assault weapons to go out in the woods and hunt deer. We have effectively halted all assault weapons, and that has been an important addition. We have barred private sales of guns between individuals avoiding, circumventing the background checks. We have insisted we will have safety locks on the guns that are sold in Massachusetts. We have the technology for a gun safety lock to prevent children up to maybe 4 years of age from pulling the trigger of a handgun. Why aren't we putting those requirements into the legislation? We have important, strict, provisions in terms of reporting stolen weapons. Those are the kinds of measures we have passed in Massachusetts. I don't see how anyone can make the case that they provide much hindrance to individuals who want to exercise their right to go out and hunt. I don't see how those measures inhibit that opportunity. We are seeing, not only in the city of Boston, similar results in other cities around our Commonwealth. Something is working; something is happening. We are saying, let us try to find what is working, what is happening, what is tried and tested. We are not going to solve all of the problems, but we are going to reduce the number of youth homicides. We can see very clearly from this chart we are talking about 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 children who are alive today that would not be alive, I daresay, unless those steps had been taken. These are positive bottom-line results. We are going to see various amendments offered by Members on this side of the aisle--whether it is the Lautenberg amendment on the gun shows; whether it is the Durbin amendment; or whether it will be Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein offering amendments that have been along the lines of what has been proven and tested here. And I doubt very much we will have much success. The American people ought to pay close attention to this debate. We will have votes this afternoon. And hopefully, we will have the important votes on these issues tomorrow. We need to listen to the American people on these issues. We are talking not just about a policy on education. We are not talking about a health policy. We are not talking about an environmental policy. We are not talking about a defense policy. We are talking about whether there are steps that can be taken, by this body, that will make a difference in terms of the lives of children in our society. We can do it. We demonstrated it. We should do it. And we ought to be able to accept it here in the Senate during the course of this debate.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield my time to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest that the Senator be recognized now for 10 minutes; following that, the Senator from Connecticut, 10 minutes; following that, 15 minutes divided between Senator Boxer and myself; and following that, at 12:30, Senator DeWine be recognized for 10 minutes; and that there be no intervening motions or actions or amendments.

Mr. KENNEDY. Between now and 12:30?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in my 2 remaining minutes, I want to mention what has happened with the use of firearms in homicides for those 16 and under in Boston, MA. In 1990, we had 10; in 1995, we only had 2. In 1998, we had 4. In 1999, for youth homicides in Boston, MA, in 128 schools, zero so far. Zero so far. Something is working. Something is working. What is working is tough gun laws--and I will have a chance to go into greater detail on that later in the debate--tough law enforcement, effective programs in the schools, and working with children and parents to respond to some of the underlying causes, and the needs of children. It is that combination, but it is also effective because we have tough gun laws. The Lautenberg amendment is a downpayment on the things that are important in reducing violence. Many say here: This is a complex issue, and therefore we can't really solve the problem. What the Lautenberg amendment and other amendments say is, we can reduce the incidence of violence in our society and we will miss that opportunity if we fail to adopt them. This is about saving children's lives. That is what this proposal is about, and a number of other proposals. We should be willing to accept this in an overwhelmingly positive way. The Lautenberg amendment does something; the Craig amendment fails the minimum standard.

Mr. KENNEDY. On the time I was yielded?

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object, but I want to make sure that others are going to be able to address the Senate during this period of time. I know the Senator from Utah, the Senator from Connecticut--I see the Senator from California has some inquiries. I would like to be able to speak as well. I would like to see that we have an opportunity for each of these Members before we get to 12:30. That is my only concern.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I object to that. We have an agreement now. The Senator is recognized for 30 minutes. Now we are in the position that we can offer second-degree amendments. The Senator is asking that we do not do that for 30 minutes. If you want to get this Senator to agree to it, we are going to have to give other Members the chance to speak on the floor. Otherwise, I am going to object to it. Why don't we just try to work this out with comity?

Mr. KENNEDY. Why doesn't the Senator speak for 10 minutes, and the Senator from Connecticut for 10 minutes, and the remaining 15 minutes to Senator Boxer.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I once again thank Senator Wellstone and others who have spoken on this. I just want to share with the Members of this body what has been happening in my home community with the implementation of the kinds of programs we have supported here, the programs that have been recommended by the chiefs of police in my town and in towns across the country. Here we have the firearm homicides of people under 24 years of age in Boston: 51 in 1990; 38 in 1991; 27 in 1992; 35 in 1993; 33 in 1994; 32 in 1995. Then, with the implementation of these programs in the Robb amendment, in 1996, down to 21; 7 in 1997; 16 in 1998; and one in 1999. Are we going to take what is working, what has been requested by law enforcement officials, what is demonstratively effective, or are we going to listen to the same old voices that say what we have to do is spend more time in locking up kids? That is the choice. We need to say we are going to invest in and provide the kinds of programs that are supported by teachers, parents, schools, and law enforcement officials--programs that are effective and working. That is what the Robb amendment has done, and that is what it will do. It deserves the support of the Members. We reserve our time. Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe that the Robb amendment is before the Senate, and I intend to speak on behalf of this amendment. I will be glad to follow leadership as to how we should proceed. I do not intend to delay the proceedings.

Mr. KENNEDY. As a proud supporter of that, this is what is going to work.