Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. Sixty percent.

Mr. KENNEDY. Let me make a final comment, and then I will be glad to yield. Mr. President, I underscore my support for Senator Daschle. I mentioned very briefly yesterday in our Democratic caucus that just before I came to the Senate, you did not get a vote in the Senate unless you got the nod from the majority leader. But something took place in the 1960s. We had a movement within this Nation to strike down the walls of discrimination. People said, ``This is an important issue.'' The two places these issues were debated and considered were the federal court--the 5th Circuit--and the Senate. The debate on the war also took place in the Senate--and later, on the environment, disability rights, and other issues of crucial importance to our country. The Senate has been the repository for debate about the Nation's concerns. One thing that every Senator understands is that everyone is equal in this body. So I cannot accept what the majority leader is saying: ``I make the decisions on this agenda. And no one else.'' That isn't what this body is about. The Senate Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, indicated in a very positive and constructive way his willingness to try to work with the majority. This is the way it has been for 36 of the 37 and a half years I have been here--when Democrats have been in the majority and when Republicans have been in the majority. But never in that time have we had the leadership saying that one Senator is a lesser Member of this body than another. And that is what is being said, when a Member is denied the opportunity to raise important issues of conscience or of concern to their constituency. They may be able to deny that opportunity on a particular measure. They may be able to prevent someone from speaking for 2\1/2\ hours, as they did today. They may eat up another hour of time, as they did this afternoon by having a live quorum. That is all part of this process. You can play this nice or you can play it rough. I like to believe, as someone who takes a sense of pride in being able to work together with Members on both sides of the aisle, that we have been able to make a difference. That is what the Senate should be about. But if they are going to play it the other way, let them just understand that we can play it that way too. I suggest my colleagues go back and read the little book by Jim Allen. Senator Allen had this place tied up for 7 months--an individual Member of the Senate. If they are not going to work this out in a way that respects individual Members, they cannot expect Members to respond in the positive tradition of this great institution. Every Member on both sides of the aisle wants to honor that tradition. That is what I want to see. Hopefully we can, through the leadership of Senator Daschle and Senator Lott, proceed in that way for the remainder of this session. I am glad to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. In April and May, we have the supplemental conference report, Kosovo funding, Y2K, Ed-Flex, safe-deposit lockbox, budget reform, FAA, Commerce-Justice-State appropriations; financial modernization, flag burning, bankruptcy, satellite users, water resources, State Department authorization, DOD authorization. Mr. President, do you know what is not on that? Any possible opportunity to debate an increase in the minimum wage. We were effectively shut out from any opportunity last year. We raised the issue, and we had to follow a similar process to bring that issue before the Senate. We were denied that opportunity. It is a very simple and fundamental issue of fairness and equity to those who are some of the hardest workers in America--11 million hard-working Americans, who go to work every single day, who work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, and at the end of the year bring home what is less than a poverty wage in the United States of America. Forty-five Members of the Senate have asked this body for an opportunity to address this issue so that we can have economic justice for the workers of this country, and what has been the response? Is there any opportunity to look down the road and say, ``In another week, or 2 weeks, or 3 weeks, you will have that opportunity''? No. The answer is no, you cannot have an opportunity to raise the minimum wage. You cannot even bring that to floor of the Senate. I have heard a lot of talk about courtesy and about how bills are made here. What about courtesy toward the hard-working men and women who are making a minimum wage, who cannot put bread on the table or pay their rent? Or, courtesy toward the proud working woman we heard from just yesterday who said that she has been unable to go to see her two daughters in the last 3 years because when you make the minimum wage, you cannot afford to take a bus across the country to see them. How about courtesy to them, Mr. Leader, how about courtesy to them? Don't they count? Shouldn't they be on the agenda? Mr. President, I find these arguments rather empty in trying to establish priorities here. I am sympathetic to trying to reach out with legislative solutions to the problems we have before us, but we have been denied any opportunity to do anything about these 11 million Americans earning the minimum wage. And it is not only on the issue of the minimum wage. Last year we brought up an issue that is on the minds of every working family in this country, and that is the Patients' Bill of Rights--a very fundamental idea--that the medical profession, and not an accountant in the insurance companies, ought to be making the decision affecting families. That is the heart of the Patients' Bill of Rights. And we were denied the opportunity to consider it on the basis of the merits. We were denied the opportunity to even have a hearing. I hope all of those voices that were out here talking about ``undermining the spirit of the Senate'' will go back and talk to the chairmen of those various committees and say: Give them a hearing, report a bill out, get it to the floor of the Senate, so we can make sure that we are going to have clinical trials available to women who have breast cancer or to children who have other dreaded diseases; to make sure people are going to have a specialist when they need it; to make sure people are going to be able to get treated at the nearest emergency room; to make sure, if someone has some particular illness or sickness, they are going to get the right prescription drugs, not just what is on an ordinary formulary. It is not very complicated, not very revolutionary, not very dramatic. It is not our agenda, not the Democratic agenda. It is the agenda of 100 agencies of doctors, nurses, and consumers of this country who say this is what we need to protect your children, to protect your wives, and to protect your loved ones. But where is it on this agenda? Where do we have the opportunity to debate these issues? Where do we even have the opportunity to say that we will be willing to enter into a time agreement, say, 3 days? We take days and weeks on some issues around here, but are not even given the opportunity to have time-limited debate on these issues, which are of such vital importance to the men, women, and children of this country. Just tell us, majority leader, when we can debate these issues. Give us Mondays and Fridays when we are not voting. Give us those days when the Senate has not been working. We will take any time. We will take Mondays and Fridays. We will take nighttimes. We will take any time. But give us the time, and put these issues on the agenda, because they are on the agenda of every family. But no. We are denied the opportunity to debate these issues: ``It is not on our agenda, Senator. Don't insult us on our side by trying to bring this measure up on the floor of the Senate this afternoon. Don't inconvenience the majority that have an agenda here this afternoon. No, you cannot speak, Senator; you cannot speak here this afternoon on your particular amendment. No, no, we are not going to let you do that.'' Mr. President, it is the best reason I know why we ought to change this body, why we need men and women in this body who are going to say that an increase in the minimum wage is deserved. An increase in the minimum wage is a women's issue--Sixty percent of those recipients of the minimum wage are women. It is a minority issue--nearly 4 million African-American and Hispanic workers would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. Mr. President, this is something that cries out for fairness. The American people support it. But, no, we cannot even debate the issue. I am beginning to believe that the majority refuses to bring it up because they do not want to vote. We know what is going on, all the whispers: ``Don't let them bring up the minimum wage on the basis of the merits because it's going to be painful for us.'' But how much pain does it cause those individuals who are trying to provide for their families tonight? How much pain are they going through? Still, we heard words on the floor this afternoon about courtesy to the body. We were told about this is not the way of doing business, this is not how laws are made. I was reminded by another Republican leader, we ought to be showing good faith, that this is a tragedy but that it is irrelevant material. You tell the 11 million people who are trying to survive on the minimum wage that this is what has happened to their purchasing power. We have heard in the wake of the Littleton tragedy about the importance of parents spending time with families. When you are working two or three jobs at the minimum wage, how much time do you have to spend with your children? That is the testimony these people are giving. They do not have the time to spend with their children. Do you know what the payroll for the United States of America is a year? It is $4.3 trillion. Do you know what the impact of this increase in the minimum wage would be? It would be three-tenths of 1 percent of that, and we hear that it is going to add to the problems of inflation, that we are going to throw a lot of people out of work. Mr. President, $4.3 trillion, and we are talking about 50 cents a year for more than 11 million people. Come on. If you do not want to vote for it, do not vote for it. Let's take it to the American people and see who they want to represent them. But no. Just read the schedule. No matter how much we try, Senator Daschle has not been able to bring those measures before the Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know others have been here, but I have been here for 2\1/2\ hours waiting to speak on the amendment which I offered. While I see my friend from Oregon, I do not intend to take a very long time, but I would like to be able to speak about that issue. First of all, just to review where we are, I want to identify myself with the good remarks of my friend from South Dakota, Senator Daschle. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have printed in the Record the majority leader's schedule for April and for May.

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. No one is present, Mr. President.

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

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I heard the majority leader. There are many Members who, obviously, agree with the majority leader and share the sentiments expressed here on the floor of the Senate a few moments ago in the moments of silence, and the very superb prayer of the chaplain in reaching out to those families. However, there are Members who want to at least consider some legislation dealing with responsibility in the area of firearms. Is the leader now indicating to Members he will give us the opportunity to have some debate on those measures, and other measures, as well, within a period of 2 weeks? Measures that could help and assist parents, families and schools. Measures that are balanced and permit Members to reach across the aisle to try and work out bipartisan approaches? Could the majority leader indicate now whether we will have that opportunity and give assurance to the American people that the subject matter which is No. 1 in the minds of all families and children across this country--at least we will have the opportunity in the U.S. Senate to debate some proposals and to reach resolutions of those.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield for a moment, with those assurances, I have worked with a number of our colleagues--they may have differing views--and I think the assurances of the majority leader that the Senate would have an opportunity to debate legislation with regard to the limitations on weapons and also support and assistance for families and schools, and that we will have debate and resolution of some of those measures, then, I think at least I will look forward to that opportunity. I think with the assurance of the majority leader--I know the Senate Democratic leader wanted to talk to colleagues--it is my certain belief the Democratic leader would support the majority leader in that undertaking. I think the message will go out this afternoon to families across the country that the Senate of the United States--hopefully, in a bipartisan way--will give focus and attention to different ideas, recommendations and suggestions of Members of this body, and hopefully from others, to try to see what we can do not only about the problems of the schools but the inner cities and other communities affected by guns, as well.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges for Angela Williams and David Goldberg be granted for the 106th Congress.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Republican lockbox proposal is deeply flawed, and does not deserve to be adopted. It does nothing to extend the life of the Social Security Trust Fund for future beneficiaries. In fact, it would do just the reverse. This legislation actually places Social Security at greater risk than it is today. It would allow payroll tax dollars that belong to Social Security to be spent instead on risky privatization schemes. And, because of the harsh debt ceiling limits it would impose, this plan could produce a governmental shutdown that would jeopardize the timely payment of Social Security benefits to current recipients. It is time to look behind the rhetoric of the proponents of the lockbox. Their statements convey the impression that they have taken a major step toward protecting Social Security. In truth, they have done nothing to strengthen Social Security. Their proposal would not provide even one additional dollar to pay benefits to future retirees. Nor would it extend the solvency of the Trust Fund by even one more day. It merely recommits to Social Security those dollars which already belong to the Trust Fund under current law. At best, that is all their so-called lockbox would do. By contrast, President Clinton's proposed budget would contribute 2.8 trillion new dollars of the surplus to Social Security over the next 15 years. By doing so, the President's budget would extend the life of the Trust Fund by more than a generation, to beyond 2050. There is a fundamental difference between the parties over what to do with the savings which will result from using the surplus for debt reduction. The Federal Government will realize enormous savings from paying down the debt. As a result, billions of dollars that would have been required to pay interest on the national debt will become available each year for other purposes. President Clinton believes those debt savings should be used to strengthen Social Security. I wholeheartedly agree. But the Republicans refuse to commit those dollars to Social Security. They are short-changing Social Security, while pretending to save it. Currently, the Federal Government spends more than 11 cents of every budget dollar to pay the cost of interest on the national debt. By using the Social Security surplus to pay down the debt over the next 15 years, we can reduce the debt service cost to just 2 cents of every budget dollar by 2014; and to zero by 2018. Sensible fiscal management now will produce enormous savings to the Government in future years. Since it was payroll tax revenues which make the debt reduction possible, those savings should in turn be used to strengthen Social Security. That is what President Clinton rightly proposed in his budget. His plan would provide an additional $2.8 trillion to Social Security, most of it debt service savings, between 2030 and 2055. As a result, the current level of Social Security benefits would be fully financed for all future recipients for more than half a century. It is an eminently reasonable plan. But Republican Members of Congress oppose it. Not only does the Republican plan fail to provide any new resources to fund Social Security benefits for future retirees, it does not even effectively guarantee that existing payroll tax revenues will be used to pay Social Security benefits. They have deliberately built a trapdoor in their lockbox. Their plan would allow Social Security payroll taxes to be used instead to finance unspecified reform plans. This loophole opens the door to risky schemes to finance private retirement accounts at the expense of Social Security's guaranteed benefits. If these dollars are expended on private accounts, there will be nothing left for debt reduction, and no new resources to fund future Social Security benefits. Such a privatization plan could actually make Social Security's financial picture far worse than it is today, necessitating deep benefit cuts in the future. A genuine lockbox would prevent any such diversion of funds. A genuine lockbox would guarantee that those payroll tax dollars would be in the Trust Fund when needed to pay benefits to future recipients. The Republican lockbox does just the opposite. It actually invites a raid on the Social Security Trust Fund. Republican retirement security reform could be nothing more than tax cuts to subsidize private accounts disproportionately benefiting their wealthy friends. Placing Social Security on a firm financial footing should be our highest budget priority, not further enriching the already wealthy. Two-thirds of our senior citizens depend upon Social Security retirement benefits for more than 50 percent of their annual income. Without it, half the Nation's elderly would fall below the poverty line. To our Republican colleagues, I say: ``If you are unwilling to strengthen Social Security, at least do not weaken it. Do not divert dollars which belong to the Social Security Trust Fund for other purposes. Every dollar in that Trust Fund is needed to pay future Social Security benefits.'' The proposed lockbox poses a second, very serious threat to Social Security. By using the debt ceiling as an enforcement mechanism, it runs the risk of creating a government shutdown crisis. The Republicans propose to enforce their lockbox by mandating dangerously low debt ceilings. Such a reduced debt ceiling could make it impossible for the Federal Government to meet its financial obligations--including its obligation to pay Social Security benefits to millions of men and women who depend upon them. The risk is real. The misguided debt ceiling proposal would create a Sword of Damocles which could fall at any time with the slightest miscalculation. If the Congressional Budget Office's economic projections are slightly off, if there is an economic downturn and unemployment rises, if the on-budget surplus is not quite as large as anticipated--any of these events could cause the sword to fall. The proposal is so extreme that it could trigger a shutdown crisis even if the level of debt was declining, merely because it was not declining as quickly as projected. The Government shutdown provoked by irresponsible Republican tactics in 1995 taught us the danger inherent in taking such risks. Yet, the current debt ceiling scheme seems to suggest that the Republican elephant's memory is failing. There would be many innocent casualties of a new government shutdown. It is ironic that many of those who would be harmed most by a shutdown are the elderly and disabled citizens dependent on Social Security. If the debt ceiling is reached, the government would be unable to issue their benefit checks. The law is very clear. The President would have no discretion. Social Security benefits could not be paid. The sponsors of the lockbox claim that the legislation protects Social Security benefits by making them a ``priority'' for payment. However, that will not solve the problem. Once the debt limit has been reached, payment priorities will be irrelevant. The debt ceiling will prevent all payments from being made. There will be no money to pay any obligation of the federal government--including Social Security benefits. Those advocating this harsh bill will also claim that Congress would never allow Social Security recipients to go without their checks for long. However, this bill would require a super-majority to raise the debt ceiling so that the checks could be issued. Getting the necessary votes would take time. I believe even a few days would be too long for us to ask the elderly and disabled to wait. For many Social Security recipients, that monthly check is a financial lifeline. They need it to buy food and prescription drugs, to pay the rent, and for other necessities of life. They can't afford to wait while Congress debates. This legislation, if enacted, would make Social Security recipients potential pawns in a future debt ceiling crisis. That may not be the sponsor's intent, but it could very well be the result. It is fundamentally wrong to put those who depend on Social Security at risk in this way. The lockbox which proponents claim will save Social Security actually imperils it. As Treasury Secretary Rubin has said, ``This legislation does nothing to extend the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund, while potentially threatening the ability to make Social Security payments to millions of Americans.'' While this lockbox provides no genuine protection for Social Security, it provides no protection at all for Medicare. The Republicans are so indifferent to senior citizens' health care that they have completely omitted Medicare from their lockbox. By contrast, Democrats have proposed to devote 15 percent of the surplus to Medicare over the next 15 years. Those new dollars would come entirely from the on-budget portion of the surplus. The Republicans have adamantly refused to provide any additional funds for Medicare. Instead, they propose to spend the entire on-budget surplus on tax cuts disproportionately benefitting the wealthiest Americans. According to the most recent projections of the Medicare Trustees, if we do not provide additional resources, keeping Medicare solvent for the next 25 years will require benefit cuts of almost 11 percent--massive cuts of hundreds of billions of dollars. Keeping it solvent for 50 years will require cuts of 25 percent. The conference agreement passed by House and Senate Republicans earmarks the money that should be used for Medicare for tax cuts. Eight-hundred billion dollars are earmarked for tax cuts--and not a penny for Medicare. The top priority for the American people is to protect both Social Security and Medicare. But this misguided budget puts Medicare and Social Security last, not first. Democrats oppose this ``lockbox'' because we want real protection for Social Security and Medicare. Our proposal says: save Social Security and Medicare first, before the surpluses earned by American workers are squandered on new tax breaks or new spending. It says: extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund, by assuring that some of the bounty of our booming economy is used to preserve, protect, and improve Medicare. Our proposal does not say no to tax cuts. Substantial amounts would still be available for tax relief. It does not say no to new spending on important national priorities. But it does say that protecting Medicare should be as high a national priority for the Congress as it is for the American people. Every senior citizen knows--and their children and grandchildren know, too--that the elderly cannot afford cuts in Medicare. They are already stretched to the limit--and often beyond the limit--to purchase the health care they need. Because of gaps in Medicare and rising health costs, Medicare now covers only about 50 percent of the health bills of senior citizens. On average, senior citizens spend 19 percent of their limited incomes to purchase the health care they need--almost as large a proportion as they had to pay before Medicare was enacted a generation ago. By 2025, if we do nothing, that proportion will have risen to 29 percent. Too often, even with today's Medicare benefits, senior citizens have to choose between putting food on the table, paying the rent, or purchasing the health care they need. This problem demands our attention. Those on the other side of the aisle have tried to conceal their own indifference to Medicare behind a cloud of obfuscation. They say that their plan does not cut Medicare. That may be true in a narrow, legalistic sense--but it is fundamentally false and misleading. Between now and 2025, Medicare has a shortfall of almost $1 trillion. If we do nothing to address that shortfall, we are imposing almost $1 trillion in Medicare cuts, just as surely as if we directly legislated those cuts. No amount of rhetoric can conceal this fundamental fact. The authors of the Republican budget resolution had a choice to make between tax breaks for the wealthy and saving Medicare--and they chose to slash Medicare. I urge my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to reject this ill- conceived proposal. It jeopardizes Social Security and ignores Medicare. It is an assault on America's senior citizens, and it does not deserve to pass.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I would be glad to yield 5 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Angela Williams and David Goldberg, detailees in my Senate Judiciary Committee, be permitted floor privileges.

Mr. KENNEDY. I see the good Senator from Ohio. I know he has been waiting. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Voinovich.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time now remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. Following that time, or at least some time, the good Senator from Minnesota has an hour, is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum on his time.

Mr. KENNEDY. I object. (Laughter.)

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join with others who rise today to express our great sense of sorrow to those families and all of those who have experienced the loss and suffering in Littleton, CO. Our hearts go out to the children and their families and all the victims of this latest senseless school tragedy. In the days and weeks to come, we will learn much more about how and why it could have happened--and why it happened again, after the fair warning we have had from similar tragedies that shocked the nation so deeply in recent years. This terrible tragedy has scarred the Nation and reminded us, once again, about the fragile nature of the young children in our country who are going off to school every day. It reminds all of us that we have an important responsibility to do everything we can to give children the support and love they need, to help them as they walk the path of adolescence into maturity. Obviously, the schools are an extremely important element in that development. But we know nothing replaces the home, nothing replaces a parent, nothing replaces those members of the family or friends who are loving, caring, and encouraging. Those who offer firmness in establishing guidelines and guideposts for children as they develop. So all of us are very mindful of those tragedies that are being experienced even while we meet here, of the tears that are being shed, and the struggle of many of those young children for their lives, even as we meet here today. There is a certain poignancy since we are meeting on education legislation. It is important legislation. It is worthwhile of passage. But I think all of us today are remembering Jonesboro, AR; Notus, ID; Springfield, OR; Fayetteville, TN; Edinboro, PA; West Paducah, KY; and Pearl, MS. Now we have Littleton, CO. All of those communities have been affected by violence in their community schools. Perhaps reviewing the kinds of acts of violence that take place in schools, they do not appear to be overwhelming in total numbers, as we might think of total numbers. I think all of us are enormously moved and touched by these human tragedies, because, of course, all of us believe young children have such hope and promise and opportunity to live in our communities and in our country. Children offer so much to their families and to their loved ones. To see the violence snuff out innocent lives is a factor, a force in all of our souls that rings heavily. So, all of us here in the Senate reach out to those families. Mr. President, in reading through the newspapers in my own city of Boston today, there were some rather interesting articles which I will just mention here on the floor of the Senate, and then I will take time to address the measure that is at hand. There was a conference taking place in Boston and there were excellent articles about that conference. I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take a moment and then I am prepared to yield back my time. I guess the Senator from Minnesota still wants to address the Senate. I yield myself a moment. In my absence, our chairman has indicated that we will move forward and have some hearings about violence in schools for our Committee on Education and Human Resources. I commend him for being willing to undertake that. I think that could be enormously important. I do not think at the outset we are expecting the magical solution, but I do think that we probably will get some very constructive ideas. I can remember it wasn't long ago that several Members of the Senate got together with the Attorney General and some of the parents from schools that had seen this kind of violence in the recent past. The parents had a number of ideas and recommendations and suggestions. I think doing this in the formal setting of a committee hearing so that we will have the record and have it kept and make it available to our colleagues perhaps will be one of the most important things that we undertake in our committee--and we have many important things to undertake. I thank the chairman of the committee for his willingness on that and indicate that we are all looking forward to cooperating and working very closely with the Chair in every way that we possibly can to hold meaningful hearings and perhaps to help not just the families, but to help our country come to grips with at least the role of the school in this whole process of young people's development and what we might be able to suggest that might be a constructive and useful idea. We will not have all the answers, but maybe we will have some. I think with that kind of commitment today, many of us feel at least the Senate is attempting to deal with this in an important way. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened to my friend from Missouri speak about a particular provision about guns which he offered to the legislation and which was retained in the ED-Flex conference report. I am also reminded that there was a very close referendum in his home State, only decided 53-47, on whether a felon could purchase and carry a concealed weapon--even allowing a felon to carry that weapon onto school grounds. The National Rifle Association said yes, they should be able to do that. There is a similar measure in Colorado itself, right now it is ready to be voted on by the state legislature. We will soon enough see statements from the National Rifle Association supporting this law--urging that criminals ought to be able to have concealed weapons, even though they have committed felonies, that for their own self-protection they can carry those weapons anywhere, even into a school--come on now. Come on now. We cannot solve all the problems here, but we can reduce the access and the availability in these kinds of circumstances. We ought to at least ask ourselves, How hard is the National Rifle Association going to press on these measures? How many times do we have to be reminded about the tragic consequences these measures can have? The good citizens of Missouri rejected that law. It is the first time we have had a referendum, and it was rejected by the public. I am not here to describe what the position of the Senator was on that issue, but it does seem to me that to pass a law that says someone who has committed a felony--they could have been convicted of a felony like domestic violence--is permitted to go out and buy and carry a concealed weapon is not moving us in the right direction. I hope as my good friends and colleagues have mentioned--Senator Schumer, Senator Durbin and others who will speak on this--that we will be able to at least present to the Senate some recommendations which really demand responsibility from those who have access to keep those guns safely away from children. It is interesting to me that this body has voted to effectively prevent the Centers for Disease Control from accurately calculating the number of injuries from gun violence because of the power of the National Rifle Association on the floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives. They do not want to know how much gun violence is out there. We do not let the Centers for Disease Control, using all their capabilities, even tell us how big the problem is. Today, as we sit in the Senate, the Consumer Products Safety Commission has the ability to provide safety for toy guns for children so that the ends will not break off and a child will not gag or choke. But virtually all protections available to the Consumer Products Safety Commission for real guns that can be used against the citizens have been taken away. Isn't that extraordinary? The Consumer Products Safety Commission can issue regulations on toy guns for your children but not real guns that can kill you. Why? Because of the power of the National Rifle Association. Mr. President, I hope people around the country who are sharing the grief of those families understand that there are no magic bullets to resolve these issues, but we can take some steps and we should take some steps to do something about it. I believe in requiring responsible actions by manufacturers who produce guns to have safety locks so that they will not discharge and kill children if they are dropped and cannot be fired by a child who takes the gun without parental supervision, and requiring other safety provisions so they can only be used by those who purchase the weapon. There are all kinds of technology available which add maybe a few dollars to the cost of those weapons, but can greatly improve the safety of the guns with just a little responsible action by the manufacturers, by the dealers, and by the gun owners. Hopefully, we can get their support for legislation that can at least reduce access and availability of weapons to children who are going to school. I hope we will be able to do that. I think we can give the assurance that we will have an opportunity to debate those issues in this Congress, hopefully very soon, with or without the hearings in the Judiciary Committee; preferably with, but, if necessary, without. I do not think those measures are so difficult and so complex that the Members of this body cannot grasp them. We can have some accountability in the Senate on those measures. Mr. President, on the underlying legislation, I urge my colleagues to support the ED-Flex conference report. We will have many opportunities over the course of this session to improve and expand the partnership with States and local communities to strengthen public schools across then nation. I commend Senator Frist and Senator Wyden for their leadership on the ED-Flex Partnership Act of 1999. And, I commend Chairman Jeffords, Congressman Goodling, and Congressman Clay for their leadership in making education a priority in this Congress. To date, the Federal Government has been a limited partner in supporting elementary and secondary education. However, we have made a substantial investment increasing the accessibility and affordability of college for all qualified students. For elementary and secondary education, the Federal Government provides 7 cents out of every dollar at the local level. The ED-Flex legislation is not going to provide an additional nickel or dollar to any school district. In 1994, when Senator Hatfield offered, and I supported, an amendment to provide that ED-Flex program for 6 pilot states. Then we expanded the program to 6 more states so that there are currently 12 ED-Flex pilot States. The conference report today is simply an expansion of that program. Mr. President, some may say, why don't we give complete flexibility to the local community? Communities need additional support. We know that the primary responsibility for the education of the nation's children remains within the local community, the local school boards, teachers, and parents, and with help and assistance from the States, and some help and assistance from the Federal Government. When we first passed title I--I was here when we did it--we did not provide the kind of statutory protections and accountability that we have today, many of which can be waived under ED-Flex. And what do you know? Five years later, they were using the title I programs to build swimming pools and buy shoulder pads for football players in local communities. It did not ensure that the neediest children who had the greatest needs were served and served well. So we amended the law to ensure that federal support for education was targeted on the neediest students and used on targeted purposes. There is an appropriate role for greater flexibility--with accountability--and we recognized that in the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The ED-Flex Partnership Act is a worthwhile step towards improving public schools. By giving states the authority to waive certain statutory and regulatory requirements that apply to federal education programs, we hope to support and enhance state and local education reforms that will help all children reach high standards of achievement. Families across the nation want Uncle Sam to be a partner in improving education. Parents are impatient about results. They want their communities, states, and the federal government to work together to improve public schools. In fulfilling our federal responsibility, we must continue to ensure that greater flexibility is matched with strong accountability for results, so that every parent knows their children are getting the education they deserve. The ED-Flex conference report meets that goal by including strong accountability measures. Flexibility and accountability must go hand- in-hand in order to ensure that we get better results for all students. If states are going to accept federal resources paid for by public tax dollars, we must ensure strong accountability. In the ED-Flex Conference Report, the House and the Senate maintained our commitment to serving the neediest and poorest children to help improve their academic achievement. Senator Wellstone worked hard to ensure that we retained these targeting provisions. We have retained the amendment of my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, that insisted that we ensure that parents have a strong role in the waiver process and that they are going to be a strong partner in the educational decisions that affect their children. I commend Senator Reed. The conference report also helps see that increased flexibility leads to improved student achievement. Accountability in this context means that states must evaluate how waivers actually improve student achievement. Open-ended waivers make no sense. Results are what count. The Secretary of Education has the power to terminate a state's waiver authority if student achievement is not improving. States must be able to terminate any waivers granted to a school district or participating schools if student achievement is not improving. If the waivers are not leading to satisfactory progress, it makes no sense to continue them. I also commend Senator Murray for her work to ensure that our downpayment on hiring 100,000 new teachers to reduce class sizes in the early grades I retained. We will have an opportunity in this session to come back to the broader issue about whether it is going to be a matter of national priority that we continue our commitment to reducing class size. This commitment is one of President Clinton's most important initiatives on education. The Senate-passed bill would have undermined it, and the decision by the conferees to retain it is a significant victory for the nation's schools and students. But, these accomplishments are not enough. More--much more--needs to be done to make sure that every community has the support it needs to implement what works to improve their public schools. We must do more to meet the needs of schools, families, and children, so that all children can attend good schools and meet high standards of achievement. We should do more to help communities address the real problems of rising student enrollments, overcrowded classrooms, dilapidated schools, teacher shortages, underqualified teachers, high new teacher turnover rates, and lack of after-school programs. These are real problems that deserve real solutions. We should meet our commitment to reducing class size over seven years. We should help recruit more teachers. We should improve and expand professional development of teachers. We should expand after- school programs. We should help ensure all children have access to technology in the classroom. And we should rebuild and modernize school buildings. ED-Flex is a good bipartisan start by Congress to meeting all of these challenges. My hope is that these other proposals to address critical issues will also receive the bipartisan support they deserve, so they can be in place for the beginning of the next academic year this fall. Improving education is clearly one of our highest national priorities. Investing in education is investing in a stronger America here at home and around the world, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides to address the critical education issues facing communities across the country. Finally, Mr. President, I was visiting today with the leader in the House of Representatives, Congressman Gephardt, and we talked about education. He spoke very knowledgeably about a school he visited in Harlem, NY, that has had significant success in improving academic achievement of students. He pointed out that this school had been a school with 2,000 students. Overcrowding and discipline were a problem that was impeding the academic success of its students. They decided to divide it into 10 schools of 200 students each. The point is that the head mistress at that particular school was asked--as everyone asks--What is really the secret? Of course, we all know that there is no one answer to improving education. But this one course of action was one that both Leader Gephardt and I found very persuasive. By reducing the size of the school and classrooms, every teacher in that school knew the name of every student in that school; and every student in that school knew the name of every teacher. And every teacher in every class knew the parents by name of every one of their students and had a relationship with every one of those parents. They were then able to effectively reach students and academic achievement and discipline improved. They were able to develop a spirit and a sense of family in an area where students feel many kinds of pressures. Students were given the support, love, attention, discipline, and firmness, they needed to get results. So, Mr. President, if we, as a society generally and as a people individually, offer our prayers for those families who have been affected and as a country begin to try to look at some of the issues that are presented by these tragedies in an important way, then perhaps even the extraordinary clouds that are over this, and particularly in Colorado, might part just briefly so some sunshine might come in and we may do better for our children in the future. I commend and thank all the staff members for their skillful assistance on this ED-Flex legislation: Susan Hattan, Sherry Kaiman, and Jenny Smulson of Senator Jeffords' staff; Townsend Lange and Denzel McGuire of Senator Gregg's staff; Lori Meyer and Meredith Medley of Senator Frist's staff; Suzanne Day of Senator Dodd's staff; Elyse Wasch of Senator Reed's staff; Greg Williamson of Senator Murray's staff; Bev Schroeder and Sharon Masling of Senator Harkin's staff; Lindsay Rosenberg of Senator Wyden's staff; and Connie Garner, Jane Oates, Dana Fiordaliso, and Danica Petroshius of my own staff. I also commend the skillful work of the House staff on the conference committee, including Vic Klatt, Sally Lovejoy, Christy Wolfe, and Kent Talbert of the House Committee's Republican staff; Melanie Merola of Representative Castle's staff; Mark Zuckerman, Sedric Hendricks, and Alex Nock of the House Committee's Democratic staff; Charlie Barone of Representative Miller's staff; and Page Tomlin of Representative Payne's staff. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Then it continues on with some very constructive suggestions, from Mr. Rosenthal, who is a co-founder of Stop Handgun Violence, talking about responsibility, responsibility with regard to the availability of weapons. He is talking about the responsibility of parents who own guns to make sure the guns are securely locked and kept separately from ammunition, so no weapon is left loaded and accessible to children in a house; the responsibility of both manufacturers and dealers to prevent the proliferation of guns that are sold to children directly and on the black market, and that too easily get into the hands of gangs and the criminal element. These are important responsibilities that adults must meet. They are not going to be a cure-all. They are not going to be an end-all. But they are a beginning. A beginning to provide a measurement of responsibility. We want responsibility from young people, from children, and we want responsibility from others as well who have the access and the ability to see that either weapons are available or not available to children. We have 14 children die every single day from gun violence. None of us this afternoon have come up with a silver bullet to resolve all of these kinds of problems, but we ought to be able to take some measured steps to make some difference. It is not going to be enough to just shed tears, because they are empty tears, unless we are prepared to take some actions on these measures. (Mr. HUTCHINSON assumed the Chair.)