[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 59 (Monday, May 15, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3952-S3955]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                EDUCATION LEGISLATION AND SCHOOL SAFETY

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, last Tuesday, the Senate suspended 
consideration of the education bill. I hope that our Republican friends 
have just temporarily suspended the bill, and not expelled it. We owe 
it to the nation's schools, students, parents, and communities to 
complete action on this priority legislation.
  So far, we have considered only eight amendments to the bill over six 
different days.
  When the bankruptcy bill was on the floor, our Republican colleagues 
did everything they could to satisfy the credit card companies. That 
bill was debated for 16 days, and 67 amendments were considered.
  Obviously, when the credit card companies want a bill, our Republican 
friends put everything else aside to get it done. But when it comes to 
education, the voices of parents and children and schools and 
communities go unheard.
  We should be debating education. It's a top priority for parents. 
It's a top priority for communities. It's a top priority for the 
country. And, it should be a top priority for Congress.
  It is wrong for the Senate to leave the nation's schools with so much 
uncertainty about whether and when they will get urgently needed help 
to ensure better teachers, modern schools, smaller classes, and safe 
classrooms.
  Democrats are ready to debate and address these issues now, and 
finish Senate consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. But, we have no assurance from the Republican majority that we 
will be able to do so.
  Clearly, there are strong disagreements about how to address the 
issue of education reform. But, we should all agree to make it a top 
priority for final action.
  Republicans have made block grants the centerpiece of their education 
proposal. But, block grants are the wrong approach. They undermine the 
targeting of scarce resources to the highest education priorities. They 
eliminate critical accountability provisions that ensure better results 
for all children. The block grant approach abandons the national 
commitment to help the nation's children obtain a good education 
through proven effective reforms of public schools.
  The lack of commitment by our Republican colleagues to genuine 
education reform is also clear in the recent actions by the Senate and 
House Appropriations Committee.
  Both bills eliminate critical funding for reducing class size and 
improving teacher quality. Instead, they put some of those funds into 
the title VI block grant.
  Both bills do nothing to guarantee communities help for modernizing 
their school buildings.
  Both bills eliminate critical funding for helping states to increase 
accountability for results and turn around schools that aren't getting 
results.
  At the same time that they expand support for block grants and 
eliminate support for greater accountability, Republicans are cutting 
funds to communities to improve education. Under the President's budget 
request, communities would have received a total of $4.05 billion in 
the coming fiscal year to reduce class size, modernize school 
buildings, and improve teacher quality. The Republican bill block 
grants these programs and cuts total funding by $2 billion below the 
President's request in the House and $500 million below the President's 
request in the Senate.

  Under the Republican block grant scheme, communities get less aid and 
parents get no guarantee that their children's classes will be smaller, 
that their teachers will be better qualified, or that their schools 
will be safe and modern.
  Block grants are the wrong direction for education and the wrong 
direction for the nation. They do nothing to encourage change in public 
schools.
  In the Republican ESEA bill, states are not held accountable for 
educational results until after 5 years. By that time, many students 
will have lost five years of potential gains in student achievement.
  Block grants also leave the door open for needless waste and abuse. 
They provide no focus on proven effective strategies to help schools. 
Senator DeWine, in urging increased accountability, pointed out the 
poor history of states and local school districts in spending Safe and 
Drug-Free Schools and Communities funds. He characterized those dollars 
as being ``raided'' for pet projects or to support ineffective methods.
  Under block grants, school districts and schools can use scarce 
public tax dollars to support fads and gimmicks, with no basis in 
research or proven practice. They can even use the funds to support the 
football team, buy computer games, or buy new office furniture, if they 
decide that these uses serve so-called ``educational purposes.''
  In short, block grants provide no assurance that federal education 
funds will be used where they're needed most--to improve instruction 
and teacher quality, strengthen curriculum, reduce class size, provide 
after-school learning opportunities, or support other proven strategies 
for helping all students reach high standards.
  The Republican block grant also undermines local control, because it 
concentrates educational decision-making at the state level. By 
authorizing the state to decide whether it will enter into a 
performance agreement, the Republican bill gives the state ultimate 
authority to determine the parameters of the agreement, including which 
schools and which school districts will receive funds, and how funds 
may be spent. Far from giving local districts flexibility, as the 
policies and waiver provisions under current law do, the Republican 
block grants will increase the power of governors over local education 
policy at the expense of local districts, local school officials, and 
parents.
  The American people want a strong partnership that includes the 
important involvement of parents, local school boards, local community 
authorities, States, and the Federal Government. We are not looking to 
take over education. We are saying that educating the nation's children 
is a top national priority, and Congress ought to be a strong partner 
in efforts to improve education.
  The Republican proposal says there will only be one member in the 
education partnership, and that will be the State. It won't be the 
local community or parents, because they give all of the funds to the 
States. Then the States make the judgment about how it is going to go 
down to the local level.
  Parents want a guarantee that, with scarce resources, we are going to 
have accountability for results and for getting national priorities. 
They know and we know small class sizes work. We guarantee there will 
be a well-qualified teacher in every classroom.
  We guarantee more afterschool programs, which are absolutely 
essential to help and assist children and enhance their academic 
achievement and accomplishment.
  We guarantee strong accountability provisions.
  We guarantee resources for technology in schools so we can eliminate 
the digital divide, as Senator Mikulski speaks to with great knowledge, 
awareness, and, correctness.
  But all of those efforts I have just mentioned are at risk with the 
proposal of the Republicans to just provide a blank check to the States 
and let the States work out what they might.
  The Republican block grant approach abdicates our responsibility to 
do all we can to improve the current federal efforts. All that the GOP 
approach does is hand off the many current problems to states and local 
communities to solve.
  Block grants are particularly harmful, because they abdicate our 
responsibility to help those most in need, such

[[Page S3953]]

as homeless children, migrant children, and immigrant children. States 
rarely spend their own funds to help these children now--and they won't 
do it under a block grant. These children need targeted federal 
assistance to help them succeed in school.
  Prior to the time the Federal Government provided targeted programs 
for the homeless under the McKinney Act, the Emergency Immigrant 
Education program, and the Migrant Education program, these children 
were not getting the help they needed.
  State help for these children is virtually nonexistent. The only help 
and assistance for any of these children is the assistance provided in 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But the Republican bill 
wipes out these programs.
  The parents of migrant children are among the most industrious, yet 
neglected, populations in the country. Poverty, mobility, health 
problems, isolation from the larger community are characteristics 
common to migrant families. In the 1997 to 1998 school year, an 
estimated 752,000 migrant children were counted as eligible for the 
Migrant Education Program. That would be block granted under the 
Republican blank check approach. Obviously, the States didn't worry 
about the problems of migrant children because they were here today and 
gone tomorrow. That has been the history. We are talking 752,000 
children who are going to be cast adrift.
  We had seen important progress, as I mentioned in the debate last 
week, where those working on the education of migrant children have 
worked out a process where they were able to get children's school 
records, provide some waivers that were essential to get children 
enrolled in the schools. We are having at least some positive impact in 
helping meet the needs of some of these children. With a block grant 
that goes to the States, that effort will be ended. Without the Federal 
Migrant Education Program, there are few incentives for schools to 
implement a means for improving instruction for migrant children.

  The Republican block grant bill also wipes out assistance for the 
homeless children. Nationwide, homeless children are isolated and often 
stigmatized. They face significant barriers to obtain adequate services 
of all kinds, including education. According to the December 1999 
report of the Interagency Council on the Homeless, most homeless 
children are young, 20 percent are age 2 or younger; 22 percent are age 
3 to 5; 20 percent are age 6 to 8; and 33 percent are between 9 and 17.
  According to a 1990 report from the Better Homes Fund, a nonprofit 
charity dedicated to helping homeless families, homeless children face 
extremely stressful situations. Each year, 90 percent of homeless 
children move up to three times; 40 percent attend two schools; 38 
percent attend three or more schools; 21 percent of homeless children 
nationwide repeat a grade due to homelessness, compared with only 5 
percent of other children; 14 percent of homeless children are 
suspended from school, double the rate of other children.
  This is what the National Coalition on Homeless says: The Federal 
program requirements that accompany McKinney funds focus upon State 
responsibility to ensure equal opportunity for homeless children and 
youth. They set forth the rights of homeless children to receive the 
same educational opportunities as their nonhomeless peers.
  Under the Republican proposal, States that opt for the block grant 
would no longer have to follow these programs. Without the McKinney Act 
requirements, homeless children and youth are shut out of school again, 
destroying their chance for school success. It is wrong for Congress to 
turn its back on these children.
  Finally, the block grant ignores the pressing needs of immigrant 
children. In 1997, the foreign-born population in the United States was 
25.8 million, the largest in the Nation's history. In fiscal year 2000, 
States reported that more than 864,000 recent immigrant students were 
enrolled in schools, with an increase of these students of 55,000 over 
1995. Large numbers of immigrant students traditionally have been 
enrolled in schools in seven States: Arizona, California, Illinois, 
Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. However, with the increase of 
immigrant students in other States, the percentage in these States has 
fallen from 80 percent in 1995 to 71 percent in 2000.
  This year, a number of other States reported a dramatic increase in 
the recent immigrant student enrollment: Connecticut, up 72 percent; 
Georgia, up 39 percent; Louisiana, up 34 percent; Michigan, up 35 
percent; Missouri, up 50 percent; Oregon, up 28 percent; Tennessee, up 
33 percent; Utah, up 38 percent. Immigrant students, particularly those 
with limited-English proficiency, are at significant risk of academic 
failure. Among all youth ages 16 through 24, immigrants are three times 
more likely to be drop outs than native born students.
  Our overall goal in this legislation should be to write an education 
guarantee to parents, children, and schools, a guarantee that we will 
work with them to improve their schools and ensure every student 
receives a good education. We want to guarantee a qualified teacher is 
in every classroom. We want to guarantee small class sizes. We want to 
guarantee modern and safe schools. We want to guarantee afterschool 
opportunities for children to help them succeed in school and stay off 
the street. We want to guarantee the parents have more opportunities 
for significant improvement in their public schools. We want to 
guarantee a good education for homeless children, migrant children, and 
immigrant children. We want a guarantee that States, districts, and 
schools are held accountable for results. We want to guarantee parents 
that their children are free from guns in their schools.

  Yesterday, to celebrate Mother's Day, hundreds of thousands of 
mothers from across the United States marched on the Nation's Capital 
to insist we do more to protect children from the epidemic of gun 
violence that continues to plague our country. The Million Mom March 
has focused the attention of the entire country on this critical 
challenge. The question now is whether Congress will at long last end 
the stonewalling and act responsibly on gun control.
  For many months, Democrats have continued to ask the Republican 
leadership for immediate action on pending legislation to close the 
loopholes in the Nation's gun laws, but every request so far has been 
denied. In fact, as a conferee on the juvenile violence legislation, in 
8 months in caucus, we have had 1 day of meetings. The reason is 
because, evidently, the leadership is sufficiently concerned that 
perhaps as a result of a conference between the House and the Senate we 
might pass sensible and responsible legislation that deals with gun 
show loopholes in our present laws.
  Yesterday, hundreds of thousands of mothers from across the United 
States marched on the Nation's Capital to insist that we do more to 
protect children from the epidemic of gun violence that continues to 
plague our country. The Million Mom March has focused the attention of 
the entire country on this critical challenge. The question now is 
whether Congress is willing at long last to end the stonewalling and 
act responsibly on gun control. For many months, Democrats have 
continued to ask the Republican leadership for immediate action on 
pending legislation to close the loopholes in the Nation's gun laws, 
but every request has been denied.
  Each day we fail to act, the tragic toll of gun violence climbs 
steadily higher. In the year since the killings at Columbine High 
School in Colorado, 4,560 more children have lost their lives to 
gunfire, and countless more have been injured. It is inexcusable that 
the Republican Congress continues to block every attempt to close the 
gaping loopholes that make a mockery of the Nation's current gun laws. 
The guns used to kill 9 of the 13 people murdered at Columbine High 
School were purchased at a gun show. The woman who bought the guns for 
the two young killers said she never would have purchased the weapons 
if she had to go through a background check.
  Perhaps six year old Kayla Rolland in her first grade class in Flint, 
Michigan, would be alive today, if the gun her classmate used to kill 
her had a child safety lock on it. If Congress had listened after the 
school killing in West Paducah, Kentucky in 1997--or Jonesboro, 
Arkansas in 1998--or Columbine High School in 1999--thousands

[[Page S3954]]

more children would have been alive to celebrate Mother's Day 
yesterday.
  By refusing to learn from such tragedies, we condemn ourselves to 
repeat them. How many wake-up calls will it take before Congress 
finally stops kowtowing to the National Rifle Association and starts 
doing what is right on gun control?
  The evidence is all around us that more effective steps are needed to 
protect schools and children from guns. In a survey of over 100,000 
teenagers conducted last month, 30 percent said they could get a gun in 
a few hours--and 11 percent said they could get a gun in one day. Four 
in ten of these teenagers said there are guns in their homes; more than 
half say they have access to those weapons themselves. The fact is 
there are more than a million children returning home today to homes 
where there are guns that are loaded and unlocked.
  No other major nation on earth tolerates such shameful gun violence. 
According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control in 1997, the 
rate of firearm deaths among children 0-14 years old is nearly 12 times 
higher in the United States than in 25 other industrial countries 
combined.
  In fact, I heard it said best from a person who was out marching 
yesterday on The Mall for the Million Mom March. She was asked about 
the presence of guns in our society and responded that only the United 
States and the IRA allow virtually unlimited access to guns. At least 
the IRA are preparing to turn theirs in.
  At the very least, Congress owes it to the nation's children to take 
stronger steps to protect them in their schools and homes.
  Gun laws work. Experience is clear that tough gun laws in combination 
with other preventive measures have a direct impact on reducing crime. 
In Massachusetts, we have some of the toughest gun laws in the country. 
We have a ban on carrying concealed weapons. A permit is required to do 
so. Local law enforcement has discretion to issue permits, and an 
individual must show a need in order to obtain the permit. We have a 
minimum age of 21 for the purchase of a handgun. We have increased 
penalties for felons in possession of firearms. We have an adult 
responsibility law. Adults are liable if a child obtains an improperly 
stored gun and uses it to kill or injure himself or any other person. 
We require the sale of child safety locks with all firearms. We have a 
Gun-Free Schools Law. We have a licensing law for purchases of guns. We 
have enhanced standards for the licensing of gun dealers. We have a 
waiting period for handgun purchases. It takes up to 30 days to obtain 
a permit. We have a permit requirement for secondary and private sales 
of guns. We have a ban on the sale of Saturday Night Specials. We have 
a requirement for reporting lost or stolen firearms.
  As Boston Police Commissioner Paul Evans testified last year in the 
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, ``Any 
successful approach to youth violence must be balanced and 
comprehensive. It must include major investments in prevention and 
intervention as well as enforcement. Take away any leg and the stool 
falls.''
  Commissioner Evans also stated that to be effective, efforts must be 
targeted and cooperative. Police officers must be able to work closely 
with churches, schools, and health and mental health providers. After-
school programs are essential to help keep juveniles off the streets, 
out of trouble, and away from guns and drugs.
  There are partnerships between the Boston Public Schools and local 
mental health agencies. School districts are employing mental health 
professionals. Teachers and staff focus on identifying problems in 
order to prevent violence by students. The Boston police work actively 
with parents, schools and other officials, discussing incidents in and 
out of school involving students. The Boston Public Health Commission 
promotes programs by the Boston Police Department.
  In developing an effective approach like this, Boston has become a 
model for the rest of the country. The results have been impressive. 
The success of Boston's comprehensive strategy is borne out in these 
results:

  From January 1999 through April 2000, no juvenile in Boston was 
killed with a firearm.
  In 1990, 51 Boston young people, ages 24 and under, were murdered by 
a firearm. Last year, there were 10 such murders.
  Reports from emergency rooms about firearm injuries are also down 
dramatically.
  It's no coincidence that the firearm death rate in Massachusetts is 
significantly lower than the national average. When we compare states 
with tough gun laws to those that have weak gun laws, the differences 
are significant. In 1996, across the nation, the number of firearm-
related deaths for persons 19 years old or younger was 2 deaths per 
100,000 persons.
  In states that have the weakest gun laws, the number was 
significantly higher:
  Utah had 5.1 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people--two and a 
half times higher than the national average.
  Indiana had 5.9 firearm-related deaths per 100,000--three times 
higher.
  Idaho had 6.9 firearm-related deaths per 100,000--three and a half 
times higher.
  Mississippi had 9.2 firearm-related deaths per 100,000--four and a 
half times higher.
  It is clear that strict gun laws help to reduce gun deaths. Yet, 
every time that Democrats propose steps to keep guns out of the hands 
of young people--proposals that would clearly save lives--our 
Republican friends have nothing to say but no. No to closing the gun 
show loophole. No to child safety locks. No to support for stricter 
enforcement of current gun laws. No to every other sensible step to 
reduce the shameful toll of gun deaths.
  Nothing in any of our proposals threatens in any way the activities 
of law-abiding sportsmen and women. Surely, we can agree on ways to 
make it virtually impossible for angry children to get their hands on 
guns. We can give schools the resources and expertise they need to 
protect themselves from guns, without turning classrooms into 
fortresses.
  We must deal with these festering problems. There is ample time to 
act before this session of Congress ends this fall. We could easily act 
before the end of the current school year this spring. We could act 
this week, if the will to act is there. All we have to do is summon the 
courage and the common sense to say no to the National Rifle 
Association--and yes to the Million Mom March.
  I want to take a moment or two more to talk about the issue which has 
been raised by others who say, really the answer is just Federal 
enforcement of existing gun laws.
  The National Rifle Association calls in public for more effective 
enforcement of the nation's gun laws. But it has waged a shameful and 
cynical campaigns over the years to undermine Federal enforcement 
activities by restricting the budget for the very enforcement it calls 
for.
  Between 1980 and 1987, for example, the number of ATF agents was 
slashed from 1,502 to 1,180, a reduction of over 20 percent, and the 
number of inspectors dropped from 655 to 626 even as the number of 
licensed firearms dealers soared.
  For the past 25 years, Congress has provided ATF with far fewer funds 
than necessary to support enough inspectors and agents to effectively 
enforce the nation's firearms laws. In 1973, ATF and the Drug 
Enforcement Agency had comparable numbers of agents and nearly equal 
funding--about $250 million a year. From 1973 to 2001 we see the cuts--
in the number of agents--that have been made when we had the Republican 
leadership here in the Senate and in the House.
  By 1998, however, the number of DEA agents had almost tripled, from 
1,470 to 4,261, while ATF's remained constant. 1,631 ATF agents were on 
payroll in 1998--only 9 more than in 1973. Yet there are more licensed 
firearm dealers in the United States than there are McDonalds 
franchises.
  A substantial increase in funding is needed if we're serious about 
helping ATF enforce the gun control laws. At every opportunity, the NRA 
and the Republicans say ``We don't need more gun laws. We need to 
enforce what's already on the books.'' Well, enforcement is exactly 
what Federal agents and prosecutors are doing. The facts are clear:
  Overall firearms prosecutions are up. Criticism of Federal 
prosecution statistics ignores the basic fact that both

[[Page S3955]]

Federal and State authorities prosecute gun cases, and Federal 
authorities generally focus on the worst type of offenders.
  The gun lobby says that the Federal Government should prosecute every 
case in which a person lies on the background check form, without 
exception. The fact is that ATF and DOJ do not have the resources to 
prosecute every case. Instead, their strategy is to have state law 
enforcement officials investigate and prosecute most of the gun 
violations while federal law enforcement officials pursue the more 
serious cases.
  Although the number of Federal prosecutions for lower-level 
offenders--persons serving sentences of 3 years or less--is down, the 
number of higher-level offenders--those sentenced to 5 years or more--
is up by nearly 30 percent--from 1049 to 1345.
  Do you understand that, Madam President? The number of Federal 
prosecutions for low-level offenders serving a sentence of 3 years or 
less is down. The number of higher level offenders of 5 years or more 
is up more than 30 percent. Why don't our Republican friends quote 
those statistics?
  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, from 20,681 to 25,186. 
The number of high-level offenders is up by nearly 30 percent.
  The total number of Federal and State prosecutions is up. Twenty-five 
percent more criminals were sent to prison for State and Federal 
weapons offenses in 1997 than in 1992.
  The instant background check, which the NRA initially fought, is a 
successful enforcement tool. It has stopped nearly 300,000 illegal 
purchases since 1994. It has also resulted in the arrests of hundreds 
of fugitives.
  Violent crimes committed with guns, including homicides, robberies 
and aggravated assaults, fell by an average of 27 percent between 1992 
and 1997, and the Nation's violent crime rate has dropped nearly 20 
percent since 1992.
  The results speak for themselves. The increased collaboration among 
Federal, State, and local law enforcement has resulted in a more 
efficient distribution of prosecutorial responsibilities, a steady 
increase in firearms prosecutions on a cumulative basis, and, most 
important, a sharp decline in the number of violent crimes committed 
with guns.
  Those are the facts. We will hear, as I have heard in the Judiciary 
Committee and in various debates: This is not really about more laws; 
what we need to do is prosecute.
  The Republicans have cut the agents who are responsible for the 
enforcement of the laws by 20 percent, and on the other hand, we have 
seen the total prosecutions, not only the prosecutions but the results 
of those prosecutions--people going to jail as a result of the 
combination of Federal, State, and local prosecutions--has increased 
significantly. I hope in these final weeks of debate we will not keep 
hearing those arguments that have been made.
  I mentioned Boston a few moments ago and about the stringent gun 
laws. Also, as Chief Evans has pointed out, we need effective 
prosecution; we need the laws, but we need prevention as well.
  In Boston, between 1990 and 1999, homicides dropped by 80 percent.
  In 1990, there were 152 homicides in Boston as compared to 31 in 
1999. Indeed, serious crime across the board is at its lowest level in 
30 years.
  In 1999, no juvenile in Boston was murdered by a gun and none so far 
this year.
  In 1990, 51 young Boston people, age 24 and under, were murdered by a 
firearm. Last year, there were 10; this year, thus far, 3.
  Between 1990 and 1999, there was an 80-percent drop in young people 
age 24 and under murdered by a firearm.
  There can be effective efforts, and they are making them. We ought to 
continue to eliminate, to the extent possible, the proliferation of 
weapons in the hands of children and those who should not have them. 
Every day in this country 12 children die. We need to make sure we take 
steps, including safety locks, parental responsibility, smart-gun 
technology, and the range of options to cut into that figure 
dramatically. We can do that. We cannot solve all the problems of 
violence in our society, but we can make a very important downpayment 
on it. That power is in our hands. I hope very much we will heed the 
mothers of this country who spoke out yesterday and listen to their 
message. They have spoken the truth with power. We should respond. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues in making sure we do.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________