[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 9 (Friday, February 4, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1390

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Robb). Under the previous order, the 
Senate returns to consideration of amendment No. 1390 offered by the 
Senator from North Carolina. The time under the order is 60 minutes to 
be equally divided. Who yields time?
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I think I understand the unanimous consent 
request that was made earlier. I spoke to Senator Helms about it. Now 
that the floor manager is here, I would like to ask if Senator Helms 
will accommodate my request. I had previously offered an amendment 
yesterday that was set aside. In fact, I believe it has a second degree 
on it which will be withdrawn. We could dispose of it in just a matter 
of minutes. Senator Feinstein also wishes to speak for a couple of 
minutes. She is on her way to the floor. We can do that in just a 
matter of minutes with the accommodation of Senator Helms. I would be 
most appreciative.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, if the Senator needs more time, then I will 
wait around for my amendment. He can take as much time as he needs.
  Mr. DORGAN. Senator Feinstein is on her way and will be here 
momentarily. I will speak for about 4 minutes and she will speak for 
the same amount of time and then we will vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the previous order will be 
set aside temporarily. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
until such time as the Senator from California arrives and will 
complete action on that amendment.


      Amendment No. 1369 and Amendment No. 1375 to Amendment 1369

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Helms for his 
consideration. I might say at this point there is now a second-degree 
amendment that I understand the floor manager will withdraw so we can 
consider my amendment, which I will then subsequently modify.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I withdraw the second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, amendment No. 1375 
is withdrawn. The question occurs on the underlying amendment No. 1369.
  So the amendment (No. 1375) was withdrawn.


                    Amendment No. 1369, As Modified

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that privilege. The amendment 
is modified accordingly.
  The amendment, with its modification, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

                       TITLE  --GUN-FREE SCHOOLS

     SEC.  01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Gun-Free Schools Act of 
     1994''.

     SEC.  02. GUN-FREE REQUIREMENTS IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY 
                   SCHOOLS.

       The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating title X as title IX;
       (2) by redesignating sections 8001 through 8005 as sections 
     9001 through 9005, respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after title VII the following new title:

                     ``TITLE VIII--GUN-FREE SCHOOLS

     ``SEC. 8001. GUN-FREE REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--No assistance may be provided to any 
     local educational agency under this Act unless such agency 
     has in effect a policy requiring the expulsion from school 
     for a period of not less than one year of any student who is 
     determined to have brought a weapon to a school under the 
     jurisdiction of the agency, except such policy may allow the 
     chief administering officer of the agency to modify such 
     expulsion requirement for a student on a case-by-case basis.
       ``(2) Definition.--For the purpose of this section, the 
     term ``weapon'' means a firearm as such term is defined in 
     section 921 of title 18, United States Code.
       ``(b) Report to State.--Each local educational agency 
     requesting assistance from the State educational agency that 
     is to be provided from funds made available to the State 
     under this Act shall provide to the State, in the application 
     requesting such assistance--
       ``(1) an assurance that such local educational agency has 
     in effect the policy required by subsection (a); and
       ``(2) a description of the circumstances surrounding any 
     expulsions imposed under the policy required by subsection 
     (a), including--
       ``(A) the name of the school concerned;
       ``(B) the number of students expelled from such school; and
       ``(C) the types of weapons concerned.''.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me briefly, again, describe what I 
intend to do with this amendment. We have just completed a crime bill 
in the Senate. There is no debate that there is an epidemic of violent 
crime in America. Neither is there a debate that the epidemic of 
violent crime has spread from the streets to our schools.
  The other day I held this up as an example. This is not unusual, but 
it was on the front page of the Washington Post a week ago yesterday.

       School Shootings Break Out in D.C. Gunfire erupted among a 
     group of teenagers in a hallway at a high school in Northwest 
     Washington yesterday as hundreds of students attended morning 
     classes, authorities said.

  And it goes on.

       There was gunfire outside another public school the same 
     morning. In apparent unrelated incidents several hours later, 
     gunmen fired numerous shots outside a junior high school in 
     Washington, just as students were leaving classes.

  In the same story a 17-year-old girl says of the shooting that broke 
out inside the school that she was scared for herself and her baby. A 
17-year-old with a baby who was in day care at the time, which 
describes the problem, of course, not only of the violence in schools 
but teenage pregnancy.
  I offered an amendment that says it shall be public policy across 
this country that all school boards have in place a policy that says if 
you bring a gun to school, you are going to be expelled for a year. You 
cannot learn in an institution when that institution is not safe. And 
there is no safety when there are guns in our schools.
  Simply, we ought to say, as a matter of policy, we want to separate 
guns from schools. It is just that simple.
  Some will say, ``Well, there is this problem and that problem and the 
other problem with it.'' You can talk about problems until you run out 
of breath, but there are no problems significant enough to persuade me 
that we should not, as a matter of policy, say in this country that you 
shall not bring guns to school.
  The modification I just sent to the desk does provide an opportunity 
for the head of the school board to make a just-cause exception if 
there are unusual circumstances. But by and large this says if you 
bring a gun to school, we want there to be a policy across this country 
that you are going to be expelled.
  I would like to add, with unanimous consent, Senator Feinstein as a 
cosponsor of this amendment, and I will complete my remarks.
  I appreciate very much the cooperation of the majority and minority 
managers. We would like then to hear from Senator Feinstein. With that, 
I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from California 
is added as an original cosponsor.
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein].
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  I thank Senator Dorgan for introducing this amendment. I was 
presiding when he introduced it, and as he was speaking, a number of 
visual pictures ran by me. I was thinking of one of the goals of Goals 
2000 which, in essence, states that we must make our schools safe. I 
believe that we will not have a chance of doing this without the 
passage of this amendment.
  Yesterday, Senator Dorgan quoted from a Washington Post article 
describing recent incidents of guns in schools. Today's article in the 
Washington Post was a followup. Let me just read the lead sentence. The 
lead sentence is:

       Several hundred children told D.C. Mayor Sharon Pratt 
     Kelley and her cabinet yesterday that they want schools where 
     they won't get shot.

  There is only one way we are going to have schools where a youngster 
is not going to get shot, and that is if this amendment is passed.
  To those who are concerned about local options, I would say that 
killing children is not a matter of local options. It is a national 
tragedy. Today, 1 out of every 5 children in this Nation regularly 
carries a firearm, a knife, or a club to school.
  I have heard some say you cannot pass this amendment because it is 
the good children who carry guns, and that they have to be protected.
  I think the American people are strongly in support of this 
amendment.
  Today, homicide is the third leading cause of death for elementary 
school children in this Nation. And I must tell you that in California, 
homicide is the No. 1 killer of youngsters between the ages of 15 and 
19.
  What kind of a country do we live in where students have to live in 
fear of being shot, robbed, attacked, and murdered in their own school, 
and where two-thirds of our students today know where they can go to 
get a gun if they need one.
  When I went to school and two fellows had an argument, they went into 
the schoolyard and punched each other. Now what happens is one goes 
home, gets a gun, comes back and shoots the other, and we must put an 
end to it.
  I believe very firmly if we cannot have safe schools, we might as 
well forget schools because you cannot learn in an environment where 
you are afraid that if you walk down the hallway, you are going to get 
shot.
  Interestingly enough, Los Angeles has just put in this amendment. And 
let me give you some of the figures. Six hundred and twenty-five 
Californians between the ages of 15 and 19 were homicide victims in 
1992. In all, 818 youngsters under the age of 20 were murdered. Marian 
Wright Edelman, President of the Children's Defense Fund, who happens 
to be one of my role models, said recently:

       The crisis of children having children has been eclipsed by 
     the greater crisis of children killing children.

  I think that is well said. By this amendment, any district which 
accepts these funds has an obligation to put in place the Dorgan 
amendment. That obligation must take place, and that means across this 
land we are saying to public schools, ``the Congress of the United 
States will not provide funding if you allow youngsters to bring guns 
into school.''
  I think it is a major first step. I really believe that Goals 2000 
will never be accomplished if you have schools riddled with fear. How 
can we expect students to learn when they fear walking from class to 
class, requiring school officials and police in Los Angeles to create 
safe passage corridors? Guards set up from class to class. You cannot 
go out of the way for fear, so you have to go down a straight trail to 
the next class. This is the direction we are headed for unless we take 
some broad action.
  I commend the Senator for his action. I am very proud to join with 
him. Regrettably, this is an amendment whose time has come.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Robb from Virginia, as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the statement by the Senator from 
California, [Mrs. Feinstein] is a wonderful statement. She, of course, 
in the crime bill was an instrumental force on a number of very 
important amendments. I appreciate very much her support.
  I must say that during this past break I visited some inner city 
schools just blocks from this building where we now stand. When you go 
through the front door of the schools, you find, not a bookcase, not a 
row of trophies, you find a metal detector--a metal detector. It is a 
disgrace to believe we must have a metal detector to run students 
through as they enter a place of learning but I guess it is necessary 
in today's environment.
  I want this amendment to serve notice all across this country that 
guns have no place in our schools. Schools are places of learning, and 
children cannot learn in schools unless they feel safe. That is why I 
offer this amendment.
  I once again say I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from North 
Carolina, and I certainly appreciate the willingness of the majority 
and the minority floor leaders in accepting this amendment. I hope we 
will vote on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on amendment No. 1369, 
as modified?
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. First of all, I appreciate the Senator from North 
Dakota and also the Senator from California offering this amendment. I 
certainly agree with them on the intent of it.
  We did have problems with the original draft of the amendment, and 
have amended it to leave some flexibility. There are circumstances that 
do occur in the schools--which should not necessarily result in a 
dismissal, which either required or resulted in the bringing of a 
weapon to school.
  I just think of my own State, where, during deer hunting season, many 
of the young people who go hunting after school are allowed to bring 
their weapons in and have them put aside so that after school they can 
go hunting. There is no intent to have anything done with them if there 
are other problems. So I think the amendment in its current form now 
gives acceptable flexibility.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate, as does the Senator from 
Vermont, the change which has been included in the amendment and will 
certainly support the amendment.
  I happen to be someone who would ban the manufacture, production, and 
distribution of the small, concealable weapon in our society. I think 
we can probably get 12, 15 votes for that. I do not know how the 
Senator from North Dakota or the Senator from California would vote on 
that particular proposal. So I am very interested in supporting those 
efforts to see the resolution of disputes--not even disputes, but of 
some potential conflicts resolved other than with firearms.
  As the Senator from Vermont has made clear, I do think this small 
degree of discretion in those special circumstances can very well make 
a difference between an individual who will be able to continue in a 
constructive and productive life and someone who, as a result of 
expulsion, may end up in a different course. So I thank the Senator for 
making those adjustments and hope the Senate will respond favorably to 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). Is there further debate on 
amendment 1369? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1369), as modified, was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 1390

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to amendment 
No. 1390.
  Who yields time on this amendment?
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I yield myself such time as I may require.
  Mr. President, I ask that the clerk read the amendment so it will be 
clear what is before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       At the appropriate place add the following:

     SECTION  .  PROHIBITION.

       (a) In general.--None of the funds made available under 
     this Act, or any other Federal law, shall be used by the 
     Department of Education or the Department of Health and Human 
     Services to support or promote, directly or indirectly, the 
     distribution or provision of condoms or other contraceptive 
     devices or drugs or to provide prescriptions for such 
     contraceptive devices or drugs, to an unemancipated minor 
     without the prior written consent of such minor's parent or 
     guardian.
       (b) Definition.--For the purpose of this section the term 
     ``unemancipated minor'' means an unmarried individual who is 
     17 years of age or younger and is a dependent as defined in 
     section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the pending amendment is obviously intended 
to put an end to the distribution of condoms to children in the public 
schools without the consent of the children's parents.
  The amendment has the support of almost 75 percent of the American 
people as polled by USA Weekend, a publication of the USA Today 
newspaper, in its January 7 edition.
  However, before I begin to discuss the amendment itself, let me 
explain why it is my intention as of now to never again furnish Senator 
Kennedy with an advance copy of any amendment that I offer in the 
Senate.
  In good faith yesterday I gave him a copy of yesterday's amendment 
which had to do with a very important subject to me. And in good faith 
today at his insistence, I again furnished a copy of the pending 
amendment. Now I find that Senator Kennedy's staff went immediately to 
the Department of Health and Human Services, headed by Secretary 
Shalala who is known around this town as ``Madam Condom,'' and HHS 
began to solicit letters opposing my amendment from every possible 
advocacy group in town. That is not fair play.
  And yesterday, in connection with the previous amendment, unbeknownst 
to me, the Senator's staff duplicated copies of the amendment before it 
was called up and distributed them to the people from the liberal 
special interest groups out in the waiting room so they could lobby 
Senators against the amendment.
  So I serve notice that I have furnished Senator Kennedy an advance 
copy of my amendment for the last time. I do not think this is fair 
play, and I regret to have to resort to such action, but it apparently 
is necessary. If we are not going to shoot straight with each other, 
then there is no way that we can do business.
  Mr. President, yesterday during the debate on the school prayer 
amendment, I referred to President Clinton's State of the Union speech 
and I quoted a very eloquent portion of that speech in which he said:

       And so I say to you tonight let's give our children a 
     future. Let us take away their guns and give them books. Let 
     us overcome their despair and replace it with hope. Let us, 
     by our example, teach them to obey the law, respect our 
     neighbors, and cherish our values.

  That statement by the President was splendid rhetoric. It reminded me 
of the splendid rhetoric of Ronald Reagan. President Reagan himself 
indicated last night at a dinner in his honor that he saw a great 
similarity between the style that was his during his 8 years in the 
White House and the style of those who write speeches for President 
Clinton. As a matter of fact, he said imitation is the sincerest form 
of flattery, but this is not flattery. It is grand larceny.
  In any case, I praise the President's rhetoric and I applaud what he 
said. But I find it difficult to find any place where he and his 
administration are following his own declarations. The American people 
are being told one thing in word while the administration does the 
exact opposite in deed. So Americans are being sent the wrong message 
by the actions of the administration.
  America's children are also being sent the wrong message as well. How 
can we expect schoolchildren to obey the law, respect our neighbors, 
and cherish our values if the Government says that Bibles and prayer do 
not belong in their classrooms but that condoms do? Hopefully we 
corrected the school prayer aspect of the problem with yesterday's 
amendment if and when it becomes law. Now, with this amendment, I am 
trying to correct the other part of the problem; that is, the handing 
out of condoms to children at the taxpayers' expense without the 
consent and knowledge of the children's parents.
  What is going on here, Mr. President? What is all this business about 
values? Pure rhetoric. ``Madam Condom,'' Donna Shalala, who heads the 
Department of Health and Human Services, and the ``Condom Queen,'' 
Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders--who I am told had a Christmas tree 
made of condoms on her desk--want to use Federal funds to dispense 
condoms in the schools all over the country.
  Mr. President, where and why did this city, the Nations' Capital, 
start to carry its values in the crotch? I am sick and tired of all of 
this business of saying hand out condoms to children and maybe they 
will be better children because they are incapable of being sexually 
responsible.
  Well, come on, Mr. President. The Government will not let them pray 
in school, but you can hand out condoms to them at school. What kind of 
message does such a state of affairs send them?
  I repeat, how can we expect school-children, as President Clinton 
eloquently suggested in his State of the Union Address, ``to obey the 
law, respect our neighbors, and cherish our values'' if the U.S. 
Government says that Bibles and prayers are not politically correct, 
bans them from the schools, but unloads truck loads of condoms through 
the school's back door and hands them out to the children--without 
telling their parents?
  I doubt if I need to say very much more, Mr. President. If the 
American people could vote on this proposition, I believe that more 
than 75 percent of them would approve it--regardless of how many 
letters the Department of Health and Human Services is able to generate 
around town from the so-called health experts to oppose  it. I am sure 
the fax machines have already ground out those letters and Senator 
Kennedy will probably insert them in the Record by the hundreds before 
next Tuesday's vote.

  But the American people will not be fooled and will not agree.
  As I said, the Senate took care of the Bible and school prayer end of 
the values problem yesterday. With this amendment, Senators have an 
opportunity to take care of another part of it if they will step up and 
vote in favor of this amendment.
  In fact, some of us are going to make sure the American people get to 
see how Senators voted on last night's amendment and how they vote on 
this amendment when it is voted on--presumably on Tuesday.
  We always say around this place, Mr. President, when Members are at 
the desk with an amendment, that the amendment is simple. I have never 
heard a Member get up and say ``My amendment is complicated and 
confusing.'' It is always that it is ``simple.'' But I had the clerk 
read this amendment again, because it is short and because I wanted it 
to be a matter of public record precisely what the amendment says in 
case those opposed to it get up and try to misconstrue it as saying 
something it does not.
  What the amendment says is: Stop it. Do not use another Federal 
dollar to hand out another condom to a child in school without the 
consent of his or her parent. Of course, the amendment states it in the 
wordy legalese we are required to use. But I am saying stop it.
  Specifically, the pending amendment forbids the use of any Federal 
money, taxpayers' money, provided under this act or any other act, to 
distribute condoms or drugs in the schools, or in health clinics 
without the prior written consent of the child's parent. I hope it may 
be agreed that the amendment is fairly forthright even if Senators 
disagree with it.
  To me, it is about the only way that the Senate can stop the social 
engineers--who are so busy around town these days and always cluster 
outside the doors here when something like this comes up in the Senate. 
You can see the same gaggle of people, liberals all, saying: Do not 
vote for the Helms amendment. They said it yesterday, and 75 Senators 
did not pay any attention to it but voted with the American people.
  Mr. President, this is the only way that we can put an end to this 
practice. We have to say officially, legislatively, statutorily: Stop 
it, do not hand out any more condoms to children in the schools, unless 
and until you have the written consent of the parents.
  I have already mentioned the USA Today Weekend edition's nationwide 
poll in which 75 percent of the people said ``I do not want this to 
happen.'' As I mentioned last night, at least 75 percent of the people 
also say they are in favor of the restoration of constitutionally 
protected student-initiated prayer, voluntary prayer, in the public 
schools. Oddly enough, 75 out of 100 Senators also voted for the 
amendment last night that would restore school prayer.
  Mr. President, the question asked in the USA Weekend poll was 
actually a bit broader than my amendment because it asked about handing 
out condoms with or without parental consent. The amendment, I 
reiterate, only prohibits condom distribution without parental consent. 
So, it is possible that more than 75 percent of the people would be 
opposed to handing out condoms without parental consent.
  I ask unanimous consent that the USA Today Weekend poll dated January 
7, 1994, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, what the American people instinctively 
understand--and what the social engineers masquerading as health 
officials conveniently ignore--is that by handing out these condoms, 
the Government and the public schools are saying: It is OK, go ahead 
and use these. Your mama and daddy do not know about it.
  They are saying: It does not matter what your parents say or what 
your parents may think, or how your parents are trying to raise you, or 
what moral values they are trying to teach you. We, the Government and 
the school authorities are giving the condoms to you and saying their 
OK, go ahead and use them. Just be as safe as possible.
  That is the message the kids get. Nothing about moral values, or 
right and wrong. That is the reason I quoted the President of the 
United States at the outset. He talked about values. I will tell you, 
he better call in his Cabinet and say, look here, the policies you are 
pushing are not implementing values, change them.
  And that was precisely what Mother Teresa was saying yesterday at the 
National Prayer Breakfast. I was so pleased that Mother Teresa, 
yesterday, spoke so eloquently with the President and Mrs. Clinton 
sitting there within 6 feet of her.
  This courageous lady also talked about another value: The deliberate 
destruction of the most innocent human life imaginable through 
abortion. I put her speech in the Record yesterday, and I commend it to 
the attention of all the people who get up and say, ``I am pro-choice 
on abortion.'' But, I ask: Choice to do what? To kill a baby. That is 
what Mother Teresa said yesterday, it is what I say today about 
abortion. I mention it because that is another value--the sanctity of 
each and every innocent human life--that is being trampled underfoot in 
this city and around this country.
  Mr. President, the problem with handing condoms out to school kids 
and telling them that it is safe sex is that teenage sexual  activity--
with or without condoms--is not safe morally, physically, or any other 
way. It contradicts everything for which our Nation's founders intended 
this country to stand.

  The American people instinctively know this. That is the reason they 
swamped the telephone system in the Senate yesterday when I put the 
telephone number of the United States Senate up on the easel. I told 
people who were watching on C-Span, ``If you agree or disagree with 
this amendment, which seeks to restore voluntary prayer to the schools, 
call your Senator, and here is his or her number.'' The calls flooded 
in--and I thank you Mr. and Mrs. America for calling. I hope you will 
do it on this amendment, too, whether you agree with me or disagree 
with me.
  I do not want this issue to be determined by a bunch of FAX machines 
between the Department of Health and Human Services and the people they 
call up and say: Get in a protest, an objection to the Helms amendment.
  The American people know instinctively Mr. President, that their 
Government is overstepping its bounds when it uses issues, such as the 
AIDS issue, as a smokescreen for indiscriminately handing out condoms 
in the schools, thereby undermining the morals of our children. The 
Government authorities ought to be talking about proper values, moral 
values. But that is politically incorrect in Washington, you see.
  Mr. President, I very much enjoy William Raspberry's columns, and I 
remember it was some time back he wrote a column about this very issue, 
published in the Washington Post, and I could not believe my eyes when 
the Post printed it. As I recall it had the title ``Commotion Over 
Condoms'' and in the subheading William Raspberry said, ``You cannot 
set teenagers on the right path by undercutting the authority of their 
parents.''
  Amen, William Raspberry. You are exactly right. And that is what this 
amendment says.
  I am going to find that column by William Raspberry, and I ask 
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of 
my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I rarely find myself in agreement with the 
rulings of the New York State Court of Appeals. They are on one side of 
the political spectrum, and I am on the other. But a panel of this 
court, the New York State Court of Appeals, sitting in Brooklyn, hit 
the nail on its head when it agreed with a group of concerned parents 
who argued that the distribution of condoms in the New York City 
schools, without parental consent, violated the parents' Federal 
constitutional rights and it violated their rights under New York's 
State Constitution.
  Specifically, the court said that since parents by law must send 
their children to school, the condom program trampled all over their 
protections of due process by stripping the parents of their rights to 
regulate the behavior of their minor children to the best of their 
ability.
  But you know, this court ruling did not even slow down the social 
engineers who know so much better than the rest of us. They believe 
that our children are better off with condoms in their pockets than 
with morals in their behavior. This ``safe sex'' condom lie is creating 
controversy in schools all across the country, including North 
Carolina, I might add.
  In Chapel Hill, the school board voted to make Chapel Hill High 
School the first school in our State to distribute condoms to students.
  Every student, under this decision by the Chapel Hill school board, 
will have a right to obtain condoms, and parents will not even be 
informed, much less asked. Only a parent who takes the initiative and 
files a written objection with the school officials will be able to 
stop the school from giving his or her child condoms.
  But even this level of parental control was just too much for the 
know-it-all social engineers in Chapel Hill. A woman named Susan Spalt, 
the so-called health coordinator for the Chapel Hill schools, quickly 
dreamed up a way to get around any such objections by parents.
  I saw in the Durham, NC, Morning Herald, just 2 days after the 
parental objection exception was announced by the school board, that 
Ms. Spalt had declared that the high school nurse would then open a new 
health clinic one day a week at the county health department building 
so that the children of parents who object to their children receiving 
condoms at the school will be able to drop by and pick up the condoms 
that they need without their parents knowing about it.
  Ms. Spalt told the Durham paper that this subterfuge perpetrated 
against the parents was possible because, and let me quote her: 
``Federal law does not require county health clinics to get parental 
permission before they give out condoms.''
  Well, Mr. President, the pending amendment would prohibit the Federal 
Government from subsidizing such immoral assaults on parental rights 
either in American classrooms or in local health clinics inasmuch as 
the amendment prohibits any Federal funds provided under this act or 
any other act from being used to provide condoms or any other 
contraceptive device or drug to children in the schools or in health 
clinics without the prior written consent of a child's parent.
  I do not know how Senators are going to vote on this issue. That is 
up to the Senators to decide, and like I said yesterday I am not going 
home and cry if the amendment is defeated. I have won some, and I have 
lost some in this Senate. All I can do is do the  best I can to do what 
is right, and I believe it is right to say that parents have rights and 
that those rights ought not to be violated.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that articles from the January 
25, 1994, edition of the Raleigh News and Observer and the January 27 
edition of the Durham Morning Herald be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 3.)
  Mr. HELMS. Very well. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes time remaining.
  Mr. HELMS. I shall finish in that length of time.
  Mr. President, I imagine that we are going to hear on the Senate 
floor how those who are most vocal about prohibiting the schools from 
even mentioning religious principles or allowing voluntary prayer are 
often those who are most vocal in insisting that condoms be made 
available in these same schools.
  I look forward to hearing these Senators try to explain how we send 
the right signal to our Nation's youth when we prohibit prayer or the 
distribution of Bibles in the schools but encourage the distribution of 
condoms in the schools.
  I also hope these Senators will explain why the information school 
children are given with the condoms, and by the way, on the recently 
aired and HHS-sponsored condom commercials paid for by the taxpayers, 
never mentions the high failure rates for condoms in preventing both 
AIDS and pregnancies--never, not a syllable of explanation about that. 
Condoms are a long way from foolproof.
  And when our Nation's moral foundation is crumbling, is it not right 
to say, look, we are on the wrong track? Let us talk to the young 
people about moral principles, respect for themselves and respect for 
others. Can we not treat them as people instead of uncontrollable 
animals? But the politically correct crowd says, oh, that is not going 
to work. Well, it is not working because it has not been tried, it has 
not even been permitted.
  I want to quote Bill Clinton, the President of the United States, one 
more time from his State of the Union address. He said:

       We cannot renew our country until we realize that 
     Governments do not raise children, parents do, parents who 
     know their children's teachers, and turn off the television 
     and help with the homework, and teach their kids right from 
     wrong.

  ``Those kinds of parents,'' said President Clinton, ``can make all of 
the difference. I know,'' he said, ``I had one.''
  And that, Mr. President, is what this amendment is all about, the 
right of parents to raise their children in a manner they approve of. 
Do they or do they not still have that right in America? That is what 
this amendment is all about. That is the question that will be answered 
on Tuesday when Senators vote on this amendment.

                               Exhibit 1

                     Condoms at School? 75% Say No

       Public schools should not make condoms available to 
     students, say most of the USA WEEKEND readers who responded 
     to a Nov. 26-28 call-in. The call-in vote accompanied a story 
     in our Nov. 26-28 issue about a Connecticut school system 
     that makes condoms available to kids as young as 10 through a 
     sex education program. We asked readers to call a 900 
     telephone line or vote by mail, and we received 9,336 
     unduplicated calls and 405 postcards. What some readers said:
       Under the health administration of Joycelyn Elders in 
     Arkansas [she is now U.S. surgeon general], the teenage 
     pregnancy rate went up! Why are we considering any of her 
     ideas?
                                                      Fred Becker,
                                                    Algonquin, IL.
       How about also handing over the right to vote, the keys to 
     the family car and a gun permit? The answer is family 
     counseling, not condoms!
                                                 Patricia Diperno,
                                              Dutchess County, NY.
       Opponents of condom programs are trying to make this a 
     moral issue. It isn't. It's a life-or-death issue. I've never 
     seen anyone, no matter how good, teach a dead kid anything.
                                                   Bettina Bowers,
                                                      Madison, TN.
       Every major religion and culture that ever existed has 
     taught children not to engage in premarital sex. There are 
     good reasons for being chaste, and nature is now providing a 
     deterrent to flouting moral values.
                                                    Robert Herron,
                                                    Cleveland, TN.

                               Exhibit 2

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 12, 1992]

 Commotion Over Condoms--You Can't Set Teenagers on the Right Path by 
              Undercutting the Authority of Their Parents

                         (By William Raspberry)

       It is the thesis of Paul King, a family psychiatrist in 
     Jackson, Tenn., that weak parents make for troubled 
     teenagers. His conclusion comes out of years of specializing 
     in adolescent addictions.
       But what prompted my call to him the other day had nothing 
     to do with substance abuse. It was the flap over condom 
     distribution in D.C. schools.
       The superintendent, Franklin L. Smith, had endorsed the 
     distribution program as a necessary measure against the 
     spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. But 
     he had told parents that if they wrote to him saying they 
     didn't want their children to be given the condoms, the 
     parents' wishes would be honored.
       They won't be. The city's public health commissioner, 
     Mohammed Akhter, who supervises the school nurses, says he 
     has instructed the nurses to disregard parental notes and 
     distribute the condoms to any child who asks for them.
       It was not Akhter's logic that led me to place the call to 
     Tennessee. It was his insufferable arrogance. Actually, his 
     conclusion, given certain assumptions (among them that public 
     schools are the proper place to protect children from the 
     consequences of their premature sexual activity), is not 
     unreasonable.
       ``Dr. Smith has the responsibility for the administration 
     of the school system, and the principals and teachers are 
     responsible for the education of the children,'' he said. 
     ``But we are the ones responsible for the health care needs 
     of the children. These are my clinics. When a child crosses 
     the door and enters into the nurse's suite, any communication 
     that takes place between the child and the nurse is 
     confidential. There is no way we are going to inform anyone 
     about that communication.''
       And what does any of this have to do with King? It reminded 
     me of something he had said regarding teenage delinquency: 
     ``The healthy development of a young person from adolescence 
     to maturity can depend on how powerful the mother is in the 
     eyes of the teenager. What appears to be lacking in troubled 
     teens is the sense that mother is someone important. In fact, 
     chemically dependent youngsters often describe their mothers 
     as `doormats.'''
       Now I don't suppose for a moment that Akhter's edict is 
     going to spawn a generation of chemically dependent young 
     people. But it does seem to me that it almost deliberately 
     weakens parents in their children's eyes.
       For some parents, it won't matter. They have long since 
     established their strength and their authority with their 
     children. But for many parents of D.C. youngsters, it could 
     turn out to be the insult that broke their backs.
       ``The power of parenting,'' says King, ``has been stripped 
     away by four forces acting against motherhood: the presence 
     of a domineering male in a woman's life--not necessarily her 
     husband; her own unwillingness to use authority even when she 
     has it (perhaps for fear of seeming too strict or old-
     fashioned) and the erroneous notion that self-esteem for a 
     woman rests in her paying job outside the home.
       ``The fourth? The sense that outside forces are taking over 
     her role, making the decisions that she ought to be making 
     because she is too uninformed to make them herself.''
       And that's my major problem with Akhter. He might have 
     taken advantage of any number of opportunities (including the 
     media's interest in the condom controversy) to teach parents 
     about the spread of AIDS and the nature of the risk to 
     sexually active teenagers. He might have talked to them about 
     the denial and fear that make some children prefer to trust 
     to luck rather than inform their parents that they are 
     sexually active, or considering it. He might have talked 
     seriously and respectfully about the legality (and medical 
     importance) of privacy. He might have found ways to help 
     parents improve communication with their adolescents. He 
     might, in short, have found a way to turn parents into public 
     health allies.
       Instead, he succumbed to his doctor-knows-best arrogance 
     and almost certainly made enemies of some parents who hadn't 
     known his name.
       And, critically important for King's thesis, he may have 
     weakened them in the eyes of their children.
       ``Every child looks for a higher power,'' he told me. 
     ``It's what gives them a sense of how they fit in, of 
     belonging. But here's the thing. That higher power may be 
     positive and lead them in the right direction (a coach, 
     teacher, youth minister or scout leader) or it may be 
     negative and lead them in the wrong direction (drug dealers, 
     older boys, daring criminals).
       ``Children who are supported by the key pro-social 
     institutions--home, school and church--can resist the 
     negative higher power. Children who have only two of these 
     legs working for them, and those who have one or none, are 
     headed for disaster.''
       The point for the city's health commissioner is that his 
     well-intentioned arrogance could in fact save some children 
     from AIDS, other venereal diseases or pregnancy. But it could 
     also leave some of our young people without a leg to stand 
     on.

                               Exhibit 3

  Plan To Distribute Condoms at School Gets Board's OK--The Unanimous 
 Decision Will Allow Free Distribution of Condoms at Chapel Hill High 
                 School, Perhaps as Early as Next Month

                          (By Susan Kauffman)

       Chapel Hill.--After more than a year of discussion and 
     protest, the school board voted unanimously Monday to make 
     Chapel Hill High the first school in the state where students 
     will get free condoms.
       Nurses and guidance counselors could start handing them out 
     as soon as the end of February.
       Though Chapel Hill-Carrboro board members were clearly on 
     the defensive, the vote came quietly before an audience of 
     only about 50 people.
       Before the school board meeting at Lincoln Center, five 
     critics of the plan acknowledged that the vote was a foregone 
     conclusion. They vowed to continue their opposition and 
     likened the program to giving asbestos gloves to a child who 
     plays with fire.
       ``It can send a message that young people are expected to 
     be sexually active,'' said Eugene Cole, vice president of 
     Putting Children First, a group of parents who also oppose 
     sexual orientation in the school district's multi-cultural 
     curriculum.
       Members of the group asked the board for more parental 
     participation in decisions about moral issues.
       Victoria Peterson said she contacted the Rev. Donald 
     Wildmon's American Family Association Law Center in Tupelo, 
     Miss., and got a promise of legal aid in case a student who 
     is given a condom contracts a sexually transmitted disease or 
     gets pregnant.
       But John McCormick, the school board attorney, had already 
     told board members that the plan is sound legally.
       After listening to six parents who said they oppose the 
     plan on moral grounds, board members defended their votes. 
     ``I'm hoping some life will be saved,'' said Mark Royster.
       Two board members reiterated that the idea for condom 
     distribution came from a committee of health experts, 
     including professors at the University of North Carolina at 
     Chapel Hill.
       ``Certainly we owe it to our students to do what the 
     experts recommend,'' said Judith Ortiz. ``I think we should 
     follow it and see what happens. It can always be changed.''
       The plan, as it stands, gives parents a month to respond to 
     a letter asking if they do not want their child to receive 
     condoms.
       Susan Spalt, the system's health coordinator, said that if 
     parents don't return the ``opt out'' form, a student who 
     wants a condom must sign up for a counseling session with a 
     counselor or a nurse. Condoms then would be given only after 
     the adult discusses the benefits of abstinence and talks at 
     length with the student about sex, birth control and 
     relationships.
       ``My hope is that we never have to give out a condom,'' 
     said board member Ruth Royster, director of the Orange 
     Literacy Council who helped write the letter to make it as 
     easy as possible to read. ``I hope parents and school staff 
     are going to be able to persuade students that abstinence is 
     the best and safest way to go.''
       Even if they don't choose abstinence, some students may 
     find it easier and less embarrassing to get a condom from a 
     drug store, said board Chairman Ken Touw.
       ``They are not going to be out for the taking,'' Touw said.

              [From the Durham Herald Sun, Jan. 27, 1994]

                 Clinic Will Give Condoms to Teen-agers

                            (By Karen Lange)

       Carrboro--A new teen health clinic opening in Carrboro 
     means students whose parents opt out of a condom distribution 
     program at Chapel Hill High can still get a condom from a 
     school nurse.
       The free clinic, to start within the next month at the 
     Orange County Health Department's office in Carr Mill Mall, 
     will be open 12:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. one day per week, and 
     staffed by the high school nurse.
       A condom distribution policy approved this week by the 
     Chapel Hill-Carrboro school board bars students whose parents 
     return an opt-out form from receiving condoms from the nurse 
     or guidance counselors.
       But federal law does not require county health clinics to 
     get parental permission before they give out condoms, said 
     Susan Spalt, health coordinator for the city schools.
       In fact, it requires the opposite. While teens must get 
     parental consent before they receive treatment for 
     nonemergency physical problems, the law bars public clinics 
     from withholding services related to family planning, 
     substance abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS and 
     emotional problems, Spalt said.
       Because of this, Edwina Zagami, the high school nurse, 
     could find herself in the strange position of refusing 
     condoms to a student at the school, then handing out condoms 
     to that same student at the clinic.

       Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on 
     the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the earlier remarks of my colleague 
from North Carolina, there was some question about the propriety of 
informing a Member, in this case the floor managers, Republican and 
Democrat, about the text of a particular amendment.
  Generally speaking, as I have seen over the time that I have been in 
the U.S. Senate, amendments are basically filed on legislation, and the 
floor managers are notified about the matters to be discussed in those 
amendments so that the membership will know the subject being discussed 
and will be able to make what judgment they want to make.
  In these circumstances, the Senator from North Carolina insisted on a 
precise time limit, and he designated a requirement that there be no 
second-degree amendments, which the Senate rules for some 200 years 
have permitted. But not with regard to the amendment of the Senator 
from North Carolina. ``No, you cannot have a second-degree amendment. I 
will not permit you, if we are ever going to see a conclusion of this 
legislation, to have a second-degree amendment. And, beyond that, we 
are not going to permit you to be able to table my amendment.'' That is 
permitted under the rules that this institution has been governed by 
for some 200 years. But that is not acceptable to the Senator from 
North Carolina.
  So he can make it available at any time. And he has indicated what 
procedure he was going to follow in the future, and that is certainly 
understandable if he wants to do that. Obviously, these other kinds of 
possibilities, in terms of a second-degree amendment or a tabling 
motion, have been available to Senators in this body for 200 years.
  If the Senator wants to go by those rules, I am glad to go by those 
rules. If he wants to go by another rule which virtually sets a time, 
requires that his amendment will be the first one that is considered, 
that there will be no tabling motion, as well, that is a rather unique 
and special kind of undertaking.
  The history of the Senate will reflect whether the Senator from 
Vermont and I were somehow imposing upon the Senator in some unfair 
way. I do not believe so, and I do not believe that the record would 
reflect that.
  Mr. President, I think it is important to understand really what the 
Senator's amendment does and also put that against what the current law 
is.
  The Helms amendment is exceedingly broad. Although it concerns 
services provided to minors and although it is offered on an education 
bill, it applies to every setting in which reproductive health services 
are offered, every setting possible. This is not about school-based 
clinics. It is not about the procedure to be followed should we have 
school-based clinics. This covers every single kind of setting where 
reproductive information is made available. And it also applies in 
every instance in which the use of contraceptives is even indirectly 
promoted. So it not only affects direct distribution, it also includes 
the words ``indirectly promotes.''
  So this amendment does not just pose the question of whether students 
should receive condoms in school. Instead, it poses a question of 
whether we want teenagers to learn about contraception.
  The Helms amendment would prohibit the use of any Federal funds to 
indirectly promote the distribution of contraceptives to minors without 
parental consent. Among the activities it would prohibit are the 
following: Health classes in school which teach children about the 
biology of reproduction; giving young people brochures or books which 
teach them about the dangers of unprotected sex; providing reproductive 
health services to young people in community health clinics for title X 
clinics, migrant health clinics, or community clinics receiving any 
Federal funding. Each of these activities would be prohibited unless 
there is prior written consent obtained from a parent or guardian.
  In the past, we have debated whether a young woman should be able to 
obtain abortions without parental consent. We have all recognized the 
complexities of that issue, especially in the case of abusive or 
neglectful parents.
  But the Helms amendment goes far beyond the previous debates. Now the 
question is whether young men and women should be able to get 
information about contraception without parental assent.
  The Helms amendment would take this country back to the dark ages 
when young people learned about the biology of reproduction on street 
corners or by reading dirty books. The public health problems of AIDS 
and teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases are too 
serious for us to take that step backward. The cost to society of 
sexually transmitted diseases and illegitimacy are too great for us to 
bury our heads in the sand.
  Mr. President, the current law, as reflected in title X and which 
will be effectively the substance of the amendment which I and Senator 
Jeffords will submit will be: To the extent practical, entities which 
receive Federal grants or contracts for the distribution of 
contraceptives to minor shall develop procedures to encourage family 
participation in such projects.
  There is no question, Mr. President, that in loving, stable homes 
parental notification and consent will generally happen without 
interference from the Government. There is not a person in this room 
that is not for that. No one in this Chamber is opposed to that 
concept.
  The problem, however, is for many minors who grow up in dysfunctional 
families, there are problems with communication and trust that will 
prevent teenagers from voluntarily confiding in a parent about 
sensitive matters involving sex. In some situations, the minor is 
threatened with abuse from a parent who may have an alcohol or drug-
related problem.
  What are we expecting with that individual, that teenage girl, who 
has an abusive parent and whose parent is an alcoholic or substance 
abuser and who is terrified of that individual? That person may be 
abused physically. What about the problem of incest? Are we saying that 
young child must go out and get a written consent? That is the real 
world in many of the urban areas of this country, and rural communities 
as well. Are we going to say that, under those circumstances, that 
individual is going to be denied any opportunity for information for 
intelligent decisions for protection because of this amendment? That is 
what the acceptance of this amendment would do.
  The skyrocketing teenage pregnancy rate is a very serious problem. 
Every effort must be made to ensure that minors receive the services 
they need to enable them to plan for a family in a mature way. Teenage 
pregnancies have reached epidemic proportions. It is one of the most 
serious social problems we face today. According to the Centers for 
Disease Control, more than 54 percent of high school students are 
sexually active. Each year, more than 1 million teenage girls become 
pregnant; nearly 3 million adolescents contract a sexually transmitted 
disease.
  Mr. President, let us go back in history, and maybe we can try to 
look at what has happened at other times when we have actually 
implemented this kind of a prohibition. In the early 1980's, the 
Department of HHS did seek to implement this kind of provision. They 
called it the squeal rule, which mandated certified letters from 
parents permitting minors to obtain prescriptions for contraceptives.
  Now, when that happened in the time of the squeal rule, let us see 
what its implications were, according to various surveys. There was a 
50-percent reduction, at clinics in San Francisco, of teenagers 
attending those clinics; 24 percent in Dayton, OH; 30 percent in 
Roanoke, VA; 85 percent in Peoria, IL; 50 percent in Douglas County, 
GA; 40 percent in Wichita Falls, TX. It is like that all across the 
country--squeal rule in, teenagers out. And the corresponding result is 
the increase in teenage pregnancy and the increase in sexually 
transmitted diseases. That was the result. That was the result.
  Many times around here, when we take public policy positions, we do 
not have the kind of factual information that we have available to this 
body now, because we have tried this at a different time in our 
history, and we know what the outcome and the result has been.
  On the other hand, what has happened in the instances where we did 
not have what we call, effectively, the squeal rule--the certification 
by parents--we found there was an increase of individuals taking 
advantage of services--example, in West Virginia, by its Commissioner 
of Public Health--and the following year the teenage birth rate fell, 
and fell dramatically. The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare 
found that the adolescent planning caseload increased 75 percent after 
the squeal rule was put in.
  We could go on and on. We have the background. We have the history. 
We have the evidence.
  People can support this amendment. This is what I consider to be a 
feel good amendment. You pass this and you feel good. You have really 
done something about the problem in terms of teenage pregnancy issues 
in this country. You have really done something about that issue.
  I always wished that those individuals who were out here fighting, 
time in and time out, for this approach to teenage pregnancies, were 
going to be out here fighting so those teenagers would get the best in 
terms of health care. I wish we could find those people that are 
demonstrating such concern on the floor of the U.S. Senate this 
afternoon who would say they have an amendment providing that, if those 
young teenagers do make a mistake and do become expectant mothers, they 
are going to get the best in terms of prenatal health care and well 
baby care--give those young teenage girls that kind of support.
  There are a variety of different programs that have been demonstrated 
across this country that work with those teenage girls, that give them 
the medical help and attention, that give them the counseling that 
keeps them in schools, that keeps them in programs, and that supports 
them with day care programs while they continue their education. I wish 
that were part of this amendment as well, to demonstrate the real 
concern about what is happening in our society. But that is not a part 
of this. That is not a part of this.
  It is difficult to think of the prospect of moving back to a time 
such as when the Department of HHS in 1982 put the squeal rule into 
effect, with the corresponding results that I have illustrated here, 
that can be documented from past experience.
  It is interesting that if we put this into effect and accept this 
amendment, we will be in complete conflict with 23 States and the 
District of Columbia that encourage, under the appropriate 
circumstances, parental involvement, but do not prohibit, under other 
circumstances, information regarding reproduction. It will impose a 
standard on 26 States that have made a judgment, either explicit or 
implicit, of not addressing this particular issue. It imposes it from 
the Federal Government.
  It is always interesting to hear from some of our colleagues about 
how we do not want to have the Federal Government interfering on these 
matters. They say, OK, here on this one we do not mind wiping out 23 
States' existing laws and imposing certain conditions on 26 others. 
Those are 49 States, and we have the State of Utah that has enacted the 
parental notification requirement for minors. That, I believe, has been 
ruled unconstitutional.
  Mr. President, when HHS sought to implement the squeal rule in 1982, 
some 40 States submitted comments in strong opposition, noting the 
disastrous effects such a rule would produce. And that rule was less 
intrusive than the pending amendment--since the HHS rule only required 
notification to parents after the distribution of contraceptives, while 
this amendment would require prior written consent.
  I ask that a sampling of those letters from State officials all 
across the country be inserted in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                Colorado Department of Health,

                                       Denver, CO, April 19, 1982.
     Marjory Mecklenburg,
     Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Mecklenburg: The Family Planning Program of the 
     Colorado Department of Health currently funds 48 clinic sites 
     throughout the State of Colorado. Those clinics are presently 
     serving approximately 5,000 teenagers 17 and under that would 
     be affected by your proposed rule. The new data compiled by 
     the Alan Guttmacher Institute and submitted to you makes it 
     clear that the outcome of your proposed rule would result in 
     ``many thousands of additional unwanted pregnancies, more 
     than half of which will terminate in abortion and virtually 
     all the remainder in out-of-wedlock births or forced and 
     unstable marriages.''
       It is the intention of the State of Colorado to protect the 
     health of its population, which certainly includes its 
     teenagers. It is to this end that our state law allows that 
     all people needing family planning services may be provided 
     them with no restrictions, including age. Your rule would 
     supersede state intention when the focus is to give states 
     their voice. The Colorado Department of Health Family 
     Planning Programs have a strong belief in the sanctity of the 
     family and have made attempts in all of its clinics to 
     involve parents in the decision-making process. It is our 
     concern that this process cannot be legislated or mandated. 
     In accordance with the latest study from the Alan Guttmacher 
     Institute, the effect of the proposed regulation would deter 
     teenagers currently enrolled in the clinics from coming; and 
     eliminate the hope of reaching those sexually active 
     teenagers not currently involved with clinics or private 
     physicians, primarily because they are concerned about 
     parental involvement. It is our hope that your office, with 
     all of the resources available to it, might find some more 
     effective ways of involving parents without deterring 
     teenagers from seeking and utilizing responsible birth 
     control methods.
       The Family Planning Programs are also aware that staff time 
     and money would be diverted from priority activities in order 
     to notify parents (often only a single parent is available), 
     verify the notification, verify if it is a case for an 
     exception to notification, report all such exceptions to 
     Social Service Departments, and verify parental income for 
     charges (few teens know parental income). The expenditures of 
     time and energy required for these processes will increase 
     patient costs. Since there are fewer family planning dollars 
     and anticipated increased costs, all programs will see fewer 
     patients. Thus the teen proposed rule impacts on all women 
     seeking services in Title X programs.
       The Colorado Health Department Family Planning Program 
     urges you to reconsider your proposed rule and to withhold it 
     from the Title X guidelines until more acceptable methods of 
     family involvement can be found. If we serve fewer teenagers, 
     we will have fewer of their parents to involve and more new 
     teenage parents needing all kinds of community support.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Annis Gross,
                                Director, Family Planning Program.
                                  ____



                                Colorado Department of Health,

                                       Denver, CO, April 21, 1982.
     Ms. Marjory Mecklenburg,
     Acting Deputy and Assistant Secretary Population Affairs, 
         Washington, DC.
     Re parental notification proposal.
       Dear Ms. Mecklenburg: As Director of Family Health Services 
     Division, a large division that concerns itself with family 
     health services in the state of Colorado, the Family Planning 
     Program is one of the programs under my jurisdiction. It is 
     on behalf of Family Health Services Division that I urge you 
     to withhold your proposed regulation.
       We believe that adolescents will be deterred from seeking 
     services if those services are not confidential. Parental 
     notification is not likely to significantly deter sexual 
     activity, which we know to be ongoing before assistance with 
     birth control is sought. This regulation violates patient 
     confidentiality for teens who cannot afford, or will not go 
     to, private physicians. In many areas of Colorado, the only 
     clinic available is that sponsored with Title X monies. The 
     regulations are biased in that they apply only to women as 
     the prescription birth control methods are designed for use 
     by women. Therefore, the family would not be involved in 
     responsible sexuality as it applies to their male children, 
     allowing for an even greater disparity in sexual standards.
       Our concern is with the health of Colorado. The proposed 
     rule will bring about increased pregnancies, more abortions, 
     or an increase in the number of children being born to young 
     people who are least likely in a position to care for these 
     children. In the interests of good health for our state and 
     all citizens, please reconsider your proposed rule.
           Yours very truly,
                                                Daniel J. Gossert,
                        Director, Family Health Services Division.
                                  ____

         State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative 
           Services,
                                  Tallahassee, FL, April 22, 1982.
     Marjory Mecklenburg,
     Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mrs. Mecklenburg: On behalf of the Florida Department 
     of Health and Rehabilitative Services, I am submitting, for 
     your consideration, comments on the proposed rule amending 42 
     CFR Part 59. My comments below are prefaced by a brief 
     summary of the legal and philosophical basis upon which our 
     Department provides family planning services throughout the 
     State.
       The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative 
     Services is an umbrella agency dedicated to meeting the 
     health and social service needs of Florida's populace. Housed 
     within the Department are the Title XX Social Services 
     Programs, the Medicaid Program, and the Title X Family 
     Planning Program. One of the functions of the Department is 
     to consolidate the family planning regulations which govern 
     the use of the various funding sources into a uniform program 
     which can be applied statewide. In addition to Federal 
     regulations, we must comply with a State Statute which sets 
     the parameters for the provision of family planning services 
     in Florida. Our Legislature included in the family planning 
     statute specific language authorizing the provision of 
     services to minors ``provided the minor: (1) Is married; (2) 
     Is a parent; (3) Is pregnant; (4) Has the consent of a parent 
     or legal guardian; or (5) May, in the opinion of the 
     physician, suffer probable health hazards if such services 
     are not provided.''
       The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative 
     Services fully supports Congress' revision to the Title X 
     Law. We agree that unemancipated minors should be counseled 
     to include their families in the decisions related to their 
     use of family planning services. Indeed, our September 1981 
     memorandum to the family planning service providers 
     reiterates the Department's policy to encourage unemancipated 
     minors to involve their families when making decisions about 
     family planning. A copy of this memorandum is enclosed for 
     your perusal.
       Having reviewed the proposed Federal rule amending 42 CFR 
     Part 59 in light of our current law and policy, I find that 
     the proposed rule is inappropriate as written. The proposed 
     rule (1) will reduce our ability to reach and counsel 
     sexually active minors, (2) will impose undue additional 
     administrative requirements, (3) conflicts with Florida 
     Statutes which authorize physicians, under certain 
     circumstances, to provide family planning services to minors 
     without parental consent, and (4) questions the integrity of 
     our practicing physicians.
       The proposed Federal rule, by requiring parental 
     notification, will seriously inhibit our ability to counsel 
     minors on the need for parental involvement. Under our 
     current system, family planning services are treated with 
     confidentiality. However, once youth learn that parental 
     notification must occur, they will not seek services from 
     organized family planning programs. As a result, sexually 
     active teenagers will no longer be exposed to the in-depth 
     counseling, especially the counseling that encourages 
     parental participation.
       We estimate that 10,000 girls will be negatively affected 
     by the proposed rules. Of these we expect that 1,000 will 
     become pregnant during the year and 500 will become new 
     clients dependent upon governmental support. The cost to 
     government for support of these new 500 clients will be over 
     $1,220,000 for the first year of pregnancy and over 
     $2,600,000 for the second year. This cost can be averted 
     through making family planning medical and counseling 
     services available to teens.
       With the recent reductions in Federal funds which support 
     family planning programs, it is imperative that family 
     planning services be streamlined and excessive administrative 
     activities be eliminated. The proposed rule requiring 
     parental notification and verification of parental 
     notification would require significantly more administrative 
     time than is necessary. Further, the proposed rule could be 
     interpreted to mean that parental notification and 
     verification is required even when parental consent has been 
     given. Therefore, we recommend that the Federal rule simply 
     require documentation, in the patient record, that minors 
     were counseled on the need for parental involvement. The 
     notification and verification requirement would be much too 
     costly to implement.
       We must also recognize that not all minors are raised in a 
     family atmosphere which is conducive to promoting 
     constructive communications. We believe that there may be 
     many more reasons than child abuse and incest which would 
     justify providing family planning services without the 
     consent (or notification) of the parents. Physicians are 
     informed adult professionals who have the capability and 
     responsibility of acting in the best interest of their 
     patients. Florida's Laws recognizes the professional 
     competencies of physicians and grants them the authority to 
     provide family planning services to minors without parental 
     consent in those cases where the physician determines that 
     the minor will suffer probable health hazards if the services 
     were withheld. The proposed Federal rule amending 42 CFR Part 
     59, which imposes constraints on the physician's right to 
     waive parental notification, seriously conflicts with the 
     authority granted by Florida's Family Planning Law.
       Finally, the proposed Federal rule implies that physicians 
     are not capable of exercising ``mature judgment'' on behalf 
     of their patients ``on matters that may affect their physical 
     well being.'' The supplemental narrative which precedes the 
     proposed rule states that granting waivers to the parental 
     notification requirement is subject to abuse. This language 
     questions the ethical and moral practice of our medical 
     professionals.
       In summary, we in Florida believe that encouraging minors 
     to involve their parents is an important component of our 
     family planning services. The Conference Report on Public Law 
     97-35 notes that the Conferees wish Title X grantees to 
     encourage participants ``to include their families in 
     counseling and involve them in decisions about their 
     services.'' It is our opinion that the proposed rule does not 
     meet the intent of the law. Mandating parental notification 
     and verification is not a means of encouraging participants 
     to involve their families. Rather, the proposed rule will 
     tend to discourage minors from using our services--thereby 
     inhibiting our ability to counsel minors on parental 
     involvement--and will significantly increase the already 
     overwhelming administrative demand on our family planning 
     program. The limited funding we receive from the Federal 
     Government should be used for the provision of client 
     services and not for imposed administrative processes.
       The Florida Statewide Family Planning Advisory Council, 
     which has a consumer majority membership, has debated this 
     proposed rule extensively. During their March 19 meeting, the 
     Council went on record as being ``not in support of the 
     proposal on the grounds that it will be costly to implement, 
     it breaches confidentiality, and it is an invasion of 
     privacy.''
       I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed 
     rule. I trust my input will be of value to you as you begin 
     to finalize the revision of 42 CFR Part 59.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James T. Howell,
                                                 Deputy Secretary.
                                  ____



                                       Office of the Governor,

                                       Atlanta, GA, March 9, 1982.
     President Ronald Reagan,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: This letter is to express my concern 
     over the proposed regulation of the Department of Health and 
     Human Services relating to the required informing of parents 
     when their teenage children seek family planning services.
       For many years, Georgia has had a law which has allowed 
     health departments to provide contraceptive information and 
     devices to teenagers on a confidential basis. Since 1978, we 
     have had a strong program of educating teenagers to the fact 
     that they can make a responsible, informed choice concerning 
     their use of birth control device. In our clinics, teens 
     receive counseling and strong support for the decision they 
     make, including reassurance that they have the personal right 
     to say ``no'' to sexual activity. Our position is a realistic 
     one--withholding such information and devices does not 
     diminish the sexual activity of teenagers. It only makes them 
     more vulnerable because of such activity.
       As you know, I have basically supported the new federalism 
     concepts of your Administration, and I believe that the 
     states would welcome returning to them much of the 
     responsibility for human service programs which has gradually 
     eroded away over the years. However, if the proposed DHHS 
     regulations pass, this would directly diminish the state's 
     responsibility and authority to make its own decisions and 
     policies regarding a very critical program of the state, and 
     would seem to be in direct opposition to the new federalism 
     concept of state autonomy.
       I ask that you give careful consideration to the proposed 
     DHHS regulations, and do not permit them to pass. In Georgia, 
     the effect of such a regulation would set our program back 
     many years.
       Thank you very much for your positive consideration of this 
     issue.
       With kindest regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                     George Busbee
                                                         Governor.
                                  ____

                                                   State of Idaho,


                             Department of Health and Welfare,

                                         Boise, ID, March 5, 1982.
     Richard S. Schweiker
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Schweiker: I wish to strongly protest the 
     proposed new rules under 42 CFR Part 59 that require the 
     notification of parents of minors receiving prescription 
     contraceptive services under Title X programs.
       My reasons are as follows:
       1. You have patently overstepped your authority by 
     requiring the parental notification, while Congress clearly 
     stated that it did not mandate such a notification. As it was 
     well publicized in the media, your own General Counsel's 
     opinion was that these rules transcended congressional 
     intent.
       2. With the vast increase in sexual activity among 
     teenagers and given the difficulty in convincing them to use 
     reliable contraceptive methods, the proposed rule, requiring 
     parental notification would undo most of the efforts of the 
     past 10 years. At the time, when the Administration is 
     proposing drastic cutbacks in AFDC eligibility and benefits, 
     this proposed rule could drastically increase the number of 
     teenage pregnancies, with all the dire sociological, 
     educational, medical and financial consequences.
       While our Family Planning Programs always stressed family 
     involvement on a community wide basis and individually, when 
     so desired by the patient, I feel that requiring notification 
     and involvement is an undue invasion of that young woman's 
     privacy.
       A survey taken at one of our local high schools showed that 
     while 45% of the seniors had received sex-related information 
     from their peers, only 6% received it from their parents and 
     0.3% from church! On the other hand, 28% stated that they 
     would never dare to discuss sexual matters with their 
     parents.
       3. Your pious contention that the rule, permitting the 
     first visit before the obligatory parental notification, will 
     obviate the ``access problem'' of teenagers is frankly 
     hypocritical! Do you for one moment believe that teenagers 
     will avail themselves of the service if they know that 
     their parents will be notified? (Unless, of course, the 
     parents knew beforehand and agreed?) Your proposed rule 
     therefore blatantly countermands the legislative mandate 
     to provide the service to adolescents.
       4. Your proposed rule is also frankly sexist in the sense 
     that it affects only female teenagers since males do not use 
     prescription contraceptives.
       5. The exceptions to the notification rule are also 
     judicially most vague, like ``substantial grounds'' (who 
     determines what is ``substantial''?) and that it ``does not 
     apply to cases where the notification would result in no more 
     than disciplinary actions of an unsubstantial nature''? What 
     does this mean? The parent can slap around the girl, but 
     unless she lands in the hospital or breaks a bone, it's okay?
       6. From a medical standpoint the proposed rules are also 
     quite unsound. For example: (a) clinician sees the girl at 
     first visit, inserts an IUD. The girl gives a fictitious 
     address so notification verification cannot be done. Does 
     this mean that this girl cannot be rechecked for that IUD in 
     place for years? This is patently a medically dangerous 
     situation which on the surface you want to avoid, Mr. 
     Secretary, by involving the parent in the health care 
     decisions of their daughter; (b) clinician sees girl at first 
     visit and provides birth control pills for six months or one 
     year, girl gives fictitious address. Clinician cannot see the 
     girl again under the rules, therefore she may have any of the 
     many possible complications without medical intervention; (c) 
     clinician inserts IUD on first visit. Parent is notified. 
     Parent storms into clinic with patient and demands that the 
     IUD be removed. What then? These are just a few scenarios 
     that could occur because of your hypocritical contention of 
     trying to balance true congressional mandate and your 
     personal need to require parental notification.
       All of the above reasons will most certainly assure that 
     the proposed rules will be challenged in court. At a time 
     when service dollars are drastically slashed, I vigorously 
     protest and resent the fact that my tax dollars be used to 
     litigate your unreasonable proposed rules through 
     interminable court proceedings.
       7. Let us turn now to the administrative hardships that the 
     proposed rules will cause. On one hand we have President 
     Reagan's proclaimed promise to reduce federal regulations, 
     simplify procedures and remove federal intrusion into states' 
     rights. On the other hand the proposed rules increase 
     administrative procedures by the multiple steps required in 
     the notification. (1) Discuss with teenage girl the fact that 
     her parents will be notified; (2) Set up notification system; 
     (3) Send out notification and (4) mark record. (5) Receive 
     notification verification (6) Pull record and file the 
     verification.
       If the ``exception'' route is followed, the director has to 
     maintain a record of all the exceptions and reasons for them. 
     Most likely, following past practices of the Department, the 
     projects will be required to report a detailed breakdown of 
     the above steps. And all this at a time when the Secretary 
     proposes a 36% slash of the Title X budget.
       Our state, together with another 29 states, has developed 
     in 1974, after much thoughtful deliberation, appropriate laws 
     to regulate informed consent by ``mature minors''. Since it 
     is not as stringent as the proposed rules, you willfully 
     countermand President Reagan's promise of federal non-
     interference into state laws and impose the more stringent 
     requirement of notifying the parents of all girls under 17 
     years of age.
       Costs of the notification, although not staggering, are 
     still significant in view of the proposed 36% cuts in the 
     Family Planning grant. It is particularly onerous to have to 
     divert manpower from the service area to fulfill another new 
     bureaucratic requirement imposed by DHHS at a time when we 
     will have to lay off one third of our staff due to the 
     federal budget cut. I gravely doubt that this corresponds to 
     the President's or Congress' intent!
       Mr. Secretary, please yield to reason instead of sharply 
     focused political pressure and withdraw the proposed rules.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Zsolt Koppanyi,
                                    Chief, Bureau of Child Health.
                                  ____

                                                 State of Indiana,


                                        State Board of Health,

                               Indianapolis, IN, February 5, 1982.
     Re proposed regulations implementing amendment to title X of 
         the public health service act.
     Ms. Marjory Mecklenburg,
     Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Mecklenburg: The Secretary proposes to implement 
     this amendment by the following requirements:
       1. Grantees notify parents or guardian of unemancipated 
     minors when prescription drugs or devices are provided to 
     such minors within 10 working days except when the project 
     determines that notification would have adverse physical 
     health consequences for the minor.
       2. Grantees comply with any state law requiring 
     notification be provided to or consent obtained from parents 
     or guardian.
       3. Eliminate the requirement that projects consider 
     adolescents on the basis of their own resources for purposes 
     of determining eligibility and the obligation to pay for 
     services.
       The Indiana State Board of Health submits the following 
     response to the above requirements in sequence:
       1. The effect of this requirement will not accomplish the 
     intent of the amendment; i.e. ``to encourage family 
     participation.'' The conference report on the amendment (PL 
     97-35) states ``It is the intent of the Conferees that 
     grantees will encourage participants in Title X programs to 
     include their families in counseling and involve them in 
     decisions about services.'' There is no doubt that 
     unemancipated minors seeking family planning services would 
     benefit from the exercise of a mature parent's judgment on 
     their behalf. However, requiring parental notifications of 
     minors who receive certain family planning services is more 
     likely to act as a deterrent to receiving services than as a 
     positive facilitator of parental participation in decision 
     making.
       Confidentiality is essential for acceptability for many 
     teenagers in choosing family planning services. Fobin and 
     Clark, in Family Planning Perspectives, Volume 13, No. 5, 
     report that the second most common reason cited as cause for 
     delay in seeking family planning services was ``afraid my 
     family would find out.'' Additionally, over 30 percent 
     indicated this as a contributing reason for delay. They also 
     reported that 33 percent of respondents stated that learning 
     that family planning services were available without family 
     notifications was the most important factor in their decision 
     to seek those services. Requiring parental notification for 
     many of these minors would delay their decision to seek 
     family planning services and result in increased numbers of 
     unwanted pregnancies to many teenagers.
       The unemancipated minor who makes the mature decision to 
     seek family planning services in order to prevent an unwanted 
     pregnancy should not be discouraged from doing so.
       Delaying the notification requirement until after the 
     services are rendered will not be effective in eliminating 
     the deterrent to service of this regulation. Information 
     about the availability of family planning services is most 
     frequently conveyed by word of mouth among friends and 
     acquaintances. It is unlikely that those minors who delay 
     seeking family planning services for fear of parental 
     discovery will more readily accept these services if they 
     know that notification may only be delayed two weeks after 
     receipt of the services.
       Permitting exceptions for the vague reason ``adverse 
     physical health consequences'' not only ``contains the 
     potential for abuse'' but encourages dishonesty for those 
     minors who fear parental notifications. Requiring a report of 
     the number and reason of exceptions will not deter dishonesty 
     unless very clear criteria for acceptable exceptions and 
     acceptable numbers are given, with the threat of significant 
     penalties. Encouraging dishonesty on the part of 
     unemancipated minors further contributes to the poor 
     communication between parents and children. This also is 
     contrary to the intent of the amendment.
       2. It is appropriate that grantees comply with their state 
     laws. Further, it is appropriate and consistent with the 
     recent increased delegation of program responsibilities to 
     states that state legislatures establish the requirements for 
     parental notification or consent for family planning services 
     for unemancipated minors.
       3. It is also appropriate to permit states to use their 
     discretion in applying the definition of ``low income 
     family'' in determining eligibility and the obligation to pay 
     for services.
       In summary, it is questionable if promulgating the parental 
     notification requirement would accomplish the intent of the 
     amendment. There is good reason to believe that such a 
     regulation would result in an increase in unwanted 
     pregnancies. The other proposed changes would provide 
     appropriate increased flexibility to states administering the 
     Title X program.
       Alternative Proposal: Programs that would prepare parents 
     of preteenage children to communicate comfortably with their 
     children about sexuality and decision-making issues would be 
     a positive approach to meet the intent of the amended Title X 
     law. This could be done through agencies who serve families 
     with preteenage children; e.g., schools, churches, civic 
     groups, etc. One approach may be for schools to annually 
     invite all parents of fourth grade students to participate in 
     a series of workshops on teaching their children about 
     ``decision making and growing up.''
       Such programs would provide an opportunity for parents to 
     improve their skills and confidence to assume the 
     responsibility that is rightfully theirs of teaching their 
     children about sexuality. It would avoid regulating that 
     responsibility or punishing the children for the parents 
     failure to take on that responsibility. Each agency applying 
     for Title X grant funds could be required to develop and 
     support parent education programs with local family service 
     agencies. This positive approach would have greater potential 
     to accomplish the intent of the Title X amendment.
           Sincerely,

                                       Ronald G. Blankenbaker,

                                        State Health Commissioner,
                                    Indiana State Board of Health.
                                  ____



                              Iowa State Department of Health,

                                   Des Moines, IA, March 23, 1982.
     Marjory Mecklenburg,
     Associate Bureau Director for Family Planning, Health 
         Services Administration, Rockville, MD.
       Dear Ms. Mecklenburg: Thank you for the opportunity to 
     comment on the proposed revision of Title X regulations 
     concerning the amendment to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act which stipulated that ``to the extent practical'' 
     grantees would encourage family participation.
       The Iowa State Department of Health administers a Family 
     Planning Program through contractual arrangements with 
     individual local service providers. These local independent 
     organization do not require parental consent for the 
     provision of contraceptive care to adolescents. They do, 
     however, encourage adolescents to talk with their parents 
     concerning their sexuality.
       This approach has been carried out under our guidance for 
     the following reasons.
       1. Title X regulations specify that family planning 
     services be made available without regard to age or marital 
     status.
       2. State Code of Iowa is silent concerning parental consent 
     for contraceptive use nor does it recognize an 
     ``unemancipated minor'' status.
       3. The conference report on Pub. Law 97-35 explains section 
     931(b) (1) as follows:
       ``The conferees believe that, while family involvement is 
     not mandated, it is important that families participate in 
     the activities authorized by this title as much as possible. 
     It is the intent of the Conferees that grantees will 
     encourage participants in Title X programs to include their 
     families in counseling and involve them in decisions about 
     services.'' House Rep. No. 97-208, at 799.
       The experience of adolescence studies has shown that 
     adolescents would refrain from using services when parental 
     notification is required. These studies further suggest that 
     adolescents may give fictitious names and addresses which may 
     interfere with good quality medical care and follow-up.
       The proposed revisions to Title X regulations will require 
     verification of parental notification when prescribed 
     contraceptive services are provided to teens aged 17 and 
     under. Such a requirement would increase the administrative 
     costs of agencies in fulfilling a federal mandate. The Iowa 
     State Department of Health service 2,652 patients (age 17 and 
     under) from July 1, 1981 through February, 1982. This 
     represents 14% of its total number of users. This sort of 
     regulatory federal mandate seems rather inconsistent with the 
     reduction in federal funds for the program and the concept of 
     federalism.
       We would suggest that a more effective mechanism could be 
     established within the Title X program requirements to 
     address the Secretary's concern and ensure that grantees 
     encourage adolescents to discuss their situation with their 
     parent(s) or guardian. The BCHS Program Guidelines for 
     Project Grants for Family Planning Services has two areas 
     where this could be addressed.
       Section 8.2 of Part II is concerned with the counseling 
     component of a project. It is non-specific as to how this is 
     to be handled for an adolescent.
       Section 8.7 of Part II is concerned with the adolescent 
     services of a project. It simply states that ``counselors 
     should encourage young clients to discuss their needs with 
     parents or other family members''.
       Our suggestion is that Section 8.7 could be changed to 
     ``counselors must encourage young clients to discuss their 
     needs with parents or other family members'' and that this 
     could as easily be included within the counseling section 
     8.2.
       We've appreciated the opportunity to comment concerning HHS 
     consideration of the revision of Title X regulations. We hope 
     that there will be serious reconsideration of our 
     recommendation concerning the effective delivery of family 
     planning services to adolescents.
           Sincerely,

                                             Carolyn S. Adams,

                                             Director, Iowa Family
                                                 Planning Program.
                                  ____

         The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Social 
           Services,
                                         Boston, MA, May 19, 1982.
     Ms. Marjory Mecklenburg,
     Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, 
         Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Mecklenburg: I am writing in response to the 
     Department of Health and Human Services' proposed regulations 
     requiring Title X-funded family planning clinics to notify 
     the parents or guardians of unemancipated minors that they 
     are receiving prescription contraceptives. The Department of 
     Social Services wishes to express its opposition to the 
     proposed Regulation and urges the Department of Health and 
     Human Services to withdraw it.
       The Department of Social Services respects the paramount 
     importance of parental involvement in the planning and 
     delivery of services to adolescents and families in the 
     Commonwealth and elsewhere around the country. D.S.S. 
     Regulations, Standards of Practice and policies all require 
     our social workers to involve parents in decisions affecting 
     their adolescent's lives. At the same time, we believe that 
     mandating parental involvement might result in youth failing 
     to access needed social services.
       The Department of Social Services is committed to providing 
     a permanent plan for children and young adults in its care 
     and custody. The goal, whenever possible, is to help children 
     remain with their biological families. However, many of these 
     high risk adolescents have very poor communication with their 
     parents. The objective of the Department is to bring families 
     together. We feel the proposed notification regulations could 
     serve to put parents against one another, adolescent against 
     parents, as well as families against the services they seek 
     in the community.
       In addition, we fear that these proposed Regulations may 
     serve as a deterrent to the utilization of family planning 
     services by adolescents, resulting in increased rates of 
     unwanted and premature pregnancies.
       The effect of discouraging the adolescent from receiving 
     family planning services has further implications. Without 
     contraception, the health of the sexually active teenager 
     would be at greater risk. Current research indicates that the 
     risk associated with pregnancy and childbirth is five times 
     greater than the risks of complications from contraceptives 
     such as the pill.
       The Department of Social Services views family planning 
     services as preventive in nature. By using family planning, 
     the adolescent is more likely to avoid the health, social and 
     economic consequences of teenage pregnancy including welfare 
     dependency, medical complications, family instability and 
     child abuse. These costs are high to society as well as to 
     both of the adolescent parents, their infants and families.
       We believe that the costs incurred are too high to risk the 
     unwillingness of the adolescent to access family planning 
     services due to parental notification requirements. We 
     strongly urge the Department of Health and Human Services to 
     develop guidelines that would encourage parental involvement. 
     We urge you to reconsider the proposed Regulations to require 
     parental notification for family planning services.
           Sincerely,
                                                Patricia W. Moore,
                              Assistant Commissioner for Programs.
                                  ____



                            Mississippi State Board of Health,

                                      Jackson, MS, March 11, 1982.
     Secretary Richard Schweiker,
     Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Schweiker: I have read with a great deal of 
     concern the proposed changes in the Title X regulations for 
     family planning services to unemancipated minors. As you may 
     or may not know, Mississippi has a strong family planning 
     program which is statewide in nature and is basically the 
     major health care resource for contraceptive services to both 
     teenagers and disadvantaged patients.
       To further complicate this issue we are faced with health 
     problems of staggering proportions. The infant mortality rate 
     is second only to Washington, DC and our teenage pregnancy 
     rate is the highest in the nation. Even though these 
     statistics are astounding, without the active family planning 
     program presently in place, they probably would be worse. I 
     feel that to require grantees to provide notification to the 
     parents of unemancipated minors and to document that such 
     notification was received would severely effect services 
     within this state. Without question a significant number of 
     teens would no longer seek contraceptive services through our 
     clinics. We do not provide either abortions or abortion 
     counseling and feel, therefore, that the effect of these 
     changes would be, indeed, more unwanted pregnancies among 
     this very vulnerable group. The regulations as proposed would 
     have the effect of tossing the baby out with the bath water 
     in many state family planning programs. We have worked for 
     the last ten years to try and put together a reasonable 
     program of family planning services which not only has been 
     acceptable to the federal authorities but also has been quite 
     acceptable with our own state officials. Unless we get our 
     teenage pregnancy rate under control we will never solve many 
     of the economic and health problems (such as the infant 
     mortality rate) which plague us.
       We, therefore, very much oppose the new proposed 
     regulations and feel that this would severely damage services 
     currently available. In addition, our state does have a 
     statute providing for services to unemancipated minors 
     without parental consent. Therefore, the proposed regulations 
     would also appear to be in conflict with current state intent 
     regarding the availability of family planning services. We 
     hope that you will take our comments into serious 
     consideration before making any changes.
           Sincerely,

                                              Claude Earl Fox,

                                                  Chief, Bureau of
                                         Personal Health Services.
                                  ____

         Department of Health and Environmental Sciences,
                                       Helena, MT, April 20, 1982.
     Marjory Mecklenburg,
     Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, 
         Room 725H, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC.
       Dear Mrs. Mecklenburg: The following are comments on the 
     proposed regulations governing the program for family 
     planning services funded under Title X of the Public Health 
     Service Act. The proposed regulations are designed to 
     override state laws, particularly if state laws are more 
     permissive than the federal standard. It should be the option 
     of a local program to decide what standards should be 
     followed relating to service adolescents. The recommendations 
     should only be recommendations, leaving enforcement a 
     prerogative at the local level.
       1. The proposed regulations are more restrictive than the 
     amendment included under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act. The language contained in the amendment was intended to 
     ``encourage'' programs to give careful consideration to 
     appropriate ways of involving family members in each 
     individual situation, not to require any specific policy in 
     this regard.
       If finalized, the proposed regulations could result in a 
     lawsuit by family planning organizations on statutory 
     grounds--the intent of the law is not being followed. Court 
     rulings have affirmed the right of mature minors to consent 
     to their own contraceptive services, despite attempts by 
     lawmakers to impose parental consent and notification laws in 
     the name of preserving the family and maintaining parental 
     control.
       2. Results of a study conducted by the Alan Guttmacher 
     Institute strongly suggests that laws requiring notification 
     have little benefit to teenagers or society, but serve 
     instead to exacerbate the very serious problem associated 
     with teenage pregnancy and childbirth that we already face. 
     (The study was done regarding the issue of what a patient 
     would do if parental notification were required by family 
     planning programs.) It is possible that these adolescents 
     would resort to less effective non-prescription 
     contraceptives or no contraceptives, significantly increasing 
     their chances of experiencing an unintended pregnancy.
       If the proposed regulations are finalized, it is estimated 
     that in Montana 609 young patients would stop using effective 
     contraceptive methods if their parents were notified. This 
     could result in more adolescent pregnancies, high risk births 
     and abortions.
       3. The proposed regulations infringe on the right of the 
     individual to have access to medical care and privacy.
       4. The proposed regulations would discriminate both against 
     women and poor teenagers because (1) prescription 
     contraceptives are used only by women and; (2) sexually 
     active female teenagers with incomes above the poverty level 
     could obtain confidential help from private physicians.
       5. Why is DHHS increasing regulations for family planning 
     in a time where the government is attempting to decrease 
     regulations in programs? Implementation of these regulations 
     would be costly and would require more staff administrative 
     time and unnecessary paperwork.
       Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue and 
     please contact me if you need any further information.
           Sincerely,
                                             John J. Drynan, M.D.,
                                                         Director.
                                  ____

         State of New Hampshire, Department of Health and Welfare, 
           Division of Public Health Services,
                                    Concord, NH, February 4, 1982.
     Majory Mecklenburg,
     Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, 
         Room 725H, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Mecklenburg: It has come to our attention that the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services will be proposing new 
     Title X Regulations mandating family participation.
       The New Hampshire Family Planning Program, a program of the 
     Division of Public Health Services, currently serves over 
     16,000 women annually for comprehensive medical, social and 
     educational services. Of the women served, 74% fall within 
     150% of the CSA poverty guidelines; 19% are 17 years of age 
     or younger. Based on program data for the last six months, 
     100% of all adolescents received counseling prior to any 
     medical services being provided. At this session, teens were 
     helped to explore the realities of the decisions they were 
     making, and were urged to discuss them with their parents.
       A recent national study indicated that 25% of teens seeking 
     family planning services would not have enrolled in clinics 
     if parental notification was necessary. The New Hampshire 
     experience indicates that this percentage may be low. 
     However, using the more conservative figure, at least 770 
     teens would not have obtained family planning services last 
     year, and increased their risks of an unplanned pregnancy.
       The proposed regulations will discourage adolescents from 
     using this program. But, it would be false to assume that 
     less accessible birth control methods will discourage and 
     reduce teen sexual activity. On the national average, 
     teenagers are sexually active 12 months prior to their first 
     visit to a family planning program. Approximately one-third 
     schedule their first appointment for a pregnancy test. Of the 
     pregnancies that are carried to term, a high percentage of 
     infants are kept by the teen mother, which increases the 
     cycle of dependency on other social welfare programs.
       The proposed requirement for parental notification within 
     10 days appears to conflict with Section 59.11 of the Federal 
     Register (Volume 45, No. 108) which protects the 
     confidentiality of all family planning patients. Services 
     must not be disclosed without the patient's consent to insure 
     privacy for this sensitive service. The assurances of 
     confidentiality are of particular concern to adolescent 
     clients, and if not in place, would discourage one-quarter 
     from obtaining the education and counseling available through 
     this program.
       Family planning services must also be provided without 
     regard to age and sex (Section 59.5(4)). Since prescriptive 
     services are only used by women, female adolescents would be 
     the only clients affected by these regulations. Male teens, 
     who share equal responsibility, would be exempt. While there 
     is an age limitation proposed in these regulations, would 
     familial consent for any woman desiring birth control be a 
     natural extension in the future?
       The outlines definition change for low-income families 
     would further hamper adolescents from obtaining these 
     necessary services. Most children are not privy to their 
     family's exact financial status, nor do they have access to 
     the W2 forms filed by their parents. This is viewed as an 
     excessive restriction of clients in need of help.
       At this time, there are no state regulations requiring 
     parental notification. This new federal requirement would 
     create additional administrative monitoring and paperwork on 
     both the state and local level. Letters to 3,000 parents 
     would cost over $600 in postage alone. At a time when limited 
     dollars must be maximized for direct services, this seems an 
     unnecessary expense.
       Last year, 260 cases of sexually transmitted disease in 
     patients 19 years or younger were reported to the N.H. Bureau 
     of Communicable Disease Control. Half of these cases were 
     from public clinics; the youngest was 9 years of age. Patient 
     records in N.H. must be maintained for seven years past the 
     age of majority. The effort in maintaining confidential files 
     and information on 130 individuals per year for reporting 
     purposes is unreasonable. The problems iN.H.erent with record 
     storage and maintaining confidentiality for a long period of 
     time are immense. The process of exceptions would be time, 
     personnel and dollar intensive in this state.
       Family Planning services provide the initial experience 
     with primary health providers for many teenagers in N.H.; the 
     role this program plays in teaching individual responsibility 
     and improving health habits should not be overlooked. Health 
     screening components for immunization, VD, cancer and 
     nutrition, combined with thorough medical screening for 
     problems prior to prescription help ensure that these young 
     women will be healthy citizens and mothers in the future. 
     While the parental concerns for children using medications is 
     legitimate, the long-term medical and social consequences of 
     an unplanned pregnancy outweigh the benefits of familial 
     participation in at least 25% of the cases.
       These proposed regulations, over time, would increase the 
     teenage pregnancy rate in N.H., which has been decreasing 
     since the institution of the Title X program. This, in turn, 
     would increase the incidence of low birth weight births, 
     infant deaths, child abuse, birth defects and increase the 
     state burden for medical assistance, housing, food stamps, 
     and other welfare costs. For these reasons, the State of 
     N.H., Department of Health and Welfare, is diametrically 
     opposed to the proposed regulations of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services.
       The counseling currently provided through Title X Family 
     Planning agencies, combined with intensive efforts to 
     increase parental effectiveness as sex educators, are the 
     logical and practical method of meeting the Congressional 
     intent of this amendment. Additional funds should be 
     earmarked to continue and expand proven programs that allow 
     teens and families to open communication around the issues of 
     adolescent sexuality.
           Very truly yours,

                                          Edgar J. Helms, Jr.,

                                       Commissioner, Department of
                                               Health and Welfare.
                                  ____

                                          State of North Carolina,


                                Department of Human Resources,

                                        Raleigh NC, March 11, 1982
     Majory Mecklenburg,
     Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, 
         Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Mecklenburg: I have already communicated to 
     Secretary Schweiker my opposition to proposed Title X 
     regulations requiring parental notification in connection 
     with the provision of family planning services to 
     unemancipated minors. With the formal period for public 
     comment now underway, I am writing to you with even stronger 
     concerns. The earlier draft of the regulations carried the 
     very serious likelihood of discouraging sexually active 
     adolescents from seeking needed health services and 
     increasing the incidence of pregnancy in an age group 
     vulnerable to significant health and social risks associated 
     with early childbearing. The regulations in their published 
     form are frankly beyond belief in terms of the lengths to 
     which you would propose to go in creating barriers for 
     adolescents seeking to take responsible action in matters of 
     fertility control. For the service provider, they present an 
     administrative nightmare with respect both to extremely 
     burdensome record keeping requirements and the added 
     investigatory role of discovering ``substantial grounds'' for 
     waiver of the notification requirement that might be 
     warranted in individual situations.
       I maintain the view that there is nothing positive to be 
     achieved by the proposed regulations. Restriction of 
     confidential access to reproductive health care services will 
     not have the effect of discouraging sexual activity among 
     adolescents. There is broad agreement among my colleagues in 
     the medical profession on this point. You and I are both 
     aware of the opposition which has been voiced by 
     representative organizations including the AMA, ACOG, and the 
     American Academy of Pediatrics.
       The proposed regulations represent an affront to qualified 
     health care providers who do take seriously the obligation to 
     work with adolescents in encouraging family involvement and 
     who are quite able to make reasoned judgments concerning when 
     and under what circumstances parental notification may be 
     appropriate. Fortunately for us in North Carolina, our State 
     legislators have recognized this kind of professional 
     competency and have legislated accordingly.
       I repeat to you what I have already communicated to 
     Secretary Schweiker. The proposed regulations are regressive 
     and ill-conceived. Our state does not need or desire this 
     kind of direction.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Sarah T. Morrow,
                                                        Secretary.
                                  ____

                                                    North Carolina


                                 Department of Administration,

                                      Raleigh, NC, April 20, 1982.
     Ms. Marjory Mecklenburg,
     Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, 
         Room 725H, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
         200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Mecklenburg: I am writing to you on behalf of the 
     North Carolina Task Force on Women and the Law. Our task 
     force is composed of twenty-six professional people from 
     across the State, including four members of the N.C. General 
     Assembly, nine Attorneys and two District Court Judges. On 
     April 17, 1982 we met and discussed the ``regulations for 
     federal funded family planning clinics that will require 
     clinics to notify parents when teens under 18 receive 
     prescription methods of birth control.'' We are adamantly 
     opposed to this regulation and feel that it does go into 
     effect that it will have a devasting effect on the family.
       The regulation will not encourage ``family participation'' 
     as is the intent. It will, however, increase the now alarming 
     rate of teenage pregnancy, the rate of abortions and will 
     increase the number of unwanted children, many of whom will 
     be categorized as the ``truly needy'' on our welfare rolls.
       Again we oppose this regulation and encourage it's removal 
     from the federal regulations. Thank you for your attention.
       Sincerely,
                                                 Miriam J. Dorsey,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____

         South Carolina, Department of Health and Environmental 
           Control,
                                      Columbia, SC, March 2, 1982.
     Marjory Mecklenburg,
     Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, 
         Room 725H, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Mecklenburg: This letter is in response to the 
     proposed regulations requiring that parents be notified when 
     teens utilize Title X family planning services.
       The regulations were discussed at the February 25, 1982, 
     meeting of the Board of the South Carolina Department of 
     Health and Environmental Health. The Board passed the 
     following resolution:
       ``Whereas we find the proposed regulations for notification 
     of parents of unemancipated minors receiving family planning 
     services to be violation of the intent of Congress, 
     destructive to families, and punitive to our youth, and
       Whereas, the proposed regulations are likely to result in a 
     substantial increase in the already alarmingly high teenage 
     pregnancy rate, and
       Whereas, it will be impossible for our program to implement 
     these regulations in any reasonable way.
       Now therefore, be it resolved that:
       The Department of Health and Environmental Control express 
     the opposition of the Board of these regulations to Secretary 
     Schweiker immediately.''
       South Carolina has a serious teenage pregnancy problem. In 
     1980 there were 4,290 births to girls seventeen years and 
     younger and 1,820 abortions to girls in the same age group.
       I am very much opposed to the proposed regulations for the 
     following reasons:
       1. The regulations do not address the very real and complex 
     problem we face in our communities regarding teenage 
     sexuality and pregnancy. In a national study it was estimated 
     that if such requirements were in place, 36% of the teenagers 
     now coming for family planning services would drop out. In 
     South Carolina that would put approximately 4,000 girls at 
     greater risk of pregnancy. Even if only a fraction of that 
     number actually experience a pregnancy, it is far too high a 
     risk. Thirty percent of pregnancies to girls seventeen and 
     younger in South Carolina result in induced abortion. It is 
     clear that these regulations will result in increased births 
     and abortions to teens.
       2. Only one in seven teenagers come for contraception 
     before they initiate sexual activity. Four in ten come 
     because they think they are already pregnant. It seems 
     obvious that notification of parents after the fact is doing 
     far too little, too late. If we want to be effective, we need 
     to work with parents to help them understand the problem and 
     learn how to talk with their children.
       3. The regulations would impose an absolutely impossible 
     administrative burden on a program already facing funding 
     decreases. The cost would be thousands of dollars in this 
     state alone. Even if a teenager stated that her parents were 
     aware of her visit to the clinic, we would still have to go 
     through an elaborate process of notification and 
     verification. That is redundant and unnecessary. We estimate 
     the cost of postage alone would be over $15,000 if we only 
     send one notification per client a year. We assume that each 
     visit during the year would require notification so the cost 
     would multiply. We can not even estimate the personnel time 
     and cost involved.
       4. These regulations would divert scarce resources from 
     serving all our clients and most likely result in refusing 
     many older women service. We can not afford that in a state 
     faced with so many serious perinatal health problems.
       5. Family Planning Projects have always attempted to deal 
     with families in a positive way. These regulations will 
     reduce our credibility with teens and the community. They 
     will act as a barrier to teens coming for other services, 
     such as, pregnancy testing and V.D. services.
       6. The regulations allow us to make exceptions in cases 
     where physical harm would result from the notification. How 
     can staff possibly make that decision? If the attempt is to 
     involve the family in the care of teens and decrease the role 
     of project staff, then this is a very inconsistent provision. 
     It will force us to make value judgments about which families 
     are appropriate to involve and put us right in the middle of 
     a family decision. Those high risk families are exactly the 
     ones we need to work with most closely.
       7. Finally, I believe that these regulations do not follow 
     the intent of Congress. We all want to address the problem 
     and we feel that families need to be involved in the care of 
     their children; however, these regulations will not do that. 
     They will exacerbate an already very serious problem.
       On behalf of the Department of Health and Environmental 
     Control Board and my staff, I urge you to reconsider and 
     withdraw these regulations. We will be happy to work with you 
     and look forward to finding more realistic, innovative, and 
     productive solutions to the problems facing our youth.
           Sincerely,
                                          Robert S. Jackson, M.D.,
                                                     Commissioner.
                                  ____

                                           Office of the Governor,


                                             State of Vermont,

                                   Montpelier, VT, March 30, 1982.
     Hon. Richard S. Schweiker,
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey 
         Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Schweiker: I am concerned about the proposed 
     regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human 
     Services on February 22 that would require parental 
     notifications for minors receiving prescription contraceptive 
     services under Title X Federal Family Planning Programs.
       These regulations are likely to create a situation in which 
     teenagers discontinue family planning services. These 
     teenagers, already sexually active, would turn to less 
     effective birth control methods, or no birth control methods, 
     and this would result in increased teenage pregnancies.
       I strenuously support the involvement of families in 
     decisions affecting the health and reproduction. Family 
     planning clinics in Vermont do encourage family discussion 
     and participation through a number of sexuality and family 
     life education courses for both teenagers and their parents. 
     However, the imposition of a mandatory requirement is likely 
     to discourage those who need these services most.
       I suggest that the regulations be modified so that they 
     contain provisions that would encourage parental notification 
     and provide methods of assurance be developed locally. This 
     is consonant with our shared interest in making the states 
     responsible for public health programs and allowing the 
     necessary administrative flexibility to administer family 
     planning services. Such a policy will assist us in Vermont in 
     meeting our public health objectives, which include reduction 
     of teenage pregnancy and education of both teenagers and 
     their families in reproductive health.
           Sincerely,
                                              Richard A. Snelling,
                                                         Governor.
                                  ____

                                         Commonwealth of Virginia,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                   Richmond, VA, January 13, 1982.
     Hon. Richard S. Schweiker,
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Schweiker: It has come to my attention that 
     you have under consideration the issuance of regulations 
     which would require parental notification of family planning 
     services provided to minors in clinics supported by federal 
     funds.
       Virginia has long recognized the need for confidentiality 
     between the physician and the minor patient for treatment of 
     veneral or contagious diseases, birth control, pregnancy and 
     family planning; substance abuse; and mental or emotional 
     disturbances. Sexual sterilization is a specific exemption.
       In the last ten years the Virginia law has been amended 
     four times but the question or a requirement of parental 
     notification has never been presented. This, I believe, 
     reflects support of the concept of the minor consent law by 
     the elected representatives of the citizens of the 
     Commonwealth as well as understanding of the serious health 
     consequence which might be suffered should minors fail to 
     seek treatment because of parental notification.
       It is my personal belief that the retention of 
     confidentiality between the physician and the minor patient 
     is critical to the health and well-being of many of our young 
     citizens. For many, the proposed new federal regulations 
     would jeopardize their future health.
                                              Jean L. Harris, M.D.
                                  ____

         State of Wyoming, Department of Health and Social 
           Services,
                                       Cheyenne, WY, June 9, 1982.
     Hon. Richard S. Schweiker,
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Schweiker: The purpose of this letter is to 
     convey to you that the State of Wyoming is opposed to the 
     proposed DHHS regulations mandating parental notification for 
     minors receiving services under the Title X federal family 
     planning program. We believe that such a regulation will 
     discourage teenagers from obtaining needed family planning 
     information, increase unwanted and unplanned pregnancies, and 
     exceeds the intent of the Congress.
       We do not believe that this rule will increase the 
     communication between adolescents and their parents but will, 
     in fact, have just the opposite effect. We believe it will 
     create an underground market for birth control pills, for 
     example, and that 19 and 20 year old females will be 
     obtaining pills for their younger sisters.
       In summary, we hope you will accept this letter as 
     Wyoming's formal objection to this rule.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Stanley H. Torvik
                                                         Director.

  Mr. KENNEDY. So, Mr. President, I hope this amendment will not be 
accepted. We have debated this issue. We know from the debates we have 
had on title X, over a very considerable period of time, about how we 
can best try to come to grips with the results of the deterioration in 
family values, that this is a very complex issue that defies any 
simple, easy solution. As H.L. Mencken said, ``There is always an easy 
solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong.''
  We have just heard that now.
  I must say, for those who understand what is happening to many of the 
young people, and make the strong and powerful case about the fact that 
so many of these young, teenage girls are lost--in terms of their own 
emotional feelings--ignored, abused, and denied the real sense of a 
nurturing life and community. All of this remains a certain challenge 
to us as a humane and decent society. It is a challenge to families, to 
communities, to the churches, to all of us in our society.
  I think that was the essence which the President was talking about 
the other evening. That was what I think is the challenge for us as a 
country, a people who are concerned about this enormously tragic, 
difficult, and explosive problem we are facing in so many communities 
around the country. That is out there. We have to address it. In many 
respects we are hopeful the underlying legislation may have some impact 
on it by giving young people who are challenged intellectually and 
challenged through their learning experience and inspired by teachers, 
inspired by the change of curriculum, a chance to become interested in 
learning and to get the sense of self-esteem and self-value, to make a 
judgment and decision about the course that their lives are going to 
take. That is what we hope to do. We hope to reduce the kinds of tragic 
lifestyles that in so many instances have children begetting children, 
begetting children, begetting children. I think there is a good 
opportunity to have at least some impact, even a measurable impact, 
through the underlying legislation that is before us. But this 
amendment is not the way to go.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12\1/2\ minutes left.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will withhold the remainder of the time. If I 
understand the Senator from North Carolina, if he is not going to make 
any further comments, then I will present to the Senate the alternative 
in behalf of Senator Jeffords and myself, and make a very brief 
comment.
  I will make that comment at the present time. Effectively, it will be 
the language that says that: To the extent practical, entities which 
receive Federal funds for the distribution of contraceptives to minors 
shall develop procedures to encourage family participation in such 
programs.
  It will emphasize ``to the extent practical.'' It will probably have 
one standard out in my own State in Concord and Lexington, MA; you will 
have another one in Roxbury, MA.
  I think we have seen that over a period of time. It seems to me the 
best way to go. We will continue to monitor that provision. We are 
always glad to get information from any of our colleagues about how 
this measure is being implemented--its strengths, its weaknesses. We 
hope the Senate will support that alternative.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has no time.
  Mr. HELMS. Does the Senator yield back the remainder of his time so 
we will get to his amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield back the remainder of my time on that, yes, sir.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. All time has expired 
on the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have already been ordered.

                          ____________________