[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 56 (Monday, April 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4317-S4327]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DOLE:
S. 1711. A bill to establish a commission to evaluate the programs of
the Federal Government that assist members of the Armed Forces and
veterans in readjusting to civilian life, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
TRANSITION TO CIVILIAN LIFE LEGISLATION
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation
establishing a commission to review the various programs administered
by the Federal Government to assist service members transitioning from
military to civilian life.
Current System Lacks Coordination
Currently, several Federal departments and agencies offer programs to
assist military men and women, veterans and reserve component members
in their transition back to civilian life. Offices in the Departments
of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Labor, and others, sponsor programs
offering such services as education assistance, job-training, job
placement, and home loans. These are all useful and valuable services.
However, changes in the labor market are challenging today's veteran
readjustment programs. Unemployment rates for recently separated
veterans may be as high as 17 percent, compared with a national average
of about 5.7 percent. This is extremely troubling when one stops to
think about the experience, discipline, and work ethic veterans bring
to the workplace.
By better focusing these resources, we can make the existing programs
more accessible to a greater number of veterans; we can streamline
programs and make them more user-friendly; we can minimize overlap and
improve cost-effectiveness. That would be a big improvement over the
current situation, and would ultimately better serve our service men
and women.
Let me emphasize, the purpose of this commission is not to create new
programs and make a large bureaucracy. Rather it is to review the range
of existing programs and determine how we can better coordinate our
efforts on behalf of veterans. Both the House and Senate Veterans'
Affairs Committees, as well as several veterans service organizations
support this concept and agree that such a review is both appropriate
and timely. There is real opportunity here to repeat the success of
General Bradley's 1955 commission, which make significant improvements
in transition programs with fresh concepts and approaches.
Improved Service to Veterans
In my view, establishing this commission is the first step toward
providing more accessible and more practical assistance to service
members who are facing fundamental changes in their personal and
professional lives. These are brave men and women who committed
precious years of their lives to defending their Nation. Now they are
ready and willing to become productive members of their civilian
communities. It is my hope that this legislation will help these very
deserving individuals make better use of the opportunities and
resources available to them.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1711
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be
known as the Commission on Service Members and Veterans
Transition Assistance (hereafter in this Act referred to as
the ``Commission'').
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 12
members appointed from among private United States citizens
with appropriate and diverse veterans, military,
organizational, and management experiences and historical
perspectives, of whom--
(A) four shall be appointed by the Chairman of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate, in consultation
with the Ranking Member of that committee;
(B) four shall be appointed by the Chairman of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of
Representatives, in consultation with the Ranking Member of
that committee;
(C) two shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee
on Armed Services of the Senate, in consultation with the
Ranking Member of that committee; and
(D) two shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee
on National Security of the House of Representatives, in
consultation with the Ranking Member of that committee.
(2) VSO members.--One member of the Commission appointed
under each of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1)
shall be a representative of a veterans service organization.
(3) Date.--The appointments of the members of the
Commission shall be made not later than 45 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be
appointed for the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the
Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled
in the same manner as the original appointment.
(d) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date
on which all members of the Commission have been appointed,
the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
(e) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold
hearings.
(f) Chairman and Vice-Chairman.--The Commission shall
select a Chairman and Vice Chairman from among its members.
(g) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairman.
(h) Panels.--The Commission may establish panels composed
of less than the full membership of the Commission for the
purpose of carrying out the Commission's duties under this
Act. The actions of such panels shall be subject to the
review and control of the Commission. Any findings and
determinations made by such a panel shall not be considered
the findings and determinations of the Commission unless
approved by the Commission.
(i) Authority of Individuals To Act for Commission.--Any
member or agent of the Commission may, if authorized by the
Commission, take any action which the Commission is
authorized to take under this Act.
SEC. 2. DUTIES OF COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--The Commission shall--
(1) review the efficacy and appropriateness of veterans
transition and assistance programs in providing assistance to
members of the Armed Forces in making the transition and
adjustment to civilian life upon their separation from the
Armed Forces and in providing assistance to veterans in
adjusting to civilian life;
(2) evaluate proposals for improving such programs,
including proposals to consolidate, streamline, and enhance
the provision of such assistance and proposals for
alternative means of providing such assistance; and
(3) make recommendations to Congress regarding means of
ensuring the continuing utility of such programs and
assistance and of otherwise improving such programs and the
provision of such assistance.
(b) Review of Programs To Assist Members of the Armed
Forces at Separation.--
(1) In general.--While carrying out the general duties
specified in subsection (a), the members of the Commission
appointed under subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 1(b)(1)
shall review primarily programs intended to assist members of
the Armed Forces at the time of their separation from service
in the Armed Forces, including programs designed to assist
families of such members in preparing for the transition of
such members from military life to civilian life and to
facilitate that transition.
(2) Specific requirements.--In carrying out the review,
such members of the Commission shall determine--
(A) the adequacy of the programs referred to in paragraph
(1) for their purposes;
(B) the adequacy of the support of the Armed Forces for
such programs;
(C) the effect, if any, of the existence of such programs
on combat readiness;
(D) the extent to which such programs provide members of
the Armed Forces with job-search skills;
(E) the extent to which such programs prepare such members
for employment in the private sector and in the public
sector;
(F) the effectiveness of such programs in assisting such
members in finding employment in the public sector; and
[[Page S4318]]
(G) the means by which such programs could be improved in
order to assist such members in securing meaningful
employment in the private sector upon their separation from
service.
(c) Review of Programs To Assist Veterans.--
(1) In general.--While carrying out the general duties
specified in subsection (a), the members of the Commission
appointed under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 1(b)(1)
shall review primarily the adequacy of programs intended to
assist veterans (including disabled veterans, homeless
veterans, and economically disadvantaged veterans), including
the programs referred to in paragraph (2).
(2) Covered programs.--The programs referred to in
paragraph (1) are the following:
(A) Educational assistance programs.
(B) Job counseling, job training, and job placement
services programs.
(C) Rehabilitation and training programs.
(D) Housing loan programs.
(E) Small business loan and small business assistance
programs.
(F) Employment and employment training programs for
employment in the public sector and the private sector.
(G) Federal Government personnel policies (including
veterans' preference policies) and the enforcement of such
policies.
(H) Programs that prepare the families of veterans for
their transition from military life to civilian life and
facilitate that transition.
(d) Reports.--
(1) Implementing plan.--Not later than 90 days after the
date on which all members of the Commission have been
appointed, the Commission shall submit to the Committees on
Veterans' Affairs and Armed Services of the Senate and the
Committees on Veterans' Affairs and National Security of the
House of Representatives a report setting forth a plan for
the work of the Commission. The Commission shall develop the
plan in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the heads of other
appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal
Government.
(2) Final report.--
(A) Requirement.--Not later than one year after the date of
the first meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall
submit to the committees referred to in paragraph (1), and to
the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Education, a
report setting forth the activities, findings, and
recommendations of the Commission, including any
recommendations for legislative action and administrative
action as the Commission considers appropriate.
(B) Executive comment.--Not later than 90 days after
receiving the report referred to in subparagraph (A), the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall jointly submit to Congress a report setting forth the
comments of such Secretaries with respect to the report.
SEC. 3. POWERS OF COMMISSION.
(a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit
and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable
to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may
secure directly from the Department of Defense, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and any other department or
agency of the Federal Government such information as the
Commission considers necessary to carry out its duties under
this Act. Upon request of the Chairman of the Commission, the
head of such department or agency shall furnish such
information expeditiously to the Commission.
SEC. 4. MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
(a) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(b) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or property.
(c) Miscellaneous Administrative Support.--The Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall, upon the
request of the Chairman of the Commission, furnish the
Commission, on a reimbursable basis, any administrative and
support services as the Commission may require.
SEC. 5. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.
(a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government
shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of
the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which such member is engaged in performing the duties of the
Commission. All members of the Commission who are officers or
employees of the United States shall serve without
compensation in addition to that received for their services
as officers or employees of the United States.
(b) Travel and Travel Expenses.--
(1) Travel.--Members and personnel of the Commission may
travel on military aircraft, military vehicles, or other
military conveyances when travel is necessary in the
performance of a responsibility of the Commission except when
the cost of commercial transportation is less expensive.
(2) Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Commission.
(c) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Chairman of the Commission may,
without regard to civil service laws and regulations, appoint
and terminate an executive director and such other additional
personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to
perform its duties. In appointing an individual as executive
director, the Chairman shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, attempt to appoint an individual who is a
veteran. The employment of an executive director shall be
subject to confirmation by the Commission.
(2) Compensation.--The Chairman of the Commission may fix
the compensation of the executive director and other
personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to classification of positions and General Schedule
pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable
for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of
such title.
(d) Detail of Government Employees.--Upon request of the
Chairman of the Commission, the head of any department or
agency of the Federal Government may detail, on a
nonreimbursable basis, any personnel of the department or
agency to the Commission to assist the Commission in carrying
out its duties.
(e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Chairman of the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of such title.
SEC. 6. TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.
The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on
which the Commission submits its report under section
2(d)(2).
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act--
(1) The term ``veterans transition and assistance program''
means any program of the Federal Government, including the
Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
the Department of Labor, and the Department of Education, the
purpose of which is--
(A) to assist, by rehabilitation or other means, members of
the Armed Forces in readjusting or otherwise making the
transition to civilian life upon their separation from
service in the Armed Forces; or
(B) to assist veterans in civilian life.
(2) The term ``members of the Armed Forces'' includes
individuals serving in the reserve components of the Armed
Forces.
(3) The term ``veteran'' has the meaning given such term in
section 101(2) of title 38, United States Code.
(4) The term ``veterans service organization'' means any
organization covered by section 5902(a) of title 38, United
States Code.
SEC. 8. FUNDING.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall, upon the
request of the Chairman of the Commission, make available to
the Commission such amounts as the Commission may require to
carry out its duties under this Act. The Secretary shall make
such amounts available from amounts appropriated for the
Department of Defense.
(b) Availability.--Any sums made available to the
Commission under subsection (a) shall remain available,
without fiscal year limitation, until the termination of the
Commission.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Craig):
S. 1712. A bill to provide incentives to encourage stronger truth in
sentencing of violent offenders, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
The Stop Allowing Felons Early Release Act
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am here today to join with the Senator
from Idaho, Senator Craig, in introducing a piece of legislation that
we call the SAFER Act, the Stop Allowing Felons Early Release Act. I am
very pleased to work with Senator Craig from Idaho on this piece of
legislation. I would like to describe briefly for my colleagues what we
intend to do.
Mr. President, many Americans will remember the story that they have
read and reread in recent weeks about a child molester in Texas who was
convicted after confessing he had sexually abused a 6-year-old boy.
This man, who describes himself as a demon, claims he has molested 240
other children and he says to prison authorities that he will continue
to do so when he is on the street.
Despite his repeated statements that he will continue to assault
children, this prisoner was released recently
[[Page S4319]]
after serving 6 years of an 8-year sentence under a mandatory good-time
release program. Under Texas law, authorities had no discretion to
refuse to grant good-time credits to reduce this particular person's
prison sentence. In fact, he is 1 of 1,000 child molesters who will be
released from prison early this year.
Some of my colleagues will remember the story of Jonathan Hall, a
young boy who was murdered this winter. Jonathan was a 13-year-old boy
from Fairfax County, VA, who was stabbed 58 times and thrown into a
pond and, apparently, left for dead. When the police discovered him,
they found dirt and grass between his fingers. He did not die
immediately after having been stabbed 58 times, and he tried to crawl
out of this pond. He did not make it, and he died.
The person who allegedly killed Jonathan Hall has a long criminal
record. In 1970, he murdered a cab driver. He was put in prison and
then released on a work-release program. He kidnaped a woman while on
work release and received an additional sentence. He then was convicted
of murdering another prisoner. Two murders and a kidnaping, and he was
set free on early release to live on the street where a 13-year-old boy
named Jonathan Hall was living. Jonathan is dead because a man twice
convicted of murder and kidnaping was let out of prison early.
Bettina Pruckmayr, whom I have spoken about before, was a 26-year-old
attorney who was beginning her career in Washington, DC. She was
abducted in a carjacking, driven to an ATM machine, and fatally stabbed
over 30 times by a man who had been convicted previously of rape, armed
robbery, and murder. He was on the streets of the District of Columbia
legally because he was let out of prison early.
It does not take Sherlock Holmes to know who is going to commit the
next violent crime. It is all-too-often someone who has committed a
previous violent crime and who has been put in prison and let out
early. My colleague from Idaho and I believe that those who commit
violent crimes in our country ought to understand one thing: If you
commit a violent crime, you are going to finish your entire sentence in
a place of incarceration. No more good time, no more early release, no
more parole. If you commit a violent crime, this country is determined
not to turn murderers, child molesters, rapists and armed robbers back
on the streets of our country.
Despite all of the talk about getting tough on crime, we still have
an epidemic of violent crime in our country. I would like to use a
couple of charts to demonstrate this fact.
There is one violent crime every 17 seconds in our country; one
murder every 23 minutes; one forcible rape every 5 minutes; one robbery
every 51 seconds; one aggravated assault every 28 seconds. That is what
the time clock shows for 1994.
One in three offenders is rearrested for a violent crime within 3
years of being let out of prison. The Justice Department estimates that
almost all violent criminals in State prisons are now released early
before their term is up, before their sentences are completed.
I have a list of what the States do. Some States say that, if you
serve a day, you get a day and a half off. That is why we have a
circumstance in our country today where the average time served for
murder is just slightly less than 6 years. I am not talking about the
sentence; the sentence is longer than that. But we say we cannot afford
to keep people locked up, so we put them back on the streets, where
they commit more murder, when, in fact, they should not have been in a
position to commit another murder. They should still have been in
prison.
In 1991, the Bureau of Justice Statistics did a study of State
prisons, and they found that 156,000 people were in jail for offenses
they had committed while they were on early release from prison for a
prior conviction.
Let me say that again because it is important: 156,000 people were in
prison for offenses they had committed while they were on parole from a
previous conviction.
They should never have been in a position to commit these new
offenses, and a good number of which were murders. But we decided as a
country to let them out early because we somehow cannot afford to keep
them locked up. That does not add up. We have half the people in prison
who are nonviolent. We can incarcerate them much less expensively than
we now do.
The Senator from Ohio, Senator Glenn, talks about Quonset huts. He
said he lived in one for 6 to 8 years while in the Marine Corps. We can
use abandoned military facilities to incarcerate, much less
expensively, nonviolent offenders and open up tens of thousands of
prison cells for violent prisoners. We can put violent prisoners in
those cells and say to them, ``You are going to stay in those cells
until the end of your term. You are not going to be out raping and
murdering other Americans.''
This piece of legislation affects those States that are going to
access money from the Federal Government to build new prisons. We say
to those States that affirmatively decide as a matter of policy,
``We're going to keep violent criminals locked up for their entire
term,'' we want you to be advantaged when it comes to grants. All
States will be eligible for this program, but we are saying that we
want more money to be available to those States that say, ``It is our
policy that violent criminals will spend their entire time in prison.''
The real cost of early release of violent offenders is this: There
are 4,820 people in prison who committed murders while they were out on
early release.
In other words, we knew who they were. We knew what they did. But we
let them out early. When we say ``we,'' I am talking about the State
and local justice systems that let them out early because they said,
``We can't afford to keep you in.'' As a result, 4,820 people were
murdered, and they should not have lost their lies. Bettina Pruckmayr
is one, 13-year-old Jonathan Hall is one. We can read all their names.
Every one of these cases is a tragedy because we knew who the
perpetrators were. We let them out of prison early. There were 3,899
rapes, 6,238 assaults. That is the real cost of early release.
What is happening to murderers in this country? The average person
sentenced for murder in the criminal justice system in this country
now, in the State and local court systems, is 34 percent of the
sentence and then early release--34 percent of a sentence for murder,
and then early release. For kidnaping, offenders have served 40 percent
of their time. For robbery, they have served 39 percent of their time.
For assault, 37 percent of their time.
My point is, we can do better than that. We can say to people,
clearly and deliberately, that if you commit a violent crime,
understand this: Society is not going to put you back on the street to
murder Jonathan Hall, to murder Bettina Pruckmayr or another person,
another innocent person who relies on Governments to prosecute those
who commit violent crimes, put them in jail, and keep them in jail.
The Federal system is somewhat different, I am pleased to say. I have
been involved in some of that with respect to the crime bill. The
Federal Government abolished parole for Federal prisoners in 1984. The
1994 crime bill included a provision that I authored that eliminated
automatic good time credits for violent offenders.
But, as you know, 95 percent of the crimes are committed under the
State and local jurisdictions. The State and local jurisdictions are
involved in almost all of what I have been talking about. In order to
do what the American people would expect us to do, we must encourage
State and local governments to decide that when they find violent
offenders who are committing murders and rapes, and violent assaults,
and they sentence them to prison, they must be kept in prison.
We were told that the reason that you have to have good time --and
some States give a day, some States nearly 2 days of good time for
every day a prisoner serves; so you serve a year and get 2 years off of
your sentence--the reason they say you must have good time off for good
behavior is to be able to manage violent prisoners.
A Justice Department official told us at a meeting some while ago, he
said, ``Well, these young gang-related offenders in prison are so
violent that they can't be controlled without incentives.'' The
incentive is, ``Look, either you behave and we will give you good time,
or you misbehave and we'll take
[[Page S4320]]
good time away, and, therefore, you must stay here longer.'' They say
these people are so violent they cannot be controlled without the
incentive of giving them a reduced sentence.
I guess the question is this: If prisoners are so violent that prison
guards and strict prison rules cannot control them--and that is what
the Justice Department says--if that is the case, why on Earth would
you construct a system that says to those people, ``Behave here, and
we'll turn you back to the streets somewhere?'' Why on Earth would we
think that advances the criminal justice system in this country?
Senator Craig and I are not saying that we ought to run the criminal
justice system. It is not what this legislation is about. We are
saying, as a Federal Government, we have made some money available for
new prison construction and, as a matter of policy, we should use this
money as an incentive so those States who will get the most will be
those States who decide to construct a policy in which those who commit
violent crimes will stay in prison for their entire sentence.
That is our hope. Our hope is that we will advance that kind of
public policy. Our hope is that we will save lives. So we will
introduce this piece of legislation today in the memory of so many
people who have been the victims of violent crimes that should never
ever have occurred.
We will introduce this bill in the memory of Bettina Pruckmayr, this
young woman who should not have been murdered, because the person who
allegedly murdered her was a person we knew was violent, and in the
memory of Jonathan Hall, a 13-year-old who happened to live on the
street of person who had committed two previous murders and a kidnaping
and who was released early from prison.
I hope, Mr. President, that one day soon we will be able to decide
that the sentence for murder is the time served for murder. I hope we
will no longer tell criminals, ``You get good time off for good
behavior. You get early parole if you behave. By the way, we will let
you out early.'' I hope that is not the message we will continue to
send to those who commit violent crimes in our country.
Again, I am delighted to join my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig,
in advancing what I think is a very important policy initiative in
asking State and local governments to consider this as a method of
achieving the access to Federal funds, and with the maximum capability
they can, to build additional prisons and keep violent criminals in
jail.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me say how blessed I am to be a
cosponsor of the Stop Allowing Felons Early Release Act, known as the
SAFER Act. Let me, in a very sincere way, congratulate my colleague
from North Dakota for what is a very sensible approach to crimefighting
and for his outspoken leadership on this issue.
This bill that he has just outlined for us all this morning would
help stop one of the most significant causes of crime in America. It is
amazing to me, but it is true by fact and statistic, that the way our
criminal justice system is operated today, Mr. President, results in
increased crime. We know that a relatively small percentage of our
population is responsible for a relatively large percentage of violent
crimes.
Study after study has shown that a vast number of violent crimes are
State crimes committed by repeat offenders--repeat offenders.
Although there are many causes of violent crime and many factors
contributing to our crime rate, it appears that the most immediate and
significant is the career criminal. Since that is the cause, we clearly
have an opportunity to save lives and prevent crime-related losses by
getting the hard-core criminals off the streets and out of our
communities.
Even though crime-fighting is primarily a State and local
responsibility, as my colleague has referenced, Congress has had
endless debates over the best way to protect our citizenry from these
dangerous predators. We have explored how crime can be prevented or
deterred and how it should be punished. We have looked at better tools
to help law enforcement stop criminals. We have provided significant
resources for State and local governments to attack crime at its roots.
Many of those efforts have produced success at some level, but what
we are finding, however, is all this good work can be undermined by
programs of early release and parole that send violent felons back out
into our communities to prey again and again on our citizenry.
Senator Dorgan has spoken here in the Senate on the horrifying
consequences, citing example after example of these policies. The
impact reaches far beyond the victims of repeat criminals, their
families and communities. Justice itself is imperiled when punishment
is uncertain and unpredictable. We can argue about the value of
imprisonment in terms of rehabilitating criminals.
Some even argue about the value of imprisonment in terms of deterring
crime. But there can be no serious argument that any rehabilitation or
deterrent value is reduced in prison--if prisoners are subject to the
revolving door and, as a result of that, become the repeat offenders.
More important, there can be no serious argument that early release
programs destroy the most effective outcome of imprisonment:
incapacitating the violent criminal by separating him or her from
society and the opportunity to commit additional crimes. All too often
early release and parole programs are being driven by financial
considerations at the State and the local level rather than solid
evidence of rehabilitation.
I understand those concerns in my own State of Idaho. Our inmate
population is estimated to be increasing at about 27 inmates per
month. We will need to double prison space in the next 6 years in my
State. It is not necessarily bad for Government to innovate or find
cost-conscious alternatives in this area.
Again, my colleague from North Dakota cited some of those for the
nonviolent-type criminal or the nonviolent offender. We can find
alternative methods of incarceration for them in facilities that are
oftentimes already built, that can simply be modified for a new
purpose. Clearly, these programs cross the line when they send hard-
core violent offenders back to the streets before serving their full
sentences.
Congress has established programs at the Federal level that help
State and local governments with financial and human resource needs in
fighting crime. Among other initiatives, we have provided financial
incentive grants to States, to enact truth-in-sentencing laws to ensure
that the time actually served by convicted felons reflects the
sentences they were given. It just does not make sense to me, and I
know it does not make any sense to the taxpayer if we support policies
and provide taxpayers dollars that actually increase crime.
The SAFER bill provides an important incentive for States to get rid
of the early release program for violent offenders we know will only
push the crime rate higher, and the statistics prove it. As long as
those programs are on the books, States will only have access to 75
percent of the funds available to them under the truth-in-sentencing
programs.
Again, my colleague from North Dakota has outlined how this bill
would affect those States. It is important to let those States know
that these kinds of policies are no longer acceptable when the Federal
tax dollars are involved. Access to full grant amounts would be
available to States that eliminate those programs, only dealing with it
in the way that we have outlined. If approved by a Governor after a
public hearing in which the victims and other members of the public
have an opportunity to be heard, then you might look at some
consequences for an early release program. There are ways to deal with
it in the legislation as set forth. These States would also have access
to a portion of the remaining undistributed grant funds.
The SAFER bill is a measured response, strategy, to reducing one of
the most significant causes of crime in our society today. I hope my
colleagues would join with me and the Senator from North Dakota in what
we believe is a very important piece of legislation.
Mr. President, it is not complicated. It is straightforward. It is
just a heck of a lot of common sense when you look at the facts and you
look at the statistics--hardened criminals are oftentimes repeat
offenders. They ought
[[Page S4321]]
to stay and do the time. That is what our legislation would require.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho has made a
compelling statement on this issue. I wanted to make a couple of other
observations.
Some have said to me, what about rehabilitation? Should not someone
be able to be rehabilitated while in prison? I say that is fine. I am
for rehabilitation. But I do not want a circumstance to continue to
exist where we know that about 6 percent to 8 percent of the criminals
in America commit two-thirds of all the violent criminal acts, and they
go through that revolving door to commit new crimes.
We should rehabilitate them, but we should not be in a circumstance
in this country where the amount of time served for murder is 5.9
years. What on Earth are we thinking of? We should decide that those
people who are career criminals and who kill the people I have
described today will go to prison and spend their time in prison until
their sentence is complete. That is what this bill is about.
I know people say, ``You are talking tough.'' The fact is, if we do
not get tough with that 8 percent of the criminal element who commit
most of the violent crimes in this country, the American people are not
safe. We make victims of the American people by turning murderers out
of prison years and years before their sentences are complete. It is
time for us to decide that does not make sense.
We are simply shifting the costs. We shift the costs from those who
would be required to pay for a prison cell to those victims and their
families who now suffer the consequences of murder, rape, assault, and
more.
This is not a regional issue. This is an issue that is national. A
woman named Donna Martz, bless her soul, used to bring a tour bus every
year to the State capitol. They came to the front steps and we would
take a picture. On a quiet Sunday morning, coming out of a hotel in
Bismarck, ND, a man and a woman from Pennsylvania on the run from the
law, having left jail in Pennsylvania, abducted poor Donna Martz and
put her in a trunk. They eventually killed her some days later out in
the desert of Nevada.
Violent crime does not respect State boundaries. Victims of violent
crime--the violence that is committed by people who have been in prison
who we know are violent and who are let out early--are strewn across
this country. That is why I am delighted the Senator from Idaho has
joined in this legislation. I hope we can make some progress in
advancing this in this Congress. I yield the floor.
Mr. CRAIG. My colleague from North Dakota is right. We are not
talking tough. We are not even beginning to talk tough on behalf of the
victims. The families that have been destroyed, torn apart by acts of
violence of the type that this legislation will be directed toward.
I think the American public expect us to talk tough. If Federal tax
dollars are going to be used under the assumption that the communities
of our Nation will be safer when those dollars are appropriately spent,
then it is our responsibility as Senators that those dollars get well
spent.
What we are saying to the States in this instance, if you have a
revolving door in your criminal justice system where known hardened
criminal repeat offenders are back on the streets, then you are not
going to get as much of the Federal dollar as is now available. You
have to examine the way you handle these criminals and keep them in and
let them do their time. Only under special circumstances where it is
clearly evident that rehabilitation has worked and this person can
return to society and live a safe and law-abiding life, can they or
should they be returned.
I hope that all Senators would take a look at this legislation as we
introduce it today. We would certainly hope that all would become
cosponsors of it. We think it is responsible and tough when it comes to
dealing with the criminal element of our society.
It just does not make sense to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to support
policies that might actually increase crime. The SAFER bill provides an
important incentive for States to get rid of the early release programs
for violent offenders we know will only push the crime rate higher. As
long as those programs are on the books, States would only have access
to 75 percent of the funds available to them under the Truth in
Sentencing Grant Program. Access to full grant amounts would be
available to States that eliminate those programs and only allow early
release if approved by the Governor after a public hearing in which the
victims and other members of the public have an opportunity to be
heard. These States would also have access to a portion of the
remaining undistributed grant funds.
The SAFER bill is a measured, responsible strategy for reducing one
of the most significant causes of crime in our society today. I hope
all of our colleagues will join in supporting this bill.
______
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Dewine,
Mr. Warner, Mr. Simon, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 1713. A bill to establish a congressional commemorative medal for
organ donors and their families; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
the gift of life congressional medal act of 1996
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I take great pleasure today in introducing
the Gift of Life Congressional Medal Act of 1995. I am joined by my
colleague Mr. Levin in introducing the Senate companion version to
Representative Stark's bill. With this legislation, which doesn't cost
taxpayers a penny, Congress has the opportunity to recognize and
encourage potential donors, and give hope to the 45,120 Americans who
have end stage organ disease. As a heart and lung transplant surgeon, I
saw one in four of my patients die because of the lack of available
donors. Public awareness simply has not kept up with the relatively new
science of transplantation. As public servants, we need to do all we
can to raise awareness about the gift of life.
Under this bill, each donor or donor family will be eligible to
receive a commemorative congressional medal. It is not expected that
all families, many of whom wish to remain anonymous, will take
advantage of this opportunity. The program will be coordinated by the
regional organ procurement organizations [OPOs] and managed by the
entity administering the organ procurement and transplantation network.
Upon request of the family or individual, a public official will
present the medal to the donor or the family. This creates a wonderful
opportunity to honor those sharing life through donation and increase
public awareness. Some researchers have estimated that it may be
possible to increase the number of organ donations by 80 percent
through incentive programs and public education.
As several recent experiences have proved, any one of us, or any
member of our families, could need a life saving transplant tomorrow.
We would then be placed on a waiting list to anxiously await our turn,
or our death. The number of people on the list has doubled since 1990
and a new name is added to the list every 18 minutes. However, this
official waiting list reflects only those who have been lucky enough to
make it into the medical care system and to pass the financial hurdles.
If you include all those reaching end stage disease, the number of
people potentially needing organs or bone marrow, very likely over
100,000, becomes staggering. Only a small fraction of that number would
ever receive transplants, even if they had adequate insurance. There
simply are not enough organ and tissue donors, even to meet present
demand.
Federal policies surrounding the issue of organ transplantation are
difficult. Whenever you deal with whether someone lives or dies, there
are no easy answers. There are close to 15,000 and 20,000 potential
donors each year, yet inexcusably, there are only some 5,100 actual
donors. That is why we need you to help us educate others about the
facts surrounding tissue and organ donation.
This year, Mr. President, there has been unprecedented cooperation,
on both sides of the aisle, and a growing commitment to awaken public
compassion on behalf of those who need organ transplants. It is my very
great pleasure to introduce this bill on behalf of a
[[Page S4322]]
group of Senators who have already contributed in extremely significant
ways to the cause of organ transplantation. And we are proud to ask you
to join us, in encouraging people to give life to others.
______
Mr. DOLE (for Mr. Burns):
S. 1714. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to ensure the
ability of utility providers to establish, improve, operate and
maintain utility structures, facilities, and equipment for the benefit,
safety, and well-being of consumers, by removing limitations on maximum
driving and on-duty time pertaining to utility vehicle operators and
drivers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
the utility consumer service improvement and protection act of 1996
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Utility
Consumer Service Improvement and Protection Act of 1996. This
legislation would modify a Federal regulation which is unnecessary,
burdensome, and which costs millions of dollars each year in return for
negligible benefits.
This regulation costs the Government itself hundreds of thousands of
dollars annually for the personnel and overhead needed to implement,
track, and enforce it. More importantly, it imposes unnecessary costs
upon almost every family and business in the United States, due to
higher rates imposed on consumers' utilities--electric, telephone,
natural gas, water, sewer, garbage disposal, and even cable television.
The regulation in question is the Department of Transportation's hours-
of-service truck-driving rules as they are applied to the utility
industry.
When we examine the hours-of-service truck-driving regulations as
applied to public utility service vehicles, there is no evidence that
these costly regulations improve public safety or provide any other
tangible benefits whatsoever to the American public.
To the contrary, there is significant evidence that these regulations
needlessly increase costs and threaten the reliability of basic utility
services for average American consumers. By imposing higher costs and
reducing the reliability of basic utility services, the DOT regulations
themselves pose an increased risk to the health and safety of the
public.
In regard to utility vehicles, this hours-of-service regulation is a
classic example of a well-intended regulation which simply does far
more harm than good--the costs greatly outweigh any potential benefits,
and it should be immediately modified to the extent that it applies to
the utility service vehicles which are vital to the installation and
the maintenance of utility facilities across our country.
DOT over-reacted in issuing its regulations, which limit the number
of hours drivers can be on duty at his or her job, and still operate a
heavy vehicle. The DOT regulation makes no distinction in the manner in
which a vehicle is operated, neither does it recognize and accommodate
the purposes for which different kinds of vehicles are operated.
The hours-of-service regulations apply to virtually all drivers of
all vehicles which exceed a certain weight, regardless of how the
vehicle is actually used. Almost of utility service vehicle owners and
drivers are subjected to the regulation, even though they are only
driven an average of 50 miles per day.
Many thousands of trucks and motorized heavy equipment units owned by
public utility providers exceed the DOT regulatory weight threshold,
and are thus subject to the regulations. This directly increases the
cost to consumers for basic utility services, and interferes with
utility providers in their job of maintaining reliable service.
When the electricity goes out, persons who are dependent upon various
kinds of mechanical equipment are suddenly faced with a life-
threatening situation. When the phone lines are down, people with
emergency situations cannot call for the ambulance, or the fire
department, or the sheriff's office for help. A regulation which makes
it more difficult and expensive to rapidly restore or maintain vital
utility service becomes in and of itself a much greater threat to
public health and safety than the very limited highway operation.
This same bill, H.R. 2144, was introduced in the House of
Representatives last year. It would simply have exempted utility
service vehicles and their owners and drivers from the DOT hour of
service regulations.
While some portions of H.R. 2144 were incorporated into Public Law
104-59, the National Highway System Act, much of the costly and
restrictive DOT hours of service truck driving regulation still applies
to utility service vehicles, costing consumers unwarranted regulatory
expense and still interfering with utilities' ability to ensure
reliable service and repairs.
The legislation I am introducing today will complete the job started
last year. My bill will exempt utility service vehicles and their
drivers from the DOT hours of service regulations effective only for
those vehicles and drivers while they are actively engaged in
legitimate and necessary utility activities.
I want to point out that this exemption does not relieve owners from
any established equipment mechanical safety standards or inspections,
nor does it weaken in any way the licensing standards and testing
required of drivers. It does not interfere with or pre-empt any state-
imposed regulations which may affect driving-time hours.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort by
cosponsoring this legislation and working for its passage. I also ask
unanimous consent that a letter written by the Montana Electric
Cooperatives' Association be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Montana Electric
Cooperatives' Association,
Great Falls, MT, March 6, 1996.
Hon. Conrad Burns,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Burns: Montana's rural electric cooperatives
are writing to ask for your help in obtaining a much needed
reform of specific federal regulations which are unnecessary,
unwieldy, and which cost far more to comply with than any
possible benefits that might theoretically be derived. The
current Department of Transportation ``Hours of Service''
(HOS) truck driving regulations, as they apply to public
utility providers, impose an entirely unreasonable cost on
consumers, and compound other difficulties faced by providers
in reliably maintaining vital utility services.
The HOS regulations were originally intended to address
public safety concerns arising from practices in the long-
haul, transcontinental trucking industry where vehicles are
utilized in an entirely different manner than those in the
utility business.
Citizens and legislators alike became alarmed at the
frequency and severity of highway accidents caused when long-
haul truckers would operate their vehicles for days at a time
without getting proper rest. Operators suffering from driving
fatigue and ``white line fever'' often exceeded their
physical and mental limits, resulting in some truly horrible
accidents and the tragic deaths of many innocent motorists.
However, it is important to note that utility service
vehicles simply are not operated in the same fashion as the
long-haul equipment, and there is no evidence that our
industry's vehicles were ever a part of the problem the
regulations were designed to resolve. This is especially true
for utilities serving rural Montana. Clearly, the HOS rules
are but one more example of a ``one-size-fits-all'' federal
mandate that is costly, unrealistic and unnecessary.
Disregarding these distinctions, DOT crafted regulations
which apply as equally to utility vehicles as to long-haul
vehicles. This has resulted in a situation whereby
enforcement of existing rules will require consumers to pay
significantly higher utility rates to help fix a problem that
didn't exist in the first place.
We also believe public safety is actually placed in far
greater imminent danger by imposition of the DOT's arbitrary
and restrictive Hours of Service rules.
That is because these rules hamper the ability of our
cooperatives to rapidly maintain and restore electric and
telephone service to the approximately 300,000 Montanans we
serve. The result is that customers' lives may be in far
greater danger from lack of electric or telephone service
than by the possibility of a utility service vehicle
accident.
Cooperative managers have called us to emphasize that the
HOS rules ignore reality: When the power is out, those on
life support equipment, for example, are at great risk. When
phone lines are shut down, people can't call for medical,
fire, or law enforcement emergency assistance.
As one western Montana cooperative manager put it, ``It is
our overall responsibility to ascertain the circumstances of
each individual work period and draw the line between safe
working/driving practices, balanced against the urgency of
electric service restoration. Service restoration work can be
[[Page S4323]]
critical and/or lifesaving by nature--much more so than the
negligible risk of driving--after even 15 hours or more of
work. We have prescribed rest periods in relation to hours
worked which also require common sense supervisor
interpretation.''
An eastern Montana cooperative director described the
situation this way: ``Because of the great distances involved
in our service area, exceeding the restriction on service
hours could be a high probability. Because of the dependency
on the power we supply for heat, water heaters, and
communication within our service area, it is imperative to
the welfare of our consumers that the restoration of power
occur as quickly as possible.''
As applied to utility service vehicles and drivers, the DOT
regulations are totally unwarranted, extremely expensive (in
the aggregate) to consumers, and pose a potentially dangerous
obstacle to our ability to maintain electric and telephone
lifelines.
MECA applauds your consideration of legislation which would
exempt utility service vehicles from the HOS regulations. We
also appreciate your well-crafted draft language because it
is written in a manner which would exempt our vehicles only
when they are being used for legitimate utility purposes
(including emergencies arising from storms and other acts of
nature).
We sincerely urge your speedy introduction of such
legislation and we will work to help build the support needed
for congressional passage of the measure.
Sincerely,
Jay T. Downen,
Executive Vice President.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Lugar, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Campbell, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Bond):
S. 1715. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a credit for adoption expenses, to allow penalty-free IRA withdrawals
for adoption expenses, and to allow tax-free treatment for employer
provided adoption assistance; to the Committee on Finance.
the adoption promotion act of 1996
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Lugar, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Hatfield, Mr.
Coats, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Bond, Mr. Conrad, and Mr.
DeWine):
S. 1716. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act reauthorize
the adolescent family life program, provide for abstinence education,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
the adolescent family life and abstinence education act of 1996
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce,
on behalf of 14 Senators, the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence
Education Act of 1996 and, on behalf of 12 Senators, the Adoption
Promotion Act of 1996. I am pleased to be introducing these bills with
many colleagues from both parties, which I shall describe shortly.
Toward a ``Good'' Society
Mr. President, I am introducing two bills designed to bring Americans
together on one of the most controversial, if not the most
controversial matter facing the United States domestically today, and
that is the question of abortion, pro-choice, pro-life. While we cannot
achieve agreement on all aspects of that underlying controversy, I
believe it is possible to make enormous steps forward on the issue of
abstinence; that is, to try to curtail premarital sex, especially among
teenagers, which results in unintended pregnancies, and to promote
adoption through tax credits, to try to encourage those who are in the
situation of unintended pregnancy to carry through to term.
At the outset, let me provide my colleagues with a brief summary of
the legislation. This legislation would support an authorization for
$75 million annually to have abstinence education. While there is great
concern about education dealing with matters of sex generally, there
appears to be an exception when you talk about abstinence. Within the
past several weeks, I have had the opportunity to visit the Carrick
High School in Pittsburgh, where I met with students who are involved
in an abstinence program and with officials of Mercy Hospital which has
been the recipient of a $250,000 federal grant for abstinence
education. The results there have been very profound. Later, I visited
a program in Lancaster, PA, where young people are taking the
abstinence pledge and are being counseled in how to respond to peer
pressure with counter peer pressure. As I say, while we cannot agree on
all aspects of the issue of abortion, pro-choice, pro-life, I believe
when we talk about abstinence, that is an area of agreement.
Similarly, on adoption, there have been many efforts to give tax
breaks. This legislation is another effort, with up to a $5,000 tax
credit for adoption, and up to $7,500 for adopting children with
special needs. These two bills will supplement legislation which I have
already pushed on prenatal care for pregnancies, again involving many
youngsters in their teens. I saw my first one-pound baby more than a
decade ago. It is really a startling sight, a child no bigger than my
hand, carrying medical problems for a lifetime and costing up to
$200,000 in medical care per child for just the first year. I believe
this abstinence legislation, in conjunction with adequate prenatal care
and the Healthy Start program, will go a long way toward avoiding
teenage pregnancies and the complications that can arise, such as low-
birth-weight babies.
Mr. President, on March 28, 1996, I spoke on the Senate floor in
support of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Teen Pregnancy Prevention
Week. During that week, communities throughout the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania conducted special activities to promote pre-marital
abstinence as the best, healthiest way to prevent teen pregnancy and
the many other physical, emotional, and relational consequences of
early sexual activity. On Friday, March 15, 1996, I had the opportunity
to kick-off this important week at Central High School in Philadelphia,
and during my remarks, I stated that I would be introducing two
legislative proposals that deal with the important issue of teen
pregnancy, one on abstinence education and one on promoting adoption.
By way of background, nearly 200 years ago, the French writer Alexis
de Tocqueville is said to have observed that ``America is great because
she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease
to be great.'' Although de Tocqueville is long gone, his analysis is
timeless. It is impossible to be a public official today, to travel
throughout States such as Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the United
States, without recognizing that America's problems are more moral than
material. The news media offer us a monthly snapshot of leading
economic indicators, but it may be that our leading moral indicators
are more telling, such as the staggering number of teenage pregnancies,
the national divorce rate, and the rapid rise in juvenile crime.
As we have tried to steer towards a growing economy and a balanced
budget, there has been a growing consensus that all our goals--
personal, economic, and national security--must rest on a restored
ethic of personal responsibility. There has been an increased
recognition that a crisis of values underlies the many public policy
problems the Senate addresses on a daily basis. This has impressed upon
me the need for people of strong moral commitments to enter public
service and public debate, so that we may confront the underlying
problems.
On the critical question of the health of America's families, the
grim statistics are well known, but worth repeating. These leading
moral indicators suggest that the erosion of the American family
continues unabated. For example, more than 50 percent of American
marriages now end in divorce, meaning that millions of American
children face at least some instability in their home environment.
Then, there is the alarming number of teenagers getting pregnant in the
United States. According to statistics released by the Centers for
Disease Control in 1995, there were an estimated 835,000 teenage
pregnancies in 1990. Further, the National Center for Health Statistics
reports that in 1993, 12,000 girls under 15 years of age gave birth to
a child. To me, this necessitates a strong response from public
officials, the clergy, and concerned citizens.
A leading moral indicator is the rapid increase in the number of
unwed mothers. The percentage of teen births that occurred outside of
marriage has risen from 48 percent in 1980 to 72 percent of all teenage
births in 1993. According to my distinguished colleague,
[[Page S4324]]
Senator Moynihan, within 10 years, unless we reverse current trends,
more than half our children will be born to unmarried women. By
comparison, the United States teenage birth rate--60 births per 1,000
females aged 15 to 19--is double the rate in other industrialized
societies such as Australia and the United Kingdom. France and Japan
report some of the lowest teenage birth rates, at nine and four births
per 1,000 females, respectively.
It is worth pausing to reflect on the enormous significance of these
statistics regarding out-of-wedlock births. Marriage is obviously
important as it relates to the benefits for children to have a strong
family structure based on a commitment of mutual support and respect.
On the subject of family values, I speak with considerable pride
about the institution of marriage with my parents and my siblings. In
addition to my parents' marriage of 45 years, my brother, Morton, and
his wife, Joyce, were married for 51 years until his death in 1993. My
sister, Hilda, and her husband, Arthur Morgenstern, celebrated their
53rd wedding anniversary in April. My sister, Shirley, was married to
Edward Kety for 46 years until his death last summer. My son, Shanin,
and his wife, Tracey, will celebrate their 10th wedding anniversary on
June 29, 1996. So our family totals 248 years of marriage.
In considering the troubling statistics on out-of-wedlock births, I
believe there is much we can do to reduce the likelihood that an
unmarried teenager will become pregnant in the first place.
While I am personally opposed to abortion, I do not believe it can be
controlled by the Government. I believe it is a matter for the woman
and family, with appropriate guidance by ministers, priests, and
rabbis. I do believe the government has a significant role in promoting
alternatives to abortion. In my view, there is no reason why people on
both sides of the abortion debate cannot work together to promote those
alternatives. We can reduce teenage pregnancies by encouraging
abstinence and personal responsibility. If a teen pregnancy does occur,
we should promote adoption as a socially beneficial alternative.
We can, and we must, confront our leading moral indicators head-on.
We must press harder in the fight to reduce the alarming number of
teenage pregnancies. And, when a child comes into the world as the
result of an unintended pregnancy, we must do all that we can to ensure
that it is raised in a loving, stable family environment.
It is the American family, of course, to which these responsibilities
chiefly belong. Nonetheless, I believe that the Government can play a
role and that we in the Congress must seek out appropriate legislative
means to advance this cause. Accordingly, I am today introducing these
two bills which will strengthen the social fabric and family stability
of our Nation.
Before I go into greater detail on these two bills, I want to point
out that I have benefited from thoughtful review and comments by a
number of individuals with expertise on the issues of teen pregnancy,
abstinence, and adoption, including Bill Pierce of the National Council
on Adoption; H. Woodruff Turner and Katrina Schulhof of the Pittsburgh
Adoptive Family Rights Council; David Keene of the American
Conservative Union; Ms. Molly Kelly of Philadelphia; Larry Breitenstein
of the Westmoreland County Childrens Bureau; Dr. Carol Jean Vale,
President of Chestnut Hill College; Sister Roseanne Bonfini of
Immaculata College; James Stark of the Fayette County Community Action
Agency; Danelle Stone and Melissa Mizner of Catholic Charities
Counseling and Adoption Services--Erie Diocese; Washington County
Commissioner Diana Irey; Reverend Horace Strand, Sr. of the Faith
Temple Holy Church and Christian School; Rev. Msgr. Philip Cribben of
the Archdiocese of Philadelphia; and Ted Meehan of the Mainstream
Republicans.
Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1996
My first legislative proposal provides for the continued funding of
programs that are designed to reduce teenage pregnancy and to increase
abstinence education. The existing Adolescent Family Life Program,
known as the title XX program, is a worthwhile program which focuses
directly on the issues of abstinence, adolescent sexuality, adoption
alternatives, pregnancy and parenting. If you want to reduce the number
of abortions performed in the United States, teaching children to say
no to negative peer pressure is a starting place.
In 1981, Congress established the Adolescent Family Life Program as
the only Federal program of its kind. Through demonstration grants and
contracts, Adolescent Family Life focuses on a comprehensive range of
health, educational, and social services needed to improve the health
of adolescents, including the complex issues of early adolescent
sexuality, pregnancy, and parenting.
This legislation had bipartisan support when originally enacted in
1981 and when it was reauthorized in 1984. Authority for title XX
expired in 1985 and since then, the program has been operating under
funding provided in the annual Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations
bill. For fiscal year 1996, the Labor, HHS, and Education
Appropriations Subcommittee, which I chair, provided $7.7 million for
the Adolescent Family Life program.
Now, more than 10 years after the authority for this valuable program
expired, it is important that Congress reauthorize it to demonstrate
our commitment to this important Adolescent Family Life Program. As I
stated at the outset, my legislation, the Adolescent Family Life and
Abstinence Education Act of 1996, would provide authority for $75
million annually between now and fiscal year 2000, substantially higher
than the $30 million authorized in 1985. My legislation would also
amend title XX to state expressly that the education services provided
by the recipients of federal funds should include information about
abstinence. I have also proposed amending the law to require the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure, to the maximum extent
practicable, that approved grants have a geographic diversity that
shows adequate representation of both urban and rural areas. Further,
to address concerns raised by Pennsylvania constituents, my legislation
would establish a simplified, expedited application process for groups
seeking Title XX demonstration project funding of less than $15,000.
As I noted at the beginning of my remarks, teenage pregnancies exact
a substantial emotional and financial toll on our society and deserve
priority consideration by Congress. Adolescent pregnancy threatens the
health of both the young mother and child. Teenage mothers are more
likely to lack adequate prenatal care and to give birth to a low
birthweight baby. When I refer to the problem of low birthweight
babies, I am talking about babies weighing as little as 12 ounces who
when born are no larger than my hand. It is tragic that these babies
are not born more healthy, for low birthweight babies will carry scars
for a lifetime and often do not live very long.
The Adolescent Family Life Program, in addressing early sexual
relations among teenagers, can also protect their health with respect
to sexually transmitted diseases. Early sexual activity, particularly
with multiple partners, increases the chance that a teenager will
contract such a disease. The Title XX program is designed to get
teenagers to focus on the potential consequences of early sexual
activity, and these health concerns certainly provide additional
justification for Federal support of abstinence education.
In making the case for funding programs to address the teen pregnancy
problem it is important to focus primarily on the physical, emotional,
and spiritual costs associated with a young girl becoming pregnant. At
a time when Federal, State, and local governments face difficult
budgetary constraints, I should also note that in 1990, an estimated 51
percent of Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments went to
recipients who were 19 or younger when they first became mothers.
Billions of dollars could be saved by preventing unwanted teenage
births to unwed mothers.
Reauthorizing the Adolescent Family Life Program at $75 million will
demonstrate that Congress recognizes the serious emotional and
financial impact of teenage pregnancy. Updating federal law to advocate
abstinence education
[[Page S4325]]
expressly is also necessary to provide guidance to the Department of
Health and Human Services. I urge my colleagues and others to making
America a ``good'' society to support this legislation and join me in
the effort to reduce teenage pregnancies.
The Adoption Promotion Act of 1996
My second legislative proposal, the ``Adoption Promotion Act of
1996,'' is intended to provide appropriate tax incentives to encourage
adoption, a policy which serves as a compassionate response to children
whose own parents are unable or unwilling to care for them. This is
particularly important in an era when so many teenagers are having
babies and are unable to care for them.
Based upon my own strong sense of family, I firmly believe that the
family is the primary building block of our society. To reinforce the
important role families play in our society, the Senate and the House
of Representatives recently passed balanced budget legislation which
contained provisions to benefit families. For instance, the agreement
provided a $500 per child tax credit to help cover the rising costs of
raising children. That legislation also provided a $5,000 nonrefundable
tax credit for families who follow the long and arduous, but rewarding,
process of adopting a child. Although this legislation was vetoed by
the President, I believe it made a very strong statement in support of
the American family.
I have spent the past year advocating scrapping our current Tax Code
and replacing it with a flat tax that would encourage saving, stimulate
growth, and promote fundamental simplicity. In March 1995 I introduced
S. 488, the Flat Tax Act of 1995, which would increase economic growth
by $2 trillion and reduce interest rates by 2 full percentage points.
Further, S. 488 would provide much more generous personal exemptions
and deductions for children. However, as the Congress debates the
merits and necessity of fundamental tax reform, and until such
legislation is enacted, I believe we need to move forward with
specialized tax legislation that promotes adoption.
As I stated earlier, today I am introducing the Adoption Promotion
Act of 1996, which would encourage the adoption of children into
healthy and stable existing families. Far too many children are left to
grow up in foster care without ever experiencing the rewards of being a
permanent family member. Many other couples, unable to conceive their
own child, turn to infant adoption to start a family. Recognizing the
cost hurdles that may discourage many American families from adopting a
child, my legislation would provide a nonrefundable adoption tax credit
for up to $5,000 in qualified adoption expenses for families earning up
to $65,000 in annual adjusted gross income. The credit is available at
a gradually reduced percentage to families with adjusted gross income
between $65,000 and $95,000. The credit is available during the year of
the legal, finalized adoption, but may cover expenses incurred in
previous years toward the adoption.
As I will explain in greater detail later, my legislation also would
allow all families to make penalty free withdrawals of up to $2,000
from Individual Retirement Accounts to pay adoption expenses. In
addition, the bill allows employers to offer their employees tax-free
benefits for adoption. To address the particular problem of placing
children with special needs in adoptive families, my legislation would
provide a $7,500 nonrefundable tax credit for such adoptions.
Mr. President, when couples realize that they are not able to
conceive their own children or that it is not medically advisable, many
consider adoption. Many other couples blessed with their own children
consider adopting a child out of a sense of love and community,
particularly where a child has been in foster care. These couples
quickly learn that the costs associated with adoption can be
prohibitive. It is not uncommon for the adopting family to pay
thousands of dollars in legal expenses, prenatal care for the birth
mother, and the cost of the adopted child's hospital delivery. In fact,
according to information from congressional testimony by the National
Council on Adoption, adoption costs range between zero and $30,000,
averaging $15,000 for infants born in the United States.
My bill includes a provision to encourage in particular the placement
of special needs children because there is good reason to provide a
particular incentive for their adoption. This legislation adopts the
definition contained in the balanced budget legislation and states that
a child with a special need is one who has a mental, physical or
emotional handicap or who may fall into a specific age, gender or
minority group. However, this clinical explanation belies the
frustrating condition of these children. According to the Ways and
Means Committee, in fiscal year 1990, 71 percent of children with one
or more special needs were waiting for adoptive placement. In cases
where children have medical conditions, most through no fault of their
own, costs of care can be prohibitive. It then becomes even more
difficult to place such children in adoptive families because of these
tragic circumstances. I am hopeful that the $7,500 tax credit will ease
the financial burden on families considering adopting a special needs
child. I would note that the credit is not tied solely to the actual
costs of the adoption, because such adoptions are often less expensive
than a typical infant adoption. Therefore, this credit is available to
defray additional expenses of having a special needs child join one's
family.
Under current law, if an employer helps to pay an employee's
pregnancy expenses by funding an insurance policy or paying the fees
for an employee to join an health maintenance organization, these
expenses are treated as tax-free fringe benefits. But if an employer
helps his or her employees with adoption expenses, it has to pay these
expenses in after-tax dollars. That is why my legislation provides that
employer-provided adoption assistance is tax free for up to $5,000 in
benefits for each child (up to $7,500 for special needs children). This
tax provision is also phased out based on income, but at a higher level
than the tax credit, in order to allow more families to take full
advantage of employee fringe benefits. I am proud to mention that
several companies in Pennsylvania, including First Pennsylvania Bank,
Rohm and Haas, and Wyeth-Ayerst already provide adoption assistance to
their employees. Other companies offering such benefits include General
Motors, DuPont and PepsiCo.
Finally, I have included provisions in my legislation to allow the
penalty-free withdrawal from Individual Retirement Accounts [IRA] to
help cover the costs of adoption expenses. I understand the fact that a
tax credit is simply not enough to cover all the expenses associated
with adoption. I believe the federal tax code must encourage savings
and reward taxpayers not penalize them for the wise uses of their hard-
earned money. I have supported other efforts in the past that would
allow the use of IRA funds for personal capital expenses such as
purchase of a family home, investment in college education, or payment
of medical expenses. In my judgment, using IRA funds for adoption
expenses is equally meritorious.
Given prior support in both the Senate and House for some type of tax
incentives to promote adoption, I am hopeful that my colleagues will
favorably consider the mix of incentives contained in the Adoption
Promotion Act of 1996 and enact this legislation in the near future. By
reducing the financial hurdles to adoption, I hope we will be able to
give new hope to the thousands of children who live in foster care
awaiting the chance to be brought into a loving family environment
permanently. In conclusion, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the Congressional Record a ``Dear Colleague'' letter,
dated March 25, together with a summary of the legislative provisions,
together with the bills themselves, which identify the 14 sponsors of
the abstinence bill and the 12 sponsors of the adoption bill, together
with seven letters: one from David Keene of the American Conservative
Union; the second from Danelle Stone and Melissa Mizner of the Catholic
Charities (Erie Diocese); the third from Pastor Horace W. Strand of the
Faith Temple Holy Church and Christian School; the fourth from
Commissioner Colin A. Hanna of Chester County; the fifth from
Commissioner Joseph A. Ford of Washington County; the sixth from
Commissioner Jim Beckwith of Mifflin County; and the seventh from
President Carol Jean Vale of Chestnut Hill College.
[[Page S4326]]
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
United States Senate,
Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC, March 25, 1996.
Dear Colleague: I am writing to urge you to cosponsor two
bills I intend to introduce shortly: the Adolescent Family
Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1966 and the Adoption
Promotion Act of 1996.
While there are obviously great differences of opinion on
the pro-life-pro-choice issue, there is a consensus that all
efforts should be made to prevent unwanted teen pregnancies
through abstinence. The first bill does just that.
Where tax breaks for adoption would encourage carrying to
term, we should act on that as well. The second bill does
just that.
The following describes the essence of the two bills:
Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of
1966--Reauthorizes the Adolescent Family Life (Title XX)
program, which funds demonstration projects focusing on
abstinence, adolescent sexuality, adoption alternatives,
pregnancy and parenting. This program had bipartisan support
when originally enacted in 1981 and when it was reauthorized
in 1984. Authority for Title XX expired in 1985 and since
then, the program has been operating under funding provided
in the annual Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill.
For FY 1996, the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations
Subcommittee, which I chair, has provided $7.7 million for
the Adolescent Family Life program. Congress should
reauthorize Title XX to demonstrate our commitment to
abstinence education and the physical and emotional health of
adolescents.
The Adoption Promotion Act of 1996--Provides tax incentives
to encourage adoption, a policy which serves as a
compassionate response to children whose own parents are
unable or unwilling to care for them. This is particularly
important in an era when so many teenagers are having babies
and are unable to care for them. This proposal is based
substantially on the provisions contained in the balanced
budget legislation which Congress passed in 1995 but was
vetoed by the President.
I hope you will cosponsor one or both of these bills. If
you are interested, please contact me or have your staff
contact Dan Renberg at 224-4254.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
P.S. A more detailed statement of the bills is enclosed. My
office and I would be glad to provide additional information
upon request.
____
Specter Proposals To Deal With Teenage Pregnancy
adolescent family life and abstinence education act of 1996
Reauthorizes Adolescent Family Life program (Title XX) for
the first time since 1984, and at a higher ($75,000,000)
level than before. It has been funded annually in Labor, HHS
appropriations, but without authorization or reform.
This HHS program provides demonstration grants and
contracts for initiatives focusing directly on issues of
abstinence, adolescent sexuality, adoption alternatives,
pregnancy and parenting.
The bill adds ``abstinence'' expressly into the statutory
definition of educational services that can be provided under
the program. (Such education is already available, but the
statute wasn't explicit in this regard.)
The bill requires the Secretary of HHS to establish an
expedited, simplified process for consideration of grant
applications for less than $15,000. (Some organizations that
wish to implement small teen pregnancy programs are unable to
cope with the current process.)
Requires the Secretary to ensure, to the maximum extent
practicable, that approved grant applications adequately
represent both urban and rural areas.
adoption promotion act of 1996
Builds on adoption tax incentives contained in Section
11003 of Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (budget reconciliation)
conference report.
For qualified adoption expenses, provides up to a $5,000
adoption tax credit ($7,500 for children with special needs--
age, ethnic group, physical/mental/emotional handicap).
Credit is phased out beginning at $65,000 adjusted gross
income and is eliminated at $95,000.
Provides for penalty-free IRA withdrawals of up to $2,000
for qualified adoption expenses.
Tax-free treatment of employer-provided adoption
assistance, to level the playing field with tax-free
treatment of employer-provided pregnancy expenses. Exclusion
from gross income of up to $5,000 in benefits ($7,500 for
special needs children), phasing out from $75,000 to
$115,000.
____
The American Conservative Union,
Alexandria, VA, March 27, 1996.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
U.S. Senate, Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Specter: Your recent introduction of
legislation to provide tax incentives designed to promote
adoption is to be commended.
On behalf of the more than one million members and
supporters of the American Conservative Union, I can say
without reservation that your approach to helping parents
seeking adoptive children and those children who in our
society are too often shunted aside deserves wide public
support.
It is my hope that it will also enjoy widespread
Congressional support.
Sincerely Yours,
David A. Keene,
Chairman, ACU.
____
Catholic Charities,
Counseling And Adoption Services,
Erie, PA, March 11, 1996.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Specter, Thank you for sending a copy of the
draft of the bills and a draft of the floor statement
concerning the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence
Education Act and the Adoption Promotion Act.
A tax credit for adoption would be highly favored by
prospective adoptive couples and would certainly benefit
those children waiting for permanent families.
For the past four years, Melissa Mizner, therapist, and
myself have presented a program to school students promoting
sexual abstinence. We have conducted 95 presentations in over
25 schools both public and private for approximately 4,400
students in grades six to twelve. Catholic Charities
Counseling and Adoption Services has assumed the financial
burden of presenting this program despite our numerous
attempts to secure outside funding. The agency recognizes the
importance of this message and feels prevention services is
money well spent.
We have not applied for money from Title XX because the
process for application is so difficult for the small amount
of $3,000 to $5,000 we would require each year to provide
this program. I wish this process could be simplified for
agencies requesting smaller grants from the Adolescent Family
Life program. If it were, other agencies in Pennsylvania
might consider providing a similar program such as ours.
We are in full favor of your two proposed bills. If we can
be of any assistance in providing support for these
proposals, please do not hesitate to contact the agency.
Thank you for taking the time to keep us informed and
aware.
Sincerely,
Danelle Stone, BSSW,
Adoption Coordinator.
Melissa Mizner, MS, NCC,
Marriage and Family Therapist.
____
Faith Temple Holy Church,
and Christian School,
March 8, 1996.
Senator Arlen Specter,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Specter, Thank you for giving; me the opportunity
to review your statement to the Senate on the need to amend
Title XX to include the teaching of Abstinence, and the
promotion of the 1996 Adoption Act. First I want to say how
much I appreciated hearing of the value your parents placed
on the Institution of Marriage. The personal example of you
and your siblings demonstrate that their value was not lost
with them. I was also pleased to hear of your personal
position on Abortion, and I can appreciate your position on
Choice; even though I strongly believe in the protection of
Life from the moment of conception. I think that more of your
constituents should know you are not an advocate of Abortion;
but a advocate of personal rights.
This amendment to Title XX can be the instrument to bring
both sides together, and stop the need for most abortions by
decreasing the growing rate of un-intended pregnancies. The
additional funding, and the promotion of the Adoption Act of
1996 will help tremendously. Please be advised that as a
Pastor, and school Administrator, I can see the need for
resources being allocated for this purpose. If I can be of
any help to you in promoting this worthy endeavor; please
feel free to call on me.
Yours in His Service,
Dr. Horace W. Strand,
Pastor.
____
The County of Chester,
Office of the Commissioners,
West Chester, PA, March 14, 1996.
The Hon. Arlen Specter
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Arlen: It was great to see you again at the
Conservative Political Action Conference last month, and to
learn from your letter of March 7 of your support of such a
bedrock conservative cause as abstinence education. Please
let me know if there is anything I can do to help advance
that agenda here in Chester County.
With warmest regards, I am
Colin A. Hanna,
Commissioner.
____
County of Washington,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Washington, PA, March 19, 1996.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Specter: This is in response to your letter of
March 7, 1996, regarding your proposed legislation under the
titles of the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education
Act of 1996 and the Adoption Promotion Act of 1996.
[[Page S4327]]
First of all, abstinence education is very important if
provided in an educational forum. Since many of our young
adults are members of one parent families whose family time
is limited by being the sole provider and, therefore, unable
to provide the ongoing moral and family stability. Because of
changes in society, our children can no longer be guaranteed
to receive the educational and moral values found in a stable
family unit. As professionals responsible for educating our
children, we have to go beyond the traditional reading,
writing and arithmetic in preparing them for adult life. With
this in mind, the need to continue with abstinence education
is vital to the development of a moral society.
Secondly, the idea of tax incentives for adoptive parents
would help ease the burden for those families who are more
than willing to adopt but are not financially able to do so.
This would also reduce the cost and the tragedy of long term
foster care. The long term financial benefits of such an
incentive plan can only benefit those children today and
society tomorrow.
In conclusion, I would like to offer Washington County's
support on your proposed legislation.
Sincerely yours,
Joseph A. Ford, Sr., Chairman.
Washington County Board of Commissioners,
____
Chestnut Hill College,
Office of the President,
March 12, 1996.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Specter: I am writing to ask you to consider
introducing a bi-partisan amendment to restore targeted
programs to the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3019).
Central to such an amendment is the restoration of the
Perkins Loan and SSIG. As you know, thousands of Pennsylvania
college students will be affected by decisions governing the
future of such financial assistance.
As in the past, I know I can count on your support of
private higher education in the Commonwealth and throughout
the nation.
I applaud your plan to introduce legislation titled
Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1996
and the Adoption Promotion Act of 1996. I agree
wholeheartedly that people on both sides of the abortion
issue can work together to promote mutually agreeable
alternatives to abortion. Moreover, your observation that the
country needs to assess and respond to ``leading moral
indicators'' is cogent, insightful, and timely.
As always, Senator, I respect your ability to cut to the
core of issues, to name the problems, and to offer solutions.
In addition, I appreciate your balanced approach to public
policy. Different viewpoints do not have to divide, rather,
they can be starting points for discussions that empower
people with varying perspectives to meet on common ground and
thereby establish a common agenda that will benefit the
citizens of this country.
Thank you for sending me your proposed legislation and for
championing causes that I, as a citizen, deeply value.
May God bless you Joan, and your family.
Cordially,
Carol Jean Vale, SSJ, Ph.D.
President.
____
Cosponsors to Specter Abstinence/Adoption Bills As of April 29, 1996
adolescent family life and abstinence education act of 1996
Santorum, Jeffords, Lugar, Inouye, Leahy, Simpson,
Hatfield, Coats, Stevens, Pryor, Bond, Conrad and DeWine.
adoption promotion act of 1996
Santorum, Jeffords, Lugar, Harkin, Inouye, Leahy, Campbell,
Cochran, Hatfield, Stevens and Bond.
____
County Commissioners of
Mifflin County,
Lewistown, PA, March 28, 1996.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Specter: Thank you for providing me with a
copy of the Bill you are planning to introduce under titles
of the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of
1996 and the Adoption Promotion Act of 1996.
Adoption Reform is long overdue and perhaps this could be
the first step of a change.
It is appalling how many children are raised without
loving, caring parents because of our archaic laws. I firmly
believe, less costly, more accessible adoption could go a
long way in cutting the abortion rates.
I commend you on taking the initiative to address this
important issue.
Sincerely,
Jim Beckwith,
Mifflin County Commissioner.
____________________