[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.

                          ____________________