[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S5738]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           S. 891 ``THE FAMILY IMPACT STATEMENT ACT OF 1997''

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, last Thursday, June 12, I along with 
Senators DeWine, Faircloth, Hutchinson, Coats, Coverdell, and Ashcroft 
co-sponsored S. 891, Senator Spencer Abraham's Family Impact Statement 
Act of 1997. I rise today in strong support of this important piece of 
legislation and to voice my complete disagreement with the recent anti-
family action taken by President Clinton.
  In 1987, President Ronald Reagan, realizing the importance of the 
America family and the need to be constantly aware of the negative 
impact that Federal laws and regulations can have on the family, signed 
Executive Order 12606. The purpose of this order was to ensure that the 
rights of the family are considered in the construction and carrying 
out of policies by executive departments and agencies.
  Mr. President, even though we are faced with the staggering increase 
in out-of-wedlock births, rising rates of divorce, and increases in the 
number of child abuse cases, apparently President Clinton does not 
believe that considering the impact of Government regulations on 
families is good policy.
  Much to my dismay, on April 21, 1997, President Clinton signed 
Executive Order 13045, thus stripping the American family any existing 
protection from harm in the formulation and application of Federal 
policies.
  President Reagan's Executive order placed special emphasis on the 
relationship between the family and the Federal Government. President 
Reagan directed every Federal agency to assess all regulatory and 
statutory provisions ``that may have significant potential negative 
impact on the family well-being.'' Before implementing any Federal 
policy, agency directors had to make certain that the programs they 
managed and the regulations they issued met certain family-friendly 
criteria. Specifically, they had to ask:
  Does this action strengthen or erode the authority and rights of 
parents in educating, nurturing, and supervising their children ?
  Does it strengthen or erode the stability of the family, particularly 
the marital commitment?
  Does it help the family perform its function, or does it substitute 
Government activity for that function ?
  Does it increase or decrease family earnings, and do the proposed 
benefits justify the impact on the family budget?
  Can the activity be carried out by a lower level of government or by 
the family itself?
  What message, intended or otherwise, does this program send 
concerning the status of the family?
  What message does it send to young people concerning the relationship 
between their behavior, their personal responsibility, and the norms of 
our society?
  The elimination of President Reagan's Executive order is just the 
latest in a series of decisions that indicates the Clinton 
administration's very different approach to family issues. From the 
outset of President Clinton's first term, it became clear that his 
administration intended to pursue policies sharply at odds with 
traditional American moral principles. White House actions have ranged 
from the incorporation of homosexuals into the military to the 
protection of partial birth abortion procedures.
  Mr. President, many have suggested it is community villages, in other 
words Government, that raise children. But the real truth is, families 
raise children. Families are the ones who are there night and day to 
love, to care for, and to nurture children.
  Many bureaucratic regulations produce little benefit, but can have 
unintended consequences. The examples are too numerous to mention. What 
our legislation will do is require the regulators to stop and take a 
moment to think through their regulations to make sure that, the most 
fundamental institution in civilization--the family, is not damaged by 
their actions. This is a reasonable and wise policy.

  Mr. President, I find it very odd that of all the Executive Orders 
that exist, President Clinton would reach down and lift this one up for 
elimination. This body should speak out forcefully on this subject and 
I am confident we will. The families of America deserve no less.
  S. 819, The Family Impact Statement Act of 1997, is a sound and 
reasonable piece of legislation which will restore a valuable pro-
family policy that has been established for ten years.
  I urge all my colleagues to stand united, Republicans and Democrats, 
to show that the preservation of the family is not a partisan issue. 
Our voices united will send a loud and clear message to the President 
and to this nation that we consider family protection to be one of 
America's most important issues and that we will not accept decisions 
which mark a retreat from our steadfast commitment to our Nation's 
families.
  Mr. President, I strongly believe that American families must be 
considered when the Federal Government develops and implements policies 
and regulations that affect families. Therefore, I am honored to be an 
original cosponsor S. 891 the Family Impact Statement Act of 1997 which 
will reinstate the pro-family executive order of President Reagan.
  I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Abraham, DeWine, 
Faircloth, Hutchinson, Coats, Coverdell, and Ashcroft for their 
dedicated work and help on this issue.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________