[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5927-S5935]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Robb, 
        Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bumpers, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 929. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to promote the 
partnership of small businesses and federally sponsored research 
entities to develop commercial applications for research projects, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business.


           THE SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER ACT OF 1997

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing along with Senators 
Cleland, Wellstone, Robb, Landrieu, and Harkin, the Small Business 
Technology Transfer Act of 1997. I ask unanimous consent that those 
senators listed in my statement be named original co-sponsors. This 
legislation would reauthorize the Small Business Administration's Small 
Business Technology Transfer Pilot Program through fiscal year 2003. 
The STTR program was originally authorized five years ago to combine 
the technological innovation of America's universities and research 
institutions with the business know-how and entrepreneurial spirit of 
our country's small businesses.
  The fact is that other countries are significantly more aggressive in 
many ways about their joint ventures or partnerships between government 
and business in order to try to steal market share or create market 
where there may not even be one. Recently we learned that even as the 
United States was cutting back on basic research in our budget, Japan 
had committed a 50-percent increase to its budget because they 
understand that basic research is the foundation for the future 
products of the world, and those countries that are able to capitalize 
on this research are in a much better position to expand their job 
base.
  Millions of dollars each year go to federally sponsored research 
projects at America's universities, non-profit research centers and 
federal research laboratories. The innovations that are developed are 
amazing but the people who conduct the research are not always the best 
ones to market the product and develop it for commercial use.
  We have seen case after case where somebody at a university or at a 
federally sponsored research facility is sitting on top of a gold mine 
of information and technology, or even a specific product, but they do 
not know how to identify the proper target market, gain access to 
capital, or do the other things necessary to move that product from the 
laboratory to the marketplace. The STTR program was developed by those 
of us who feel very strongly that we need to help bridge that gap; that 
it is an important function in this modern marketplace for us to 
leverage the ability of those small entrepreneurs by partnering them 
with the researchers to take the technology out into the marketplace. 
Because the core competency of research institutions lies in research 
and not business, fewer practical applications for federally sponsored 
research were developed than was originally desired. It was Congress' 
intention to reconcile this problem by coupling non-profit research 
institutions with small businesses in order to promote the transfer of 
valuable technology into the commercial sector. This not only benefits 
the economy, but it ensures that the sponsoring Federal agencies get 
far more results for the dollars that we invest in research. I know 
taxpayers are much happier when we do that.
  Small business is a more effective mechanism for transferring 
technology from research institutions to industry where the technology 
can be used to improve the economy. This is important because even 
though our research institutions lead the world in science and 
engineering research, we have had difficulty successfully developing 
them into commercial applications. Transferring technology from 
research forums to the commercial marketplace not only benefits the 
American economy, but also further serves the needs of the sponsoring 
federal agency by providing better products as a result of the 
collaboration between the non-profit and for-profit sectors.
  Research for federal agencies is conducted in very diverse areas. 
Because the STTR program is limited to federal agencies with at least 
one billion dollars designated for outside research, currently five 
federal agencies participate in the STTR program. Through a series of 
three phases, research in areas of defense, health and transportation 
is transformed by small businesses into products and innovations that 
can be applied in the commercial marketplace. In the first three years 
of the STTR program, over $115 million have been awarded by the five 
participating federal agencies. In fiscal year 1996 alone, over $60 
million in awards were made to over 320 projects. My home state of 
Massachusetts had 50 projects receive awards in fiscal year 1996 for a 
total of over $8.7 million. Among the recipients of these awards were 
Harvard Medical School, Worcester Polytech and Boston University.
  The STTR program helps American businesses compete in the highly 
competitive marketplace of science and technology. Most of the small 
businesses participating in this program do not have their own research 
departments and could not afford to conduct the research needed to 
produce these products. But by collaborating with the various research 
institutions, these small businesses gain the access to

[[Page S5928]]

technology and advanced research they need to bring quality products to 
the private sector.
  I want to tell you about one company whose experience with the STTR 
program exemplifies how the small business/research institution 
partnership has succeeded in bringing ideas to market. Metal Matrix 
Cast Composites is a small business located in Waltham, Massachusetts. 
MMCC is working with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to 
develop and test aluminum alloys reinforced with ceramic particulates. 
Besides having potential military applications, these new materials 
have many commercial applications including brake systems for cars and 
landing gears for airplanes. Under a previous STTR contract, MMCC 
developed a product along with Northeastern University in Boston, that 
allowed them to provide advanced composite parts to its customers. 
Under that contract, MMCC has already sold these parts to aerospace, 
electrical, computer and medical instrument suppliers.
  The lesson of Metal Matrix Cast Composites is clear. When given the 
opportunity to collaborate with each other, small businesses and 
research institutions can produce quality products with real commercial 
applications that otherwise may not have reached the marketplace.
  We are not talking about substituting for what the sector does 
already. We are not talking about taking the place of something that 
the private sector figured out it could do better by itself or wanted 
to do. We are talking about providing something where it did not exist, 
where it will not exist, where in most instances it cannot without the 
proper kind of leverage and the proper kind of coordination. As much as 
all of us would like to feel that Adam Smith's rules are the ones that 
ought to prevail in the marketplace, the fact is that every other one 
of our industrial competitors is playing today by a different set of 
rules, by a set of, in many cases, unfair trade practices where they 
are willing to dump, willing to joint venture, willing to subsidize, 
willing to engage in a host of practices that undermine our capacity to 
move to those markets.
  By reauthorizing the STTR program, we will be giving more small 
businesses the opportunity to gain access to technology and then to 
succeed in the marketplace. I urge my colleagues to support this worthy 
program.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record, and I also ask unanimous consent that the 
bill be available for other sponsors who wish to cosponsor it through 
the course of the day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 929

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Technology 
     Transfer Act of 1977''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) federally sponsored research at nonprofit institutions 
     has not been adequately applied to commercial purposes in the 
     past;
       (2) small businesses have the entrepreneurial spirit and 
     business experience to apply research for commercial uses;
       (3) the partnership between small businesses and research 
     institutions will create more commercial uses for innovative 
     ideas that will spur the economy; and
       (4) although to date the Small Business Technology Transfer 
     program has produced quality research proposals, an 
     additional evaluation period is warranted before the program 
     is expanded or made permanent.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purpose of this act is to reauthorize the Small 
     Business Technology Transfer program for fiscal years 1998 
     through 2003 to allow for a more complete assessment of the 
     impact and effectiveness of the program.

     SEC. 4. SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 9(n) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 638(n) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) Required expenditure amounts.--With respect to fiscal 
     years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003, each Federal 
     agency that has an extramural budget for research, or 
     research and development, in excess of $1,000,000,000 for 
     that fiscal year, may expend with small business concerns not 
     less than 0.15 percent of that extramural budget specifically 
     in connection with STTR programs that meet the requirements 
     of this section and any policy directives and regulations 
     issued under this section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Mack):
  S. 931. A bill to designate the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness 
and the Ernest F. Coe Visitor Center, to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


 marjory stoneman douglas wilderness and ernest f. coe visitor center 
                            designation act

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I'm happy to have this opportunity today 
to introduce legislation to amend the National Parks and Recreation Act 
of 1978 to designate the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness and to 
amend the Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 
to designate the Ernest F. Coe Visitor Center.
  Ms. Douglas and Mr. Coe led the charge to establish Everglades 
National Park and raise public awareness to restore its vitality.
  I think most Americans know that Everglades National Park preserves 
the subtropical region at the southern tip of Florida. But what most 
people don't realize is that the park has been nominated by the United 
States and accepted by the world community as a world heritage site, a 
wetland of international significance, and a biosphere reserve in 
recognition of its international significance. It is the only site in 
the Nation that has received all three designations, which serves to 
underscore the superlative qualities of the park on a global scale.
  Everglades National Park is well known for its diverse and unique 
wildlife, including alligators and crocodiles, eagles, manatees, and 
various fish species. The park has 13 species of endangered birds. It 
has open prairies and extensive saltwater areas with sawgrass marshes, 
mangroves, and shallow bays. Its 1.3 million acres of wilderness make 
it the largest subtropical wilderness in the continental United States.
  In 1926 and again in 1928, Senator Park Trammel of Florida introduced 
legislation calling for an examination of the Everglades to determine 
if a portion could qualify as a national park. The National Park 
Service had made some preliminary inquiries into the matter when Ernest 
Francis Coe came forward to champion the idea of creating a national 
park in southern Florida. Coe came to Coconut Grove from New England in 
1925 and was overwhelmed with the natural beauty and wildlife of the 
Cape Sable and Ten Thousand Islands area. He wanted to find some way to 
protect the bird rookeries and hammocks, and the establishment of a 
national park seemed like an ideal solution.
  Mr. Coe became the central leader in the campaign to create 
Everglades National Park. In 1928, he organized the Tropic Everglades 
National Park Association and is widely regarded as the Father of 
Everglades National Park. As a landscape architect, Mr. Coe's vision 
for the park recognized the need to protect south Florida's diverse 
wildlife and their habitats for future generations. His leadership, 
selfless devotion, and commitment to achieving this vision culminated 
in the authorization of the park by Congress in 1934 and its subsequent 
dedication by President Truman in 1947.
  While it is not required by law that Congress name park visitor 
centers, this legislation will demonstrate Congress' support for 
honoring Mr. Coe's legacy. Because of his central role in the 
establishment of Everglades National Park, it is also a fitting tribute 
that park visitors be greeted by the congressionally designated Coe 
Center.
  In 1947, Marjory Stoneman Douglas published her landmark book, ``The 
Everglades: River of Grass,'' which greatly increased interest in and 
concern for the Everglades. Ms. Douglas, who celebrated her 107th 
birthday on April 6, symbolizes the struggle to save the Everglades. 
Her pioneering work was the first to highlight the plight of the 
Everglades and ultimately served to awaken public interest in restoring 
its health. Ms. Douglas has dedicated her life to the defense of the 
Everglades through her extraordinary personal effort and by inspiring 
countless others

[[Page S5929]]

to take action. Recognizing these accomplishments, in 1992 President 
Clinton awarded her to the Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest 
civilian award.
  Ms. Douglas has consistently stated her wish to have Ernest Coe's 
efforts suitably commemorated at the park. She has expressed through 
her associates Dr. Sharon T. Richardson her delight with the idea of 
designating the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness area. Dr. 
Richardson has added her opinion that, ``Nothing could mark her life 
more suitably than to give her name to this resplendent wilderness.''

  I can only echo that sentiment and add that nothing could be more 
appropriate during this 50th anniversary year of Everglades National 
Park, than the commemoration of these two legends as proposed in this 
bill.
  To quote from Marjory Stoneman Douglas' book ``River of Grass:''

       There are no other Everglades in the World.
       They are, they have always been, one of the unique regions 
     of the earth, remote, never wholly known. Nothing anywhere 
     else is like them: their vast glittering openness, wider than 
     the enormous visible round of the horizon, the racing free 
     saltness and sweetness of their massive winds, under the 
     dazzling blue heights of space. They are unique also in the 
     simplicity, the diversity, the related harmony of the forms 
     of life they enclose. The miracle of the light pours over the 
     green and brown expanse of saw grass and of water, shining 
     and slow-moving below, the grass and water that is the 
     meaning and the central fact of the Everglades of Florida. It 
     is a river of grass.

  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. 931

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Marjory Stoneman Douglas 
     Wilderness and Ernest F. Coe Visitor Center Designation 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1)(A) Marjory Stoneman Douglas, through her book, ``The 
     Everglades: River of Grass'' (published in 1947), defined the 
     Everglades for the people of the United States and the 
     world;
       (B) Mrs. Douglas' book was the first to stimulate 
     widespread understanding of the Everglades ecosystem and 
     ultimately served to awaken the desire of the people of the 
     United States to restore the ecosystem's health;
       (C) in her 107th year, Mrs. Douglas is the sole surviving 
     member of the original group of people who devoted decades of 
     selfless effort to establish the Everglades National Park;
       (D) when the water supply and ecology of the Everglades, 
     both within and outside the park, became threatened by 
     drainage and development, Mrs. Douglas dedicated the balance 
     of her life to the defense of the Everglades through 
     extraordinary personal effort and by inspiring countless 
     other people to take action;
       (E) for these and many other accomplishments, the President 
     awarded Mrs. Douglas the Medal of Freedom on Earth Day, 1994; 
     and
       (2)(A) Ernest F. Coe (1886-1951) was a leader in the 
     creation of Everglades National Park;
       (B) Mr. Coe organized the Tropic Everglades National Park 
     Association in 1928 and was widely regarded as the father of 
     Everglades National Park;
       (C) as a landscape architect, Mr. Coe's vision for the park 
     recognized the need to protect south Florida's diverse 
     wildlife and habitats for future generations;
       (D) Mr. Coe's original park proposal included lands and 
     waters subsequently protected within the Everglades National 
     Park, the Big Cypress National Preserve, and the Florida Keys 
     National Marine Sanctuary; and
       (E)(i) Mr. Coe's leadership, selfless devotion, and 
     commitment to achieving his vision culminated in the 
     authorization of the Everglades National Park by Congress in 
     1934;
       (ii) after authorization of the park, Mr. Coe fought 
     tirelessly and lobbied strenuously for establishment of the 
     park, finally realizing his dream in 1947; and
       (iii) Mr. Coe accomplished much of the work described in 
     this paragraph at his own expense, which dramatically 
     demonstrated his commitment to establishment of Everglades 
     National Park.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to commemorate 
     the vision, leadership, and enduring contributions of Marjory 
     Stoneman Douglas and Ernest F. Coe to the protection of the 
     Everglades and the establishment of Everglades National Park.

     SEC. 3. MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS WILDERNESS.

       (a) Redesignation.--Section 401(3) of the National Parks 
     and Recreation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-625; 92 Stat. 3490; 
     16 U.S.C. 1132 note) is amended by striking ``to be known as 
     the Everglades Wilderness'' and inserting ``to be known as 
     the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness to commemorate the 
     vision and leadership shown by Mrs. Douglas in the protection 
     of the Everglades and the establishment of the Everglades 
     National Park''.
       (b) Notice of Redesignation.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall provide such notification of the redesignation made by 
     the amendment made by subsection (a) by signs, materials, 
     maps, markers, interpretive programs, and other means 
     (including changes in signs, materials, maps, and markers in 
     existence before the date of enactment of this Act) as will 
     adequately inform the public of the redesignation of the 
     wilderness area and the reasons for the redesignation.
       (c) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, 
     document, record, map, or other paper of the United States to 
     the ``Everglades Wilderness'' shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the ``Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness''.

     SEC. 4. ERNEST F. COE VISITOR CENTER.

       (a) Designation.--Section 103 of the Everglades National 
     Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-7) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Ernest F. Coe Visitor Center.--On completion of 
     construction of the main visitor center facility at the 
     headquarters of Everglades National Park, the Secretary shall 
     designate the visitor center facility as the `Ernest F. Coe 
     Visitor Center', to commemorate the vision and leadership 
     shown by Mr. Coe in the establishment and protection of 
     Everglades National Park.''.

     SEC. 5. CONFORMING AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       Section 103 of the Everglades National Park Protection and 
     Expansion Act of 1989 (16 U.S.C. 410r-7) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``personally-owned'' 
     and inserting ``personally-owned''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``Visitor Center'' and 
     inserting ``Marjory Stoneman Douglas Visitor Center''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAMM (for himself, Mr. Bumpers, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
        Hutchinson, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. 
        Cleland):
  S. 932. A bill to amend the National Agricultural Research, 
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 to require the Secretary of 
Agriculture to establish a national advisory and implementation board 
on imported fire ant control, management, and eradication and, in 
conjunction with the board, to provide grants for research or 
demonstration projects related to the control, management, and possible 
eradication of imported fire ants, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


     the fire ant control, management, and eradication act of 1997

  Mr. GRAMM, Mr. President, today, I am joined by Senators Bumpers, 
Hutchison, Hutchinson, Thurmond, Shelby, Sessions, and Cleland in 
introducing the Fire Ant Control, Management, and Eradication Act of 
1997. Over the last 76 years, imported fire ants have infested over 275 
million acres in 13 Southern States. The fire ant affects both urban 
and rural areas with damage estimates in the billions of dollars 
annually. In Texas, fire ant damage is estimated at $300 million 
annually, and the cattle industry alone suffers annual losses of $67 
million. Further, it is estimated that the State of Georgia loses $46 
million annually, with Louisiana and Alabama incurring annual damages 
of $23.8 and $16 million respectively. Mississippi has estimated losses 
of $12.3 million. Homeowners in the State of Arkansas spend 
approximately $106 million each year to combat fire ant infestation.
  Research on the fire ants began in 1950 when they were first 
recognized as pests. However, from 1950 to mid-1980, most of the 
research was directed toward short-term solutions.
  Researchers generally concede that acceptable approaches to managing 
fire ants will include pesticide use coupled with biological control 
agents. Since the late 1970's more data on the general biology of fire 
ants have been established, but vast information gaps still remain.
  The legislation that I am introducing along with my colleagues will 
provide a scientific guide to controlling, managing, and possibly 
eradicating fire ants.
  The legislation is modeled after the successful screwworm and boll 
weevil eradication programs, and is supported by the American Farm 
Bureau, National Cattlemen's Association, and the National Association 
of State Departments of Agriculture.
  The bill establishes a national advisory and implementation board on 
fire

[[Page S5930]]

ant control, management, and eradication. The board will consist of 12 
members who are appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and who are 
experts in entomology and ant ecology, wildlife biology, electrical 
engineering, economics, and agribusiness. An annual total of $6 million 
will be awarded to at least 4 but not more than 13 research projects 
per year for up to 5 years. After this period, the board will select 
two of the previously funded projects to receive an additional 2-year 
grant not to exceed $4 million each. In preparation for the final plan 
to control, manage, and if possible eradicate fire ants, the board 
shall select one of the two previously funded projects or a combination 
of both as the basis for the national plan. A final 1-year grant of not 
more than $5 million will be used to develop a national plan to control 
the imported fire ant.
  Mr. President, fire ants inflict hundreds of millions of dollars in 
damage each year to homeowners, small businesses, and farmers, with no 
end in sight. Now is the time to begin using our resources to offer 
some relief.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kennedy and Ms. 
        Mikulski):
  S. 933. A bill to amend section 485(g) of the Higher Education Act of 
1965 to make information regarding men's and women's athletic programs 
at institutions of higher education easily available to prospective 
students and prospective student athletes; to the Committee on Labor 
and Human Resources.


                           The Fair Play Act

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair 
Play Act, legislation that builds upon the extraordinary success of 
title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and promotes the continued 
expansion of athletic opportunities available to women at institutions 
of higher education. I want to thank my colleague from Maine, Senator 
Snowe, my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and my 
colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, for their help in writing 
this bill.
  Twenty-five years ago, President Nixon signed title IX into law and 
ushered in a new era of opportunity for American women and girls. Prior 
to the enactment of title IX, fewer than 32,000 women competed in 
intercollegiate athletics, women received only 2 percent of schools' 
athletic budgets, and athletic scholarships for women were practically 
nonexistent.
  Today, because of title IX, more than 110,000 women compete in 
intercollegiate athletics and women account for 37 percent of college 
varsity athletes. Last year at the 1996 Olympic games, American women 
won gold medals in basketball, soccer, softball, swimming, track and 
field, gymnastics, and other sports. This Saturday, the first season of 
the WNBA will debut on network television, and it is my understanding 
that advertisers have already filled every minute of commercial time 
for the entire WNBA season. Without title IX, none of this would have 
been possible. From the professional level to intercollegiate 
competition to local high school soccer fields, women's athletics have 
captured the hearts and attention of millions of Americans.
  But the athletic opportunities created by title IX have contributed 
more than just winning teams and great female athletes. We all know 
that sports promotes better physical health. Science has shown us, 
however, that female athletes also have better mental health, emotional 
health, self-confidence, discipline, and higher academic achievement. 
Female athletes are more likely to go to and stay in college than their 
nonathletic peers. Female athletes are less likely to drop out of 
school, and are more likely to achieve higher marks in their academic 
classes. Athletics are an integral part of education and health, for 
men as well as for women.
  In addition, the addition of women's varsity sports at colleges and 
universities has led to the creation of women's athletic scholarships. 
These scholarships translate directly into opportunities to go to 
college. Indeed, in this era when the cost of college is rising three 
times as fast as household income, athletic scholarships can literally 
mean the difference between going to college and not going to college. 
Title IX has brought these opportunities within reach of millions of 
American girls and women.
  Despite the extraordinary success of title IX, however, there remains 
a significant gap between the athletic opportunities available to 
college-age women and men. While women represent 53 percent of 
students, they make up only 37 percent of student athletes. According 
to a recent NCAA study, female college athletes receive only 23 percent 
of athletic operating budgets, 38 percent of athletic scholarship 
dollars, and 27 percent of the money spent to recruit new athletes. The 
President's Council on Physical Fitness recently noted, ``The face of 
sex discrimination in athletics has changed. It [is] often no longer 
the purposeful exclusion of the past, but a collection of more subtle 
inequities that could be explained away by a lack of resources.''

  The fact is, most colleges and universities do not provide their 
female students with athletic opportunities comparable to those they 
offer to their male students. According to a recent USA Today survey of 
NCAA division I-A schools, only 9 percent of the 303 schools surveyed 
have roughly proportionate numbers of female and male athletes.
  Title IX does not, in fact, as some people believe, require schools 
to devote half their athletic resources to women, or equalize the 
number of male and female athletes. Title IX does require, however, 
that colleges at least make a continued effort to expand their 
athletics programs to fully accommodate the interests of both sexes. In 
order to monitor this progress and title IX compliance, colleges and 
universities are required to collect information about their men's and 
women's athletic programs, including participation rates, operating and 
recruitment budgets, the availability of scholarships, revenues 
generated from athletic programs, and coaches' salaries, and are 
required to make this information available upon request. There is not, 
however, any mechanism for the collection and distribution of this 
important information, and the Department of Education does not have 
ready access to all of this information to assist in its enforcement of 
title IX.
  The Fair Play Act directs colleges and universities to send this 
information, which they already compile annually, to the Department of 
Education. The bill therefore imposes no additional burden on colleges 
and universities. The bill directs the Department to issue an annual 
report and make the information available through a variety of 
mechanisms, including the Department's World Wide Web site and a toll-
free number people to provide easy access to the information reported 
by schools, as well as information about title IX.
  The Fair Play Act will provide prospective students and prospective 
student athletes with the kind of information they need to make 
informed decisions about where to go to school. It will give the 
Department of Education valuable information it needs to aid its 
enforcement of title IX in the area of athletics, and it will encourage 
schools to continue to expand the athletic programs to meet the 
interests of women nationwide. This legislation is the logical next 
step in the continuing effort to expand athletic opportunities 
available to women.
  Over its 25 year history, title IX has been directly responsible for 
expanding the athletic opportunities available to millions of women and 
girls. The Fair Play Act will build on this legacy of success, and 
provide the information needed to ensure that the expansion of athletic 
opportunities available to women continues into the 21st century.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join us today sponsoring this 
legislation and ask unanimous consent that a summary and the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 933

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Play Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) June 23, 1997, marks the 25th anniversary of the 
     signing of title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 
     U.S.C. 1681 et

[[Page S5931]]

     seq.) into law, and on that day communities across the United 
     States will honor the tremendous difference such title IX has 
     made to women and girls in our Nation.
       (2) Since enactment in 1972, such title IX has played a 
     vital role in expanding the athletic opportunities available 
     to American girls and women.
       (3) Prior to the enactment of such title IX, fewer than 
     32,000 women competed in intercollegiate athletics, women 
     received only 2 percent of schools' athletic budgets, and 
     athletic scholarships for women were practically nonexistent.
       (4) In 1997, more than 110,000 women competed in 
     intercollegiate sports, and women account for 37 percent of 
     college varsity athletes.
       (5) While such title IX has been very successful, a 
     significant gap remains between the athletic opportunities 
     available to men and the athletic opportunities available to 
     women.
       (6) According to a 1997 study by the National Collegiate 
     Athletic Association, female college athletes receive only 23 
     percent of athletic operating budgets, 38 percent of athletic 
     scholarship dollars, and 27 percent of the money spent to 
     recruit new athletes.
       (7) While women represent 53 percent of the students 
     attending institutions of higher education, women comprise 
     only 37 percent of the athletes attending institutions of 
     higher education.
       (8) There is substantial evidence that women and girls who 
     participate in athletics have better physical and emotional 
     health than women and girls who do not participate, and that 
     participation in athletics can improve academic achievement.
       (9) Easily accessible information regarding the 
     expenditures of institutions of higher education for women's 
     and men's athletic programs will help prospective students 
     and prospective student athletes make informed judgments 
     about the commitment of a given institution of higher 
     education to providing athletic opportunities to male and 
     female students attending the institution.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to make information regarding men's and women's 
     athletic programs at institutions of higher education easily 
     available to prospective students and prospective student 
     athletes; and
       (2) to increase the athletic opportunities available to 
     women at institutions of higher education.

     SEC. 4. INFORMATION AVAILABILITY.

       Section 485(g) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1092(g)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (6), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Submission; report; information availability.--(A) 
     Each institution of higher education described in paragraph 
     (1) shall provide to the Secretary, within 15 days of the 
     date that the institution makes available the report under 
     paragraph (1), the information contained in the report.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall prepare a report regarding the 
     information received under subparagraph (A) for each year by 
     April 1 of the year. The report shall--
       ``(i) summarize the information and identify trends in the 
     information;
       ``(ii) aggregate the information by divisions of the 
     National Collegiate Athletic Association; and
       ``(iii) contain information on each individual institution 
     of higher education.
       ``(C) The Secretary shall ensure that the report described 
     in subparagraph (B) is made available on the Internet within 
     a reasonable period of time.
       ``(D) The Secretary shall establish, within a reasonable 
     period of time, a toll-free telephone service--
       ``(i) to provide the public with information regarding 
     reports described in subparagraph (B);
       ``(ii) to provide the public with information regarding the 
     information received under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(iii) to respond to inquiries from the public regarding 
     the provisions of title IX of the Education Amendments of 
     1972.
       ``(E) The Secretary shall use the information provided by 
     institutions of higher education under paragraph (1) to 
     ensure compliance with title IX of the Education Amendments 
     of 1972.
       ``(F) The Secretary shall notify, not later than 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of this paragraph, all secondary 
     schools in all States regarding the availability of the 
     information reported under subparagraph (B) and the 
     information made available under paragraph (1), and how such 
     information may be accessed.
                                                                    ____


                      Summary of the Fair Play Act


                                Purpose

       The Fair Play Act will provide students with valuable 
     information about men's and women's athletics programs at 
     institutions of higher education, help the Department of 
     Education enforce title IX in the area of athletics, and 
     encourage schools to continue the expansion of athletic 
     opportunities available to women.


                               Background

       While title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 has 
     succeeded in greatly expanding the athletic opportunities 
     available to women, there remains a significant gap between 
     the athletic opportunities available to men and women. Women 
     represent 53 percent of students, yet they make up only 37 
     percent of college varsity athletes and receive only 23 
     percent of athletic operating budgets.
       Under section 485(g) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 
     colleges and universities are required to compile information 
     about their men's and women's athletic programs, including 
     participation rates, operating and recruitment budgets, the 
     availability of scholarships, revenues generated from 
     athletic programs, and coaches' salaries. They are required 
     to update this information annually and make it available 
     upon request. Because there is no repository for this 
     information, however, it is difficult to obtain and evaluate 
     or put into context.


                             Fair Play Act

       The Fair Play Act directs colleges and universities to send 
     this information to the Department of Education, and directs 
     the Department to disseminate the information through a 
     variety of mechanisms.
       (1) Annual Report--The bill directs the Department to issue 
     an annual report containing the information reported by 
     colleges and universities, including aggregate data, trends, 
     information arranged by athletic conference, and information 
     on individual schools.
       (2) World Wide Web--The bill directs the Department to make 
     this report available on its World Wide Web site, increasing 
     its accessibility and saving publication costs.
       (3) Toll-Free Number--The bill directs the Department to 
     establish a toll-free number through which people could 
     request the information reported by schools, the annual 
     report, or other information about title IX of the Education 
     Amendments of 1972.
       (4) Notification of High Schools--The bill directs the 
     Department to notify high schools of the availability of this 
     information.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join Senator Moseley-
Braun and Senator Snowe as an original cosponsor of the Fair Play Act 
of 1997. Our goal is to ensure that women applying to college have the 
information they need to make decisions about sports opportunities at 
their colleges. This information will also enable the Department of 
Education to do a better job of enforcing title IX of the Education 
Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination in college sports 
programs.
  We've made progress in the quarter century since title IX became law. 
But we can do better.
  Nancy Hogshead is an outstanding example of what we can accomplish. 
After suffering a great tragedy, she used sports to heal her body and 
spirit. That determination led to several Olympic medals, and Nancy 
gives title IX the credit for her success.
  Many other women have excelled because title IX opened the door to 
opportunity. Who can forget the final home run that clinched the gold 
medal for the women's softball team? Or the medal-winning efforts of 
the women's soccer team--so many stars of that team were college 
athletes. And, each of us watched in awe as Kerry Strug landed her 
vault on one foot to secure a gold medal for the women's gymnastics 
team.
  And we will do even better in the years ahead by ensuring that more 
young women in colleges in communities through across the country will 
have the opportunity they deserve to participate in sports.
  Title IX is an essential part of our civil rights laws. But, it is 
often undermined by those who still believe that women and girls should 
be spectators in the grandstand, not participants on the playing field. 
From the school gym to the Olympic stadium, if genuinely equal 
opportunities are available, women will take advantage of them and 
excel. And wherever they go from college, whatever their career, the 
lessons they learn in sports will serve them all their lives.
  That is why this legislation is so important. The Fair Play Act of 
1997 provides students interested in sports with the information they 
need about the colleges and universities they will attend. As a result, 
more and more schools will take greater steps more rapidly to provide 
equal opportunities. And the Department of Education will have greater 
ability to assure full compliance with the law.
  The Department of Education relies on many factors to determine 
whether colleges and universities are meeting the standards. But 
additional information will help to identify problems sooner and lead 
to their earlier resolution.
  I look forward to working closely my colleagues in the Senate and the 
House to see that this legislation becomes law. Equal opportunity women 
in sports is an achievable goal. We know

[[Page S5932]]

we can do a better job on this important issue, and now is the time to 
start doing it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Bond, Mr. Inouye, 
        Mr. Lugar, Mr. Warner, Mr. Biden, and Mr. DeWine):
  S. 934. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize 
the adolescent family life program, provide for abstinence education, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


          ADOLESCENT FAMILY LIFE AND ABSTINENCE EDUCATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Bond, Mr. Inouye, 
        Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 935. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 
the limit on the credit for adoption expenses and the exclusion for 
employer-provided adoption assistance for the adoption of special needs 
children, and to allow penalty-free IRA withdrawals for adoption 
expenses; to the Committee on Finance.


                         ADOPTION PROMOTION ACT

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce 
the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1997, and 
the Adoption Promotion Act of 1997. This legislation updates similar 
legislation which I introduced in the 104th Congress. The abstinence 
legislation is cosponsored by Senators Santorum, Bond, Inouye, Lugar, 
Warner, Biden, and DeWine, and the adoption legislation is cosponsored 
by Senators Santorum, Bond, Inouye, Cochran, and Harkin.
  This legislation, Mr. President, is directed at one of the most 
controversial and divisive issues confronting America today, and that 
is the issue of abortion. In my judgment, this is the most divisive 
issue confronting the United States since slavery. While I am 
personally very much opposed to abortion, I do not believe that it can 
be controlled by the Government. I think it is a matter for families, 
for women, for rabbis, ministers and priests, and it is essentially a 
moral issue.
  But I believe there is a consensus and general agreement on working 
toward the elimination of abortion which most Americans would find 
agreeable from all perspectives. I think that America is not pro-
abortion, but there is a disagreement as to whether the choice of women 
can be controlled by the Federal Government. One area of agreement is 
that we ought to do everything we can to discourage premarital sex 
among teenagers, unintended pregnancies, and the abortions which 
follow.
  Senator Jeremiah Denton was a leading sponsor of abstinence education 
when he served in the Senate, and in 1987, more than a decade ago, I 
took up Senator Denton's cause in maintaining funding for abstinence 
education in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education. Last year, as chairman of that subcommittee, 
we increased the funding for abstinence education very substantially, 
but there has not been an authorization bill for some time. This 
legislation would call for an authorization up to some $75 million a 
year. I think we are not going to be able to get there in the immediate 
future, but I think that is a target where we ought to have 
authorization to give the Appropriations Committee ample room to work.
  I have visited schools around the country. I have found it very much 
to the point to talk in very direct and candid terms to teenagers in 
schools about the problems of drugs and about the importance of 
abstinence, and there is an interest I think among teenagers in wishing 
to discuss it in an open and frank way. What young women need is to 
have counter peer pressure which would move toward abstinence. On 
Friday, March 15, 1996, I had the opportunity to kick off the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Teen Pregnancy Prevention Week at 
Central High School in Philadelphia. During that week, communities 
throughout Pennsylvania conducted special activities to promote pre-
marital abstinence as the healthiest way to prevent teen pregnancy and 
the many other physical and emotional consequences of early sexual 
activity.

  Last April, I visited Carrick High School in Pittsburgh, where I met 
with students who are involved in an abstinence program. I also visited 
the Susquehanna Valley Pregnancy Service in Lancaster, which works with 
young people who have taken pledges of abstinence and counsels them on 
overcoming peer pressure with counter peer pressure. I met and 
discussed abstinence and other issues with students at Susquehanna 
Township High School in Harrisburg, Manheim Township High School in 
Lancaster, Cedar Cliff High School in New Cumberland, Central York High 
School in York, and Liberty High School in Bethlehem.
  Throughout the 104th Congress, I conducted hearings on the issues of 
teen pregnancy, abstinence education, and adoption in my capacity as 
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education. Numerous witnesses shared their expertise and 
experiences. I ask unanimous consent a complete list of these witnesses 
be printed in the Record as exhibit 1.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. The legislation I am introducing today builds on the 
significant progress made in the 104th Congress, where we enacted tax 
credits for adoption and authorized, through the welfare bill, an 
additional $50 million for fiscal years 1998 to 2002 to provide 
abstinence education. As my colleagues may recall, I introduced similar 
legislation in the 104th Congress on April 29, 1996.
  At the outset, let me provide my colleagues with a brief summary of 
the legislation. My first proposal would reauthorize and expand the 
Adolescent Family Life Program, providing $75 million annually to 
promote abstinence education for teens. My second proposal would 
increase the tax credit for adopting special-needs children to $7,500 
and would permit penalty-free withdrawals from individual retirement 
accounts for adoption expenses. These two bills complement my efforts 
to advocate adequate prenatal care, especially for teens, through the 
Healthy Start Program. We know that in most instances, prenatal care is 
effective in preventing premature births. I saw my first 1-pound baby 
more than a decade ago. It is really a startling sight, a child no 
bigger than my hand, carrying scars for a lifetime and costing as much 
as $400,000 in medical care per child over a lifetime, according to the 
most recent data from the National Commission to Prevent Infant 
Mortality.

  Mr. President, 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.'' 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. As we 
have tried to steer toward a growing economy and a balanced budget, we 
have seen a growing consensus that all our goals must rest on a 
restored ethic of personal responsibility. A crisis of values, in fact, 
underlies many of the 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 together and move our Nation 
forward.
  While the news media offer us a monthly snapshot of leading economic 
indicators, it may be that our leading moral indicators are more 
telling, such as the staggering number of teenage pregnancies and the 
rapid rise in juvenile crime, which suggest that the erosion of the 
American family continues unabated. Further, today more than 50 percent 
of American marriages end in divorce, meaning that millions of children 
face at least some instability in their home environment. Marriage is 
obviously important in that a strong family structure, based on a 
commitment of mutual support and respect, is vital for children. On the 
subject of family values, I speak with considerable pride about the 
manner in which my parents and my siblings have respected the 
institution of marriage. In addition to my own marriage of 44

[[Page S5933]]

years and 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 
54th wedding anniversary in April 1997. My sister, Shirley, was married 
to Edward Kety for 46 years until his death in 1995. My son, Shanin, 
and his wife, Tracey, celebrated their 10th wedding anniversary on June 
29, 1996. So our family totals 250 years of marriage, and counting.
  On this critical question of the health of America's families, the 
grim statistics are worth airing. The number of teenage pregnancies in 
the United States continues to reach alarming levels. According to data 
compiled by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, in 1992, the most recent 
year for which statistics are available, approximately 931,000 women 
aged 15 to 19 became pregnant. Further, the National Center for Health 
Statistics reports that there were 500,744 births to women aged 15 to 
19 in 1995, and an additional 12,318 births to women under 15 years of 
age. By comparison, the United Nations Population Division reports that 
the United States teenage birth rate, 64 births per 1,000 females aged 
15 to 19 for the period 1990-95, is the highest in the industrialized 
world. France and Japan report some of the lowest teenage birth rates, 
at 9 and 4 births per 1,000 females, respectively. Another leading 
moral indicator is the rapid increase in the number of unwed teenage 
mothers. According to Child Trends, Inc., the percentage of births to 
mothers under age 20 that occurred outside of marriage rose from 
48 percent in 1980 to 76 percent in 1994.

  Teenage mothers face more complications in childbirth, and their 
children are 50 percent more likely to be born premature. These 
children also have a greater risk of dying in the first year of life, 
suffering developmental problems, and becoming teen parents themselves. 
Further, the Office of Population Affairs of the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services reports that 80 percent of children born to 
unwed teenage mothers who have not completed high school live in 
poverty. By contrast, of those children born to 20-year-old married 
parents who are high school graduates, only 8 percent live in poverty. 
In addition, more than three-fourths of unmarried teen mothers began 
receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC] within 5 years 
after the birth of their first child. A report released in 1996 by the 
Robin Hood Foundation estimated that adolescent childbearing costs the 
taxpayers $6.9 billion each year in welfare and food stamp benefits, 
medical care expenses, lost tax revenue, incarceration expenses, and 
foster care. To me, this necessitates a strong response from concerned 
citizens, the clergy, and public officials.
  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 in the United States. 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, that chiefly bears 
these responsibilities. Nonetheless, I believe that the government can 
play a role and that we in the Congress must pursue legislative avenues 
to strengthen the social fabric and family stability of our Nation.
  My first legislative proposal, the Adolescent Family Life and 
Abstinence Education Act of 1997, would reauthorize the existing 
Adolescent Family Life Program, known as title XX, a valuable 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 resist negative peer pressure is a starting place.
  In 1981, Congress, with bipartisan support, established the 
Adolescent Family Life Program as the only Federal program of its kind. 
The program was reauthorized in 1984, and its authority expired in 
1985. Since then, the program has been funded through annual 
appropriations bills. As chairman of the Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I pressed to 
appropriate $14.2 million for the Adolescent Family Life program in 
fiscal year 1997, an increase of $6.5 million over fiscal year 1996. 
Within that amount, $10.8 million is provided for abstinence 
demonstration programs.
  A major focus of the Adolescent Family Life prevention projects is 
delaying the onset of sexual activity, thereby reducing the incidence 
of adolescent pregnancy as well as the transmission of sexually 
transmitted diseases. Investing in programs that prevent unintended 
teenage births to unwed mothers is also vital in this time of budgetary 
constraints. Addressing the problem of teenage pregnancy, which alone 
costs the government about $6.9 billion each year, will save millions 
of dollars in welfare costs.
  Since its inception, the Adolescent Family Life Program has supported 
approximately 196 care and prevention demonstration projects and 63 
research projects. On April 10, 1996, I met with officials at Mercy 
Hospital in Pittsburgh, which has received a 2-year, $1 million grant 
to create a care network to meet the physical, emotional, 
psychological, and educational needs of pregnant and parenting 
adolescents, and to expand upon school-based education programs. The 
results there have been significant.

  Now, more than 10 years after the authority for this valuable program 
expired, it is vital that Congress reauthorize the Adolescent Family 
Life Program to stem the staggering emotional and financial cost of 
teenage pregnancy. My legislation, the Adolescent Family Life and 
Abstinence Education Act of 1997, would authorize $75 million in 
Federal spending annually between now and fiscal year 2001 for the 
Adolescent Family Life Program, substantially higher than the $30 
million authorized in 1985. My legislation would also amend title XX of 
the Public Health Service Act to state expressly that the education 
services provided by the recipients of Federal funds should include 
information about abstinence.
  Updating Federal law to expressly advocate abstinence education 
provides necessary guidance to the Department of Health and Human 
Services. 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 reflect a geographic diversity with 
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. I 
urge my colleagues and others to join me in the effort to reduce 
teenage pregnancies and make America a good society by supporting this 
legislation.
  The legislation on adoption, Mr. President, builds upon legislation I 
introduced last year with my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, 
Senator Santorum, who is the principal cosponsor on both of these 
bills. Our legislation, and there are many others in the field, 
provided for a $5,000 tax credit for adoption. There are many children 
in America who need homes, and many people in America who would like to 
adopt, but it is a very, very expensive proposition. I was pleased that 
Congress adopted legislation last year providing a $5,000 tax credit 
for adoption, $6,000 in the case of a special needs child, and this 
legislation would build on that to provide for an additional $1,500 for 
special needs children, for a total of $7,500. Another provision in 
this bill would allow for a $2,000 withdrawal tax free from individual 
retirement accounts.
  Far too many children are left to grow up in foster care without ever 
experiencing the rewards of being a permanent family member. When 
couples find 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 another child 
out of a sense of love and community, particularly where a child has 
been in foster care.
  Recognizing that the costs associated with adoption can be 
prohibitive, Congress passed the Small Business Job Protection Act of 
1996 last August, which provided a nonrefundable tax credit for 
qualified adoption expenses,

[[Page S5934]]

such as reasonable and necessary adoption fees, court costs, attorney 
fees, and other expenses related to a legal adoption. The act also 
contained a tax exclusion for benefits received under employer-
sponsored adoption assistance programs. Both the tax credit and the 
exclusion of benefits are capped at $5,000 per child, or $6,000 per 
child in the case of a special needs adoption, and are fully phased out 
for adjusted gross incomes above $115,000. During Senate consideration 
of this legislation, I wrote to Majority Leader Dole and Finance 
Chairman Roth urging the inclusion of a $7,500 tax credit for special 
needs adoptions, rather than $5,000 as contained in the House-passed 
bill. I was pleased that the final bill included a higher level of 
$6,000 for special needs adoptions, but this is just not enough.
  We should be doing more to encourage, in particular, the adoption of 
children with special needs. Under current law, a child with a special 
need is one who has a mental, physical or emotional handicap, or who 
falls into a specific age, gender or minority group, which requires 
assistance to place that child with adoptive parents. This clinical 
explanation belies the frustrating condition of these children. A New 
York Times op-ed column by David S. Liederman, Executive Director of 
the Child Welfare League of America, published on May 9, 1996, stated 
that there are some 21,000 children with special needs waiting to be 
adopted, and another 65,000 in the care of welfare agencies, awaiting 
legal clearance to be made available. Many of these children have been 
placed in foster care because of parental neglect and abuse, exposure 
to drugs or HIV infection, serious emotional and physical disabilities, 
and other problems. These children, especially those with physical 
disabilities, are often very expensive to raise, which further 
compounds the difficulty of placing them in adoptive families.

  The legislation I am introducing today, the Adoption Promotion Act of 
1997, would increase the tax credit and the exclusion of benefits 
received under employer-provided adoption assistance for special needs 
adoptions from $6,000 to $7,500. While it is often much less expensive 
to adopt a special-needs child than a typical infant, related costs may 
arise, such as the remodeling of a house to accommodate a physically 
handicapped child. Increasing the tax credit and exclusion to $7,500 
will help to defray such additional expenses.
  Finally, I have included a provision in my legislation to allow the 
penalty-free withdrawal of up to $2,000 from an Individual Retirement 
Account [IRA] to help cover the costs of adoptions. I understand that a 
tax credit is simply inadequate to cover all the expenses associated 
with adoption, and I believe the Federal Tax Code should encourage 
savings and reward taxpayers, rather than penalizing them for the wise 
use 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 the 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 the substantial prior support in both the Senate and House for 
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 1997 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 on a 
permanent basis.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
restoring the health of America's families by supporting the Adolescent 
Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1997 and the Adoption 
Promotion Act of 1997. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of 
these bills be printed in the Congressional Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 934

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Adolescent Family Life and 
     Abstinence Education Act of 1997''.

     SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 2002(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300z-1) is amended in subparagraph (4)(G) by inserting ``and 
     abstinence'' after ``adoption''.

     SECTION 3. GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY.

       (a) Section 2005 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300z-4) is amended by adding after subsection (a) the 
     following:
       ``(b) In approving applications for grants for 
     demonstration projects for services under this title, the 
     Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure 
     adequate representation of both urban and rural areas.''.
       (b) Section 2005 is amended by redesignating subsections 
     (b) and (c) as subsections (c) and (d), respectively.

     SECTION 4. SIMPLIFIED APPLICATION PROCESS.

       Section 2006 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300z-5) is amended by adding the following:
       ``(g) The Secretary shall develop and implement a 
     simplified and expedited application process for applicants 
     seeking less than $15,000 of funds available under this Act 
     for a demonstration project.''

     SECTION 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 2010(a) of the Public Health Service Act is amended 
     to read as follows--``(a) For the purpose of carrying out 
     this title [42 U.S.C. 300z et seq.], there are authorized to 
     be appropriated $75,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1997 
     through 2001.''.
                                                                    ____


                                 S. 935

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Adoption Promotion Act of 
     1997''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASE IN LIMIT ON CREDIT FOR ADOPTION EXPENSES AND 
                   EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYER-PROVIDED ADOPTION 
                   ASSISTANCE FOR ADOPTION OF SPECIAL NEEDS 
                   CHILDREN.

       (a) Credit.-- Section 23(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to dollar limitation) is amended by 
     striking ``$6,000'' and inserting ``$7,500''.
       (b) Exclusion.--Section 137(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to dollar limitation) is amended by 
     striking ``$6,000'' and inserting ``$7,500''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1996.

     SEC. 3. DISTRIBUTIONS FROM CERTAIN PLANS MAY BE USED WITHOUT 
                   PENALTY TO PAY ADOPTION EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 72(t)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions to 10-percent additional 
     tax on early distributions from qualified retirement plans) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Distributions from certain plans for adoption 
     expenses.--Distributions to an individual from an individual 
     retirement plan of so much of the qualified adoption expenses 
     (as defined in section 23(d)(1)) of the individual as does 
     not exceed $2,000.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 72(t)(2)(B) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``or 
     (D)'' and insert ``, (D) or (E)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to payments and distributions after December 31, 
     1996.

                               Exhibit 1

 Witnesses Testifying Before the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, 
   Health and Human Services, and Education, on Abstinence Education


                 July 11, 1996, Washington, DC, 9:30 AM

       Allan Carlson, Ph.D. President, Rockford Institute; Gracie 
     Hsu, Policy Analyst, Family Research Council; Dr. David 
     Hager, Member of the Physician Resource Council for Focus on 
     the Family, Advisory Board Member for the Medical Institute 
     for Sexual Health; Kathleen Sullivan, Director, Project 
     Reality; and William Devlin, Director, Philadelphia Family 
     Policy Council.


                 July 22, 1996, Pittsburgh, PA, 9:15 AM

       Father Kris Stubna, Secretary for Education, Diocese of 
     Pittsburgh; Cathy Hickling, Editor, Expression Newspaper, 
     Pittsburgh, PA; Amy Scheuring, Director of the Human 
     Sexuality Alliance, Gibsonia, PA; Jacquetta Henderson, 
     Abstinence Educator, Braddock Hills, PA; and Dr. Bradley J. 
     Bradford, Chairman, Department of Pediatrics, Mercy Hospital 
     of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.


                July 29, 1996, Landisville, PA, 10:30 AM

       Rebecca Lovett, Director, Teen/Parent Program, School 
     District of Lancaster, PA; Reverend Roland K. Smith, Youth 
     President of Pennsylvania, United Pentecostal Church 
     International; Father David Sicoli, St. Anthony's Catholic 
     Church, Founder of the C.O.U.R.T. abstinence program; Robert 
     Turner, Director of Student, Discipleship, and Family 
     Ministries, Baptist Convention of Pennsylvania and South 
     Jersey; Emily Chase, Director of Educational Services, 
     Capital Area Pregnancy Center; and Ann Marie Kalloz, 
     Sexuality Education Coordinator, St. Francis Xavier Church, 
     Gettysburg, PA.


                  July 29, 1996, Scranton, PA, 2:00 PM

       Molly Kelly, Director, Philadelphia Abstention Program; Dr. 
     David Madeira, Better Health Center, Shavertown, PA; John 
     Plucenik, Director, ARC Learning Center, Kingston, PA; Kathy 
     Yaklic, Director of

[[Page S5935]]

     Youth and Young Adult Ministries, Diocese of Scranton; Mary 
     Louise Schaeffer, Executive Director, Maternal and Family 
     Health Services of Wilkes-Barre; Henry Hewitt, Principal, 
     Scranton Preparatory High School; and Reverend Frank Bissol, 
     Elkdale Baptist Church, West Clifford, PA.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 936. An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
1998 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military 
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, 
to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
Forces, and for other purposes; from the Committee on Armed Services; 
placed on the calendar.


      the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1998

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to favorably report out 
from the Committee on Armed Services an original bill, without a 
written report, which is a second version of the national defense 
authorization bill for fiscal year 1998.
  This bill is identical to S. 924, the national defense authorization 
bill for fiscal year 1998, ordered reported by the Committee on Armed 
Services on June 12, 1997, except that it does not contain sections 
311, 312, and 313, pertaining to depot-level activities of the 
Department of Defense, which were contained in subtitle B of title III 
of that bill.

                          ____________________