[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.
____________________