[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5932-S5935]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      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.
                                 ______