[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 156 (Saturday, November 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12119-S12134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN:
  S. 1457. A bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States to extend to certain fine jewelry certain trade benefits of 
insular possessions of the United States; to the Committee on Finance.


            HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE AMENDMENT ACT OF 1997

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a 
bill to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to 
extend certain trade benefits to fine jewelry produced in the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
  Under current law, additional U.S. Note 5 to Chapter 91 of the 
Harmonized Tariff Schedule provides limited duty-free treatment and 
duty refunds to certain watches and watch movements produced in the 
U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. The bill I am 
introducing today would also make certain articles of fine jewelry 
produced in these insular possessions, eligible for certain note 5 
benefits, thereby significantly expanding economic opportunities for 
insular possession manufacturers and their workers. At the same time, 
this bill expressly provides that the extension of note 5 benefits to 
jewelry may not result in any increase in the authorized amount of 
benefits established by note 5.
  This legislation will promote needed employment and economic 
development in the U.S. insular possessions, particularly the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, by providing insular possession manufacturers with 
greater flexibility in the use of certain existing trade benefits.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the 
bill be placed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1457

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     additional U.S. notes to chapter 71 of the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule of the United States are amended by adding at the 
     end the following new note:
       ``3.(a) Notwithstanding any other provision in additional 
     U.S. note 5 to chapter 91, any article of jewelry provided 
     for in heading 7113 which is the product of the Virgin 
     Islands, Guam, or American Samoa (including any such article 
     which contains any foreign component) shall be eligible for 
     the benefits provided in paragraph (h) of additional U.S. 
     note 5 to chapter 91, subject to the provisions and 
     limitations of that note and of paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) 
     of this note.
       ``(b) Nothing provided for in this note shall result in an 
     increase or a decrease in the aggregate amount referred to in 
     paragraph (h)(iii) of, or quantitative limitation otherwise 
     established pursuant to the requirements of, additional U.S. 
     note 5 to chapter 91.
       ``(c) Nothing provided for in this note shall be construed 
     to permit a reduction in the amount available to watch 
     producers under paragraph (h)(iv) of additional U.S. note 5 
     to chapter 91.
       ``(d) The Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall issue such regulations, not inconsistent with 
     the provisions of this note and additional U.S. note 5 to 
     chapter 91, as they determine necessary to carry out their 
     respective duties under this note. Such regulations shall not 
     be inconsistent with substantial transformation requirements 
     established by the United States Customs Service but may 
     define the circumstances under which articles of jewelry 
     shall be deemed to be `units' for purposes of the benefits, 
     provisions, and limitations of additional U.S. note 5 to 
     chapter 91.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 
        Conrad, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerrey, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Boxer, and 
        Mr. Johnson):
  S. 1459. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a 5-year extension of the credit for producing electricity from wind 
and closed-loop biomass; to the Committee on Finance.


                 wind production tax credit legislation

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important tax 
legislation for myself, Senator Jeffords, Senator Murkowski, Senator 
Conrad, Senator Kerrey, Senator Harkin, Senator Feinstein, Senator 
Boxer, and Senator Johnson.
  Our legislation extends the production tax credit for energy produced 
from wind. This legislation is similar to that which passed the Senate 
as part of the Senate's tax bill attached to the balanced budget 
reconciliation bill this summer. Unfortunately, it was dropped in 
conference between the House and the Senate, and did not become part of 
the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
  Since the Senate has acted favorably on this wind energy production 
tax credit legislation in the past, I would like to ask Senators to 
consider it again next year. I am introducing it this year because I 
want to make sure that it gets an opportunity for cosponsorship.
  As we all know, our Nation's energy supply is both limited and 
controversial. However, energy produced from

[[Page S12120]]

wind is clean, renewable and homegrown. There is nothing limited or 
controversial about this source of energy, the wind. Americans need 
only to make the necessary investments in order to capture it for 
power.
  Our legislation extends the production tax credit and the focus on 
energy produced from wind through the month of June, 2004. Scientists 
blame excessive carbon dioxide for global warming. The chief sources of 
environmentally dangerous carbon dioxide are emissions from the burning 
of fossil fuels. Obviously, we need other safer sources. Wind energy is 
clean, abundant, and a U.S. resource that produces electricity with 
virtually no carbon dioxide emissions.
  Every 10,000 megawatts of wind energy can reduce carbon dioxide 
emissions by 33 million metric tons. Today, our Nation produces only 
1,700 megawatts of wind energy. However, the American Wind Energy 
Association estimates that U.S. wind capacity can reach 30,000 
megawatts by the year 2010. This is enough electricity to meet the 
needs of 10 million homes, while reducing pollution in every State in 
the Nation.
  Americans naturally find abundant wind in every State in the Union. 
Wind is a homegrown energy. No foreign powers can control our source of 
wind energy. No American soldiers or sailors will ever need to fight in 
foreign wars to protect our supply of wind energy, as they must in the 
case of oil. For example, consider the Persian Gulf war. No 
supertankers will ever crack up in the sea and pollute our beaches 
because of energy produced from wind.
  In short, wind energy is a good investment in the present and the 
future. Our legislation extends the successful wind energy production 
tax credit. It is a very successful way of promoting this source of 
energy. It is a cheap investment with high returns for ourselves, our 
children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren. The Senate needs 
to again pass this important legislation to ensure the wind energy 
production tax credit into the next century. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to cosponsor.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  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. 1459

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

     SECTION 1. 5-YEAR EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR PRODUCING 
                   ELECTRICITY FROM WIND AND BIOMASS.

       Paragraph (3) of section 45(c) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (defining qualified facility) is amended by striking 
     ``1999'' and inserting ``2004''.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I enthusiastically join my colleagues 
in offering legislation that would allow wind and biomass energy to 
continue to advance as commercially viable renewable energy sources. 
This legislation will allow wind and biomass energy to play a 
competitive role in the growing domestic energy market.
  Through the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress established a 
mechanism to increase investments in new or emerging energy 
technologies. In 2 years, this credit will expire. Companies developing 
wind energy, who require a 2-3 year lead time for installing new wind 
machines, were not able to take advantage of the available credit 
before it expired. Congress should extend the credit program to allow 
continued efforts to increase production of electricity from wind and 
biomass.
  To date, significant progress has been made in the development of 
wind energy, and this industry is poised to further increase its 
production capacity. With support from Congress through research and 
development funding and tax credits wind energy has become more 
competitive and the technology has improved in designs and operation. 
Generation costs from wind have dropped from 25 cents per kilowatt hour 
in 1980 to a low of 7 cents per kilowatt hour today for wind power. 
Investments in new technological improvements will further reduce the 
cost of this energy source and will enable the industry to play a key 
role in the new competitive electric utility environment.
  Likewise, biomass energy technologies, which are derived from any 
plant material and some forms of animal waste, are continuously 
improving in performance and cost.
  Madam President, I want to emphasize the importance of using 
renewable energy to meet our growing demand for energy. Renewable 
energy is important for several reasons: First, it does not produce 
harmful, life-threatening pollution; second, it is capable of providing 
ample energy to meet the huge amount of demand that is forecasted; 
third, it increases our energy and economic security; and fourth, since 
more than 2 billion people in the world live without electricity, it 
creates jobs in the United States.
  I thank my colleagues for working with me to extend the credit 
program for producing energy from wind and biomass.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Grassley and 
Jeffords as a proud cosponsor of legislation to extend the wind energy 
production tax credit. I want to commend the primary sponsors of this 
legislation for their leadership in developing this bill. The bill we 
are introducing today takes an important next step in encouraging the 
development of this very important source of renewable energy. Wind 
energy offers great promise for putting America on the road to greater 
energy independence and economic prosperity.
  I have been a long-time supporter of developing additional sources of 
renewable energy, particularly energy from wind and crops. In 1993, 
Senator Grassley and I introduced S. 1180, the Wind Energy Incentives 
Act of 1993, to provide additional incentives for developing our wind 
energy resources. My home State of North Dakota has abundant wind 
energy resources, more than any other State. I have often referred to 
North Dakota as the ``Saudi Arabia of wind energy.''
  I strongly support encouraging development of additional sources of 
energy because I am extremely concerned that the United States 
continues to face a serious energy problem. While we do not see the 
long gas lines of the 1970's, today we import more than half the oil we 
use, up from about 30 percent in 1974. While we no longer depend on 
just a few sources for that oil, it remains a dangerous dependence, and 
makes up a significant portion of our trade deficit.
  In 1992, Congress passed and the President signed the Energy Policy 
Act, which took a number of important steps toward developing our own 
energy resources here at home. One provision was the production tax 
credit of 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour for wind energy. This credit is 
meant to reduce the cost of these renewable energy sources to make them 
competitive with conventional energy sources. It is also meant to 
encourage the development of these new resources to the point where 
economies of scale enable them to compete in their own right.
  The wind production tax credit established by the 1992 Energy Policy 
Act is set to expire in just 2 years. However, the financing and 
permitting required for a typical new wind facility requires 2- to 3-
years of lead time. Because the wind production tax credit will expire 
in 2 years without the extension we are introducing today, investment 
funds to develop new wind projects are drying up, unnecessarily halting 
future project planning. Additionally, the cost of wind energy 
production has dropped significantly from its earlier days, and as the 
technology matures the cost will continue to drop.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in taking this step toward energy 
independence by cosponsoring this legislation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to cosponsor 
legislation introduced by my colleagues Senator Grassley and Senator 
Jeffords to extend the production tax credit, a tax incentive to 
encourage wind-generated energy.
  Today, California's Tehachapi-Mojave area is the world's largest 
producer of wind-generated electricity. The New York Times has 
described the area's 5,000 electricity producing wind turbines as a 
vision of the future. Wind generation energy provides a renewable, 
clean, environmentally sound source of energy in California. I am 
pleased to lend my support to the Grassley-Jeffords legislation.
  The production tax credit provides a 1.5 cent tax credit for each 
kilowatt of

[[Page S12121]]

electricity produced in the United States during the first ten years a 
new wind energy production facility is in service. The legislation is 
an inexpensive way to encourage clean, efficient and sustainable energy 
future for our children and grandchildren.
  Under current law, the production tax credit is scheduled to expire 
in 1999, complicating the planning and development of new wind energy 
generation facilities. New wind energy facilities, like any major 
construction project, take several years to move from planning to 
operation. Without the certainty of the credit after 1999, investors 
will be reluctant to commit funds for the development of new wind 
energy facilities. Industry officials have already noticed a decline in 
investment, which can be attributed to the credit's uncertainty.
  Wind energy is the world's fastest growing energy technology. The 
amount of wind-generated power has increased by 25 percent each year 
during the last 5 years, growth which is expected to accelerate through 
2010. Wind-generated energy is expected to become a $400 billion 
industry worldwide by 2020. However, most of the growth is occurring in 
Europe, rather than here in the United States. No new wind power 
generation development has occurred in the United States since 1991.
  I am pleased that California companies, including those in south and 
central California, are among the world's leading manufacturers and 
developers of wind energy facilities. If domestic firms are able to 
capture even one-fourth of the jobs associated with serving the growing 
market, the growth would support approximately 150,000 jobs. These are 
high-technology engineering jobs, traditional areas of strength for 
California, providing a solid economic foundation.
  The Grassley-Jeffords legislation will have important environmental 
consequences as well. The President's initiative against global warming 
includes $5 billion program of tax incentives, which could include the 
extension of the production tax credit. Coal is currently the Nation's 
largest source of power, providing 55 percent of the Nation's energy 
needs. However, coal has the highest level of carbon dioxide, when 
compared with the amount of electricity produced. Wind production 
energy is a significantly cleaner alternative, helping to decrease 
carbon dioxide emissions. Wind energy could supply 30,000 megawatts of 
energy by 2010, rather than current 1,700 megawatts today, reducing 
carbon dioxide emissions by 18%. These are cost-effective steps for our 
energy future.
  I am pleased to join Senator Grassley, who has demonstrated his long-
standing commitment to this important issue, and cosponsor the 
Grassley-Jeffords legislation. Without an extension, I am concerned 
wind energy production will not be able to develop, undermining 
economic, environmental and clean air goals. Wind generation energy 
provides a renewable, clean, environmentally sound source of energy for 
California's future. I am pleased to lend my support to the 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FAIRCLOTH:
  S. 1458. A bill to restrict the use of the exchange stabilization 
fund; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


       THE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR INTERNATIONAL BAILOUTS ACT OF 1997

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, last week, the Treasury Department 
announced that it planned to use $3 billion from the exchange 
stabilization fund for a bailout of Indonesia. This fund was 
established in the 1930's to protect the U.S. dollar. It was not 
designed to be the personal piggy bank of the Secretary of the Treasury 
to bail out other countries whenever he desires.
  The legislation I am introducing would require that, when this fund 
is used to be part of an international bailout in excess of $250 
million, such use would require congressional approval.
  Using this fund for Indonesia is the same procedure that was used to 
bypass the Congress for the bailout of Mexico. At the time we were told 
that the emergency bailout of Mexico was needed because they were our 
neighbor, friend, and that economic instability would spill thousands 
of immigrants into the United States.
  I find no such rationale for Indonesia. In fact, what is occurring is 
that we are seeing a tidal wave of bailouts coming our way from Asia.
  Apparently, the need for the bailouts is greater than the resources 
of the IMF. This is the reason the United States has had to resort to 
taking money from our own reserves to bail out Indonesia.
  In fact, the tidal wave has already started. The Philippines in July 
for $1 billion. Thailand for $16 billion in September. Now comes 
Indonesia for $23 billion in November. The price tag keeps getting 
bigger and we don't know where it is going to stop. The Treasury 
Secretary tried to keep us out of the first two bailouts--but the price 
tag is getting too big--now direct United States dollars are being 
called upon for the Asian bailouts.
  This week Business Week is suggesting the price tag is as high as 
$100 billion. Who is next? South Korea, Malaysia? Perhaps China and 
Japan--whose banks are holding billions in bad loans?
  What is really outrageous about this situation is that these are the 
very same countries that we have been running massive trade deficits 
for years.
  With Thailand we have a $4.6 billion trade deficit. Indonesia a $4 
billion deficit. Philippines a $2 billion deficit. South Korea a $1 
billion trade deficit--and China and Japan are off the charts.
  These are the same countries that have kept out U.S. imports with 
phony trade rules and insider deals. These are the same countries that 
have closed banking systems.
  Indonesia, in particular, was so flush with cash apparently, that 
they could afford to funnel millions in campaign contributions to 
influence U.S. elections--and here we are, the United States, bailing 
them out. Is it any wonder that the average American worker has no 
faith that the Federal Government in Washington cares about him or her.
  We have got people living paycheck to paycheck in this country. We 
don't need to bail out foreign ministers, foreign banks and securities 
firms, and rich Wall Street bankers that lent too much money to 
developing nations.
  The average American has to tell half his life story just to get a 
mortgage loan--and yet Wall Street is loaning billions to these Asian 
countries on the nod of some foreign finance minister.
  Now the bill for the bailout is being handed to the U.S. taxpayer. I 
find it deplorable. The auto plant worker, the secretary, the small 
town banker--all are being asked to turn over their tax dollars so we 
can ship them to Asia.
  I think President Clinton and Robert Rubin need to realize that Wall 
Street and Indonesia did not elect them--the people of the United 
States did, and that is who they own their loyalties to. They need to 
remember that.
  Mr. President, I can promise you that in the next session of 
Congress--this will not continue. I plan to subject every foreign 
bailout dollar to congressional approval. This legislation is the first 
step in that process.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:

  S. 1460. A bill for the relief of Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, 
and their son Vladimir Malofienko; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                       Private Relief Legislation

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
provide permanent residency in the United States for 13-year-old Vova 
Malofienko and his family, residents of Short Hills, NJ. An identical 
bill is being introduced in the House of Represenatives today by 
Congressman Steve Rothman and Congressman Bob Franks. Vova Malofienko 
has leukemia from his having lived 30 miles from the Chornobyl nuclear 
reactor in Ukraine during and after the infamous disaster. His leukemia 
is in remission only because of the emergency medical treatment he's 
received in the United States.
  Were Vova forced to return to Ukraine, the United States would be 
placing an innocent child near the front of the line on death row. Vova 
was one of eight children of Chornobyl who came to the United States in 
1990--and when the seven others later returned to Ukraine, they died 
one by one because of inadequate cancer treatment. Not a child 
survived.
  On behalf of the Malofienkos, I ask my colleagues for their 
invaluable support for this legislation. We are a compassionate nation 
that should open its

[[Page S12122]]

heart to Vova and his family, who came in dire medical need.
  Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to tell my 
colleagues a bit more about Vova and his family. Vladimir ``Vova'' 
Malofienko was born on 6/29/84 in Chernigov, Ukraine. His mother, Olga 
Matsko, was born on 9/29/59 in Piratin, Ukraine, and his father, 
Alexander Malofienko, was born on 12/25/57 in Chernigov, Ukraine.
  Vova was only 2 when the Chornobyl reactor exploded in 1986 and 
exposed him to radiation. He was diagnosed with leukemia in June 1990 
at age 6. Vova and his mother came to the United States later in 1990 
on a B-1 visitor's visa so that Vova could attend a cancer treatment 
camp for children, sponsored by the Children of Chornobyl Relief Fund. 
Vova was invited to stay in the United States to receive more extensive 
treatment and chemotherapy. In November of 1992, Vova's cancer went 
into remission. Vova's father, Alexander Malofienko joined the family 
in 1992, also on a B-1 visa.
  The Malofienko family is currently in the United States with extended 
voluntary departure through March of 1998. Alexander Malofienko's 
second application for labor certification is pending before the New 
Jersey Department of Labor. The first application for Labor 
certification was denied.
  Vova and his family desire to remain in the United States because of 
the extraordinary health concerns facing Vova. Regrettably, as I 
mentioned earlier, Vova is the only survivor from a group of eight 
children of Chornobyl who came to the United States together in 1990. 
The seven other children returned to Ukraine and have since died. Now 
that Vova is in remission, it would indeed be tragic to return him to 
an environment which would once again endanger his life. The air, food, 
and water in Ukraine are contaminated with radiation that people 
residing there for several years have grown accustomed to, but which 
could be perilous to Vova's weakened immune system.
  Furthermore, treatment available in Ukraine is not as sophisticated 
and up to date as treatment available in the United States. Before Vova 
came to the United States, no aggressive treatment for his leukemia had 
been provided. Although Vova completed his chemotherapy in 1992, he 
continues to need medical follow-up on a consistent basis, including 
physical examinations, lab work and radiological examinations to assure 
early detection and prompt and appropriate therapy in the unfortunate 
event the leukemia recurs.
  According to Dr. Peri Kamalakar, Director of the Valerie Fund 
Children's Center at Newark Beth Israel hospital, where Vova has 
received care, Vova's cancer is considered high risk with a threat of 
relapse. He is also at risk to develop significant late complications 
secondary to the intensive chemotherapy he received, including heart 
problems and secondary cancers. Another significant risk is relapse in 
the bone marrow, testis, or central nervous system. Dr. Kamalakar has 
concluded that Vova's chance for a permanent cure is considerably 
better if he stays in the United States.
  Every one of the risks to Vova's health would be magnified by what is 
only the recent emergence of the full effects of Chornobyl. Birth 
defects in the Chornobyl area have doubled. Thyroid cancer has 
increased 80 times--a rate too horrifying to comprehend. And the total 
number of children whose health will be at risk for the rest of their 
lives is over a million.
  Vova Malofienko has been embraced by all those who know him for his 
grace, dignity, and courage. He has also gained national attention by 
assisting with the philanthropic efforts of the Children of Chornobyl 
Relief Fund. It would be extremely disruptive to him and his family, in 
addition to causing great financial and emotional hardship, if they are 
not allowed to remain together in the United States in order to protect 
Vova's health. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
included in the Record.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1460

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of 
     the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), 
     Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir 
     Malofienko, shall be held and considered to have been 
     lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 
     residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon 
     payment of the required visa fees.

     SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

       Upon the granting of permanent residence to Alexandre 
     Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir Malofienko, 
     as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall 
     instruct the proper officer to reduce by the appropriate 
     number during the current fiscal year the total number of 
     immigrant visas available to natives of the country of the 
     aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                  ____


            [From the Star-Ledger, Newark, NJ, Oct. 9, 1997]

   Chernobyl Victim Fights to Stay and Live; Lautenberg Works To Win 
                          Residency for Family

                          (By Allison Freeman)

       A 13-year-old boy who contracted cancer from exposure to 
     radiation after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine may 
     get to remain in the United States.
       Sen. Frank Lautenberg said yesterday that he will introduce 
     legislation expressly to grant Vova Malofienko of Millburn 
     and his family permanent residency.
       Lautenberg plans to introduce the ``emergency relief bill'' 
     during the week of Oct. 20, following the Columbus Day 
     recess. In the spring, the senator pressured the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service to grant the Malofienkos a one-
     year emergency extension to stay in America.
       Vova, whose cancer is in remission, could suffer a relapse 
     if he returns to Ukraine because he is not used to the 
     radiation-contaminated air, food and water, according to his 
     physician, Dr. Peri Kamalakar of the Newark Beth Israel 
     Medical Center. ``My concern is, God forbid, he gets a 
     relapse back in Ukraine. I do not think they have the 
     facilities to give him the proper treatment to save his 
     life,'' the doctor said.
       Vova also received chemotherapy to treat his cancer, which 
     puts him at a greater risk for leukemia or another malady if 
     he is exposed to radiation, Kamalakar noted. ``I feel it is 
     very important for Vova's life to remain in this country.''
       Lautenberg yesterday expressed hope that the legislation 
     will pass before the family's emergency visa runs out in 
     April.
       ``I am introducing this bill not only to keep my promise to 
     Vova and his family, but also to keep the promise to 
     America,'' the senator said. ``We are a compassionate nation 
     that has to open our hearts and borders to all those like 
     Vova who came here legally and in dire medical need.''
       Vova came to America in 1990 with seven other Ukrainian 
     children, all sick from radiation exposure. Their trip to 
     actor Paul Newman's camp in Connecticut was sponsored by the 
     Children of Chernobyl Relief Fund of Short Hills, which 
     airlifts medical treatment and supplies to children afflicted 
     by the 1986 disaster.
       The seven other children in the group all returned to 
     Ukraine and have since died.
       ``They basically got a death sentence,'' Lautenberg said. 
     ``And I will never, ever let that happen to Vova.''
       Lautenberg said he is introducing the legislation now, six 
     months before the family is forced to return to Ukraine, ``to 
     avoid the kind of last-minute life or death situation that 
     the bureaucracy put the Malofienkos through before.''
       Vova yesterday said he is very happy the senator is 
     introducing special legislation on his behalf and is ``very 
     grateful to him,'' but the serious 13-year-old said, ``I do 
     not know if it will be approved or not,'' so he did not want 
     to get his hopes up.
       ``At first it was like a dream,'' said Vova's mother Olga 
     Matsko, who received a phone call from Lautenberg's office 
     yesterday afternoon. ``How grateful I am to what the senator 
     has done for our family.''
       Matsko, who uses her maiden name, said she only hopes that 
     the bill passes in Congress. ``I cannot believe that our hard 
     fight is probably over.''
       Vova's family has been struggling to remain in America with 
     both parents working full-time jobs and sharing a 
     superintendent's job at their Millburn apartment building. 
     Matsko works as an accountant during the day, and the father 
     works as a mechanic for Lea & Perrins Inc. of Fair Lawn at 
     night.
       Alexander Malofienko, Vova's father, lost his job at Tetley 
     Tea of Morris Plains last spring. He then had to find not 
     only a job, but a company to sponsor him for his labor 
     certificate so the family could remain in the United States.
       He found a company to sponsor him, but his application got 
     stuck in ``gridlock'' at the state Labor Department in 
     Trenton, where there is a 30 percent increase in alien labor 
     certificate applications, Lautenberg said. The department is 
     one year behind in processing these applications, not enough 
     time for the Malofienkos.
       The labor certificate, once approved by the state, is then 
     forwarded to the U.S. Department of Labor in New York for its 
     review.

[[Page S12123]]

       Joshua Rosenblum, a spokesman for the state Labor 
     Department, was not aware of Vova's plight or the father's 
     application. He said his office was searching for the 
     application and had not located it by late yesterday 
     afternoon.
       Lautenberg also sent a letter to Gov. Christie Whitman 
     appealing to her ``to do everything possible to assure that 
     the Malofienko family does not face deportation due to 
     administrative inertia and bureaucratic entanglements.''
       A spokesman for Whitman, Gene Herman, said the Governor's 
     Office would investigate. He said delays in the state's 
     processing of the application may have been caused by cuts in 
     federal funds.
                                  ____


           [From the Star-Ledger, Newark, NJ, March 14, 1997]

  Chernobyl Victim Gets Extended Stay in U.S.; Senator Helps Youth in 
                          Life-or-Death Fight

                          (By Allison Freeman)

       ``Today we saw what can be done when a compassionate 
     America opens its heart.''
       A 12-year-old boy, in remission from leukemia he contracted 
     from exposure to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine, 
     will get to remain in the United States for at least another 
     year, thanks to the help of Senator Frank Lautenberg.
       Vova Malofienko and his parents, who were scheduled to be 
     deported April 10, will get another year to obtain permanent 
     residency in this country.
       For Vova, it could be the difference between life and 
     death. ``My heart fills with joy for the work everybody has 
     done,'' the boy said last night. ``I want to stay in this 
     country.''
       The articulate young man, an honors student in Millburn 
     Middle School, said he is thankful to Lautenberg and everyone 
     else who has helped him.
       ``This is a great day,'' the New Jersey Democrat said as he 
     smiled at the boy during a press conference in the Senator's 
     Newark office. ``Today we saw what can be done when a 
     compassionate America opens its heart.''
       Vova's parents need green cards to work in the United 
     States. Getting them is almost impossible due to recent 
     federal legislation that requires people to remain in this 
     country for 10 years before they can apply, yet makes it 
     difficult to remain in the country that long.
       Lautenberg attributed the tougher immigration laws to the 
     ``U.S. turning more and more inward'' and tightening the 
     rules so there is not enough room for everyone who wants to 
     say.
       The Senator credited Monica Slater of his staff for working 
     with Immigration and Naturalization Service officials to help 
     extend the Malofienkos's stay in the country. ``Our work has 
     paid off,'' Lautenberg said.
       Vova, a mature sixth-grader, came to America in 1990 at the 
     age of 5 with a group of seven other Ukrainian children, all 
     sick from radiation exposure. Their trip to actor Paul 
     Newman's camp was sponsored by the Children of Chernobyl 
     Relief Fund of Short Hills, which airlifts medical treatment 
     and supplies to the sick children of Chernobyl. The seven 
     other children in the group all returned to Ukraine and have 
     since died.
       The air, water and food in Ukraine are contaminated with 
     radiation that people there have grown accustomed to, but 
     which could make Vova very sick, his father said. Ukraine 
     also does not have the medical care or equipment needed to 
     save the boy if he suffers a relapse.
       Vova's parents said they were certain that if their son 
     returned to Chernihiv, their home three miles from Chernobyl, 
     he would die.
       Lautenberg said he hopes to help the Malofienkos find a 
     more permanent solution in their quest to remain in the 
     United States.
       Alexander Malofienko, Vova's father, was laid off Feb. 28 
     from his job at Tetley Tea in Morris Plains. The company was 
     sponsoring him for his work permit. The mechanical engineer 
     in Ukraine is working as a maintenance mechanic in New Jersey 
     and hopes to find new employment soon and resume his effort 
     to secure a work permit.
       Olga Matsko plans to graduate from Essex County College in 
     Newark in May with an accounting degree so she can continue 
     her work as an accountant, which she was in Ukraine.
       The mother smiled broadly at Lautenberg last night. ``This 
     is one of the happiest days of my life,'' she said, her voice 
     cracking with emotion. ``Thank you so much for giving us a 
     chance,'' she told the Senator.
       Matsko also reiterated her thanks to all of her son's 
     doctors, many of whom work in Beth Israel Medical Center in 
     Newark, for donating their services to help her son.
       When asked if his office could help Malofienko seek a work 
     permit, Lautenberg said his office is not an employment 
     agency but would do everything it can to help the family.
       ``We will do what we have to do to try to get them 
     permanent residency here,'' he said. Lautenberg said his 
     office has already received a few calls with job offers for 
     Vova's father.
       The boy also thanked all of his friends at Millburn Middle 
     School who wrote letters to legislators, First Lady Hillary 
     Rodham Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and 
     even created a Web site at http://schools.millburn.org/
 vova/.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Coats):
  S. 1461. A bill to establish a youth mentoring program; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                       the jump ahead act of 1997

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, millions of young people cry out for 
help. It would be irresponsible to turn our backs and do nothing when a 
solution is not only at hand--but has already proven a helping hand. 
The problem is ``at-risk'' youth. The solution is mentoring.
  Mr. President, let me give you some idea of the scope of the problem. 
Last month the census released a report that said half of America's 16 
and 17 year olds are at-risk children. Half. That's 3.7 million 
children at just those two ages. Other estimates run as high as 15 
million for children of all ages.
  Among the factors putting these children at risk are poverty and 
being raised in a single-parent family. Twenty-one percent of our 
children live in poverty--a six point increase since 1970. Twenty-eight 
percent live in one-parent households--a 16-percent increase since 
1970. These ``at-risk'' children are more likely to drop out of school 
and be unable to find work. And that, Mr. President, is the path to 
drugs and crime. Mentoring is a proven way to reach out to these kids 
and provide them with caring role models who can help turn their lives 
around.
  Earlier this month, Attorney General Janet Reno reported that violent 
crime by teenagers had dropped for the second straight year. Among the 
reasons for the drop, General Reno cited the community mentoring 
programs that we created with the original Juvenile Mentoring Program, 
or JUMP, in 1992.
  Since its enactment, JUMP has funded 93 separate mentoring programs 
in more than half the states. The competition for JUMP awards is great: 
Over 479 communities submitted applications for the recent round of 
grants.
  JUMP grantees use a variety of program designs. Mentors include law 
enforcement and fire department personnel, college students, senior 
citizens, Federal employees, business people, professionals, and other 
diverse volunteers.
  The children are of all races. They come from urban, suburban, and 
rural communities, ranging in age from 5 to 20. In its first year, JUMP 
helped to keep thousands of at-risk young people in 25 States in school 
and off the streets through one-to-one mentoring.
  Mr. President, this program has proved popular and effective and that 
is why today Senator Coats and I are introducing the JUMP Ahead Act of 
1997. I want to thank Senator Coats for his commitment and I am pleased 
that he is an original cosponsor of this bill.
  General Reno was not speaking idly when she touted the benefits of 
mentoring. A 1995 scientific study of the Big Brothers/Big Sisters 
Programs bears this out.
  The study tracked 959 children in eight cities. Of the children 
studied, 40 percent came from broken homes, 27 percent had been abused, 
28 percent came from homes where the spouse was abused, and 15 percent 
had suffered the death of a parent. This was a classic pool of at-risk 
children.
  The results after just 1 year were startling. Compared to children 
who were on a waiting list to enter the program, the children in the 
study abused alcohol 27 percent less, were 32 percent less likely to 
engage in violent behavior, and missed 52 percent fewer school days.
  These dramatic results were achieved at a cost of just $1,000 a 
match. Compare that to the $24,000 a year we're willing to spend to put 
someone in jail once they've dropped out of school and turned to crime 
or drugs. You are going to hear a lot of statistics today. But too 
often we lose sight of the human aspect of these numbers. So let me 
tell you the story of a single child.
  Recently, I hosted a conference on mentoring in my home State of New 
Jersey. There I met 11-year-old Kenneth Jackson. Once Kenneth had been 
a troubled student who was considered likely to drop out. Now, thanks 
to his mentor, Kenneth reads and does arithmetic at two grades above 
his actual sixth grade level. And the best news--Kenneth told me that 
now he thinks school is cool and that he never thinks about dropping 
out. It's hard to argue with success like that.
  Sadly, Kenneth's mentor--Dwight Giles--is no longer with us. He 
recently

[[Page S12124]]

died of a heart attack. Dwight was a good friend and I mourn his 
passing. And I would like to dedicate this bill to his memory.
  Mr. President, we need to take this successful program to the next 
level. The JUMP Ahead Act reforms the basic successful structure of 
JUMP and increases funding to $50 million per year for four years and 
increases awards to up to $200,000.
  This initiative will not only vastly increase the number of mentoring 
programs able to receive grants, but will also create a new category of 
grants to enable experienced national organizations to provide 
technical assistance to emerging mentoring programs nationwide. The 
legislation also requires the Justice Department to rigorously evaluate 
the programs and document what is effective, and what is not.
  Finally, Mr. President, we like to talk a lot about pulling yourself 
up by your boot straps. But that doesn't mean much for a child unless 
you also provide a solid path to walk on. I grew up poor in Paterson, 
NJ. But I had rich role models in both my hard-working parents. Too 
many children today don't have that same blessing.
  Mentoring tells our at-risk kids that we as a nation care about 
them--that their lives are precious to us. Mentoring tells them that if 
they are willing to pull on those boots and try to walk away from a 
dead end life, they will not have to walk alone.
  Mr. President, I have told you the scope of the problem. And in 
America, when we have a problem we don't just wring our hands and say 
nothing can be done. We roll up our sleeves and get to work.
  Mr. President, with this bill we get to work for our children. I hope 
my colleagues will support the bill, and ask unanimous consent that a 
copy of the legislation be printed in the Record and a summary of the 
study by the Big Brothers/Big Sisters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1461

         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 ``JUMP Ahead Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) millions of young people in America live in areas in 
     which drug use and violent and property crimes are pervasive;
       (2) unfortunately, many of these same young people come 
     from single parent homes, or from environments in which there 
     is no responsible, caring adult supervision;
       (3) all children and adolescents need caring adults in 
     their lives, and mentoring is an effective way to fill this 
     special need for at-risk children. The special bond of 
     commitment fostered by the mutual respect inherent in 
     effective mentoring can be the tie that binds a young person 
     to a better future;
       (4) through a mentoring relationship, adult volunteers and 
     participating youth make a significant commitment of time and 
     energy to develop relationships devoted to personal, 
     academic, or career development and social, artistic, or 
     athletic growth;
       (5) rigorous independent studies have confirmed that 
     effective mentoring programs can significantly reduce and 
     prevent the use of alcohol and drugs by young people, improve 
     school attendance and performance, improve peer and family 
     and peer relationships, and reduce violent behavior;
       (6) since the inception of the Federal JUMP program, dozens 
     of innovative, effective mentoring programs have received 
     funding grants;
       (7) unfortunately, despite the recent growth in public and 
     private mentoring initiatives, it is reported that between 
     5,000,000 and 15,000,000 additional children in the United 
     States could benefit from being matched with a mentor; and
       (8) although great strides have been made in reaching at-
     risk youth since the inception of the JUMP program, millions 
     of vulnerable American children are not being reached, and 
     without an increased commitment to connect these young people 
     to responsible adult role models, our country risks losing an 
     entire generation to drugs, crime, and unproductive lives.

     SEC. 3. JUVENILE MENTORING GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 288B of the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5667e-2) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
     Administrator shall'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) are intended to achieve 1 or more of the following 
     goals:
       ``(A) Discourage at-risk youth from--
       ``(i) using illegal drugs and alcohol;
       ``(ii) engaging in violence;
       ``(iii) using guns and other dangerous weapons;
       ``(iv) engaging in other criminal and antisocial behavior; 
     and
       ``(v) becoming involved in gangs.
       ``(B) Promote personal and social responsibility among at-
     risk youth.
       ``(C) Increase at-risk youth's participation in, and 
     enhance the ability of those youth to benefit from, 
     elementary and secondary education.
       ``(D) Encourage at-risk youth participation in community 
     service and community activities.
       ``(E) Provide general guidance to at-risk youth.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Amount and Duration.--Each grant under this part 
     shall be awarded in an amount not to exceed a total of 
     $200,000 over a period of not more than 3 years.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999, 
     2000, 2001, and 2002 to carry out this part.''.

     SEC. 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Office of 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department 
     of Justice may make grants to national organizations or 
     agencies serving youth, in order to enable those 
     organizations or agencies--
       (1) to conduct a multisite demonstration project, involving 
     between 5 and 10 project sites, that--
       (A) provides an opportunity to compare various mentoring 
     models for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness and 
     efficiency of those models;
       (B) allows for innovative programs designed under the 
     oversight of a national organization or agency serving youth, 
     which programs may include--
       (i) technical assistance;
       (ii) training; and
       (iii) research and evaluation; and
       (C) disseminates the results of such demonstration project 
     to allow for the determination of the best practices for 
     various mentoring programs;
       (2) to develop and evaluate screening standards for 
     mentoring programs; and
       (3) to develop and evaluate volunteer recruitment 
     techniques and activities for mentoring programs.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 
     1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5. EVALUATIONS; REPORTS.

       (a) Evaluations.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall enter into a 
     contract with an evaluating organization that has 
     demonstrated experience in conducting evaluations, for the 
     conduct of an ongoing rigorous evaluation of the programs and 
     activities assisted under this Act or under section 228B of 
     the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 
     (42 U.S.C. 5667e-2) (as amended by this Act).
       (2) Criteria.--The Attorney General shall establish a 
     minimum criteria for evaluating the programs and activities 
     assisted under this Act or under section 228B of the Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     5667e-2) (as amended by this Act), which shall provide for a 
     description of the implementation of the program or activity, 
     and the effect of the program or activity on participants, 
     schools, communities, and youth served by the program or 
     activity.
       (3) Mentoring program of the year.--The Attorney General 
     shall, on an annual basis, based on the most recent 
     evaluation under this subsection and such other criteria as 
     the Attorney General shall establish by regulation--
       (A) designate 1 program or activity assisted under this Act 
     as the ``Juvenile Mentoring Program of the Year''; and
       (B) publish notice of such designation in the Federal 
     Register.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) Grant recipients.--Each entity receiving a grant under 
     this Act or under section 228B of the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5667e-2) (as 
     amended by this Act) shall submit to the evaluating 
     organization entering into the contract under subsection 
     (a)(1), an annual report regarding any program or activity 
     assisted under this Act or under section 228B of the Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     5667e-2) (as amended by this Act). Each report under this 
     paragraph shall be submitted at such time, in such a manner, 
     and shall be accompanied by such information, as the 
     evaluating organization may reasonably require.
       (2) Comptroller general.--Not later than 4 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall 
     submit to Congress a report evaluating the effectiveness of 
     grants awarded under this Act and under section 228B of the 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 5667e-2) (as amended by this Act), in--
       (A) reducing juvenile delinquency and gang participation;
       (B) reducing the school dropout rate; and
       (C) improving academic performance of juveniles.

[[Page S12125]]

     
                                  ____
 [From the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. 
                   Department of Justice, April 1997]

          Mentoring--a Proven Delinquency Prevention Strategy

             (By Jean Baldwin Grossman and Eileen M. Garry)

       In the past decade, mentoring programs for disadvantaged 
     children and adolescents have received serious attention as a 
     promising approach to enriching children's lives, addressing 
     their need for positive adult contact, and providing one-on-
     one support and advocacy for those who need it. Mentoring is 
     also recognized as an excellent way to use volunteers to 
     address the problems created by poverty (Freedman, 1992).
       Through a mentoring relationship, adult volunteers and 
     participating youth make a significant commitment of time and 
     energy to develop relationships devoted to personal, 
     academic, or career development and social, athletic, or 
     artistic growth (Becker, 1994). Programs historically have 
     been based in churches, colleges, communities, courts, or 
     schools and have focused on careers or hobbies.
       The child mentoring movement had its roots in the late 19th 
     century with ``friendly visitors'' who would serve as role 
     models for children of the poor. In 1904 Ernest K. Coulter 
     founded a new movement that used ``big brothers'' to reach 
     out to children who were in need of socialization, firm 
     guidance, and connection with positive adult role models. The 
     resulting program, Big Brothers/Big Sisters (BB/BS) of 
     America, continues to operate today as the largest mentoring 
     organization of its kind.
       BB/BS programs across the Nation provide screening and 
     training to volunteer mentors and carefully match the mentors 
     with ``little brothers'' and ``little sisters'' in need of 
     guidance. Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) performed an 18-
     month experimental evaluation of eight BB/BS mentoring 
     programs that considered social activities, academic 
     performance, attitudes and behaviors, relationships with 
     family and friends, self-concept, and social and cultural 
     enrichment. The study found that mentored youth were less 
     likely to engage in drug or alcohol use, resort to violence, 
     or skip school. In addition, mentored youth were more likely 
     to improve their grades and their relationships with family 
     and friends.


                         from the administrator

       All children need caring adults in their lives, and 
     mentoring is one way to fill this need for at-risk children. 
     The special bond of commitment fostered by the mutual respect 
     inherent in effective mentoring can be the tie that binds a 
     young person to a better future.
       OJJDP's Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) is designed to 
     reduce delinquency and improve school attendance for at-risk 
     youth. Mentoring is also one component of our SafeFutures 
     initiative, which assists communities to combat delinquency 
     by developing a full range of coordinated services. In 
     addition to JUMP and SafeFutures, OJJDP supports mentoring 
     efforts in individual States through our Formula Grants 
     Program funding.
       With nearly a century of experience, Big Brothers/Big 
     Sisters of America is probably the best known mentoring 
     program in the United States. The extensive evaluation of 
     this pioneer program by Public/Private Ventures (P/PV), 
     described in this Bulletin, provides new insights that merit 
     our attention.
       The P/PV evaluation and OJJDP's 2-year experience with JUMP 
     suggest that strengthening the role of mentoring as a 
     component of youth programming may pay handsome dividends in 
     improved school performance and reduced antisocial behavior, 
     including alcohol and other drug abuse.
                                                     Shay Bilchik,
                                                    Administrator.


                            the federal role

       The Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) is a Federal program 
     administered by the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). As supported by JUMP, 
     mentoring is a one-on-one relationship between a pair of 
     unrelated individuals, one adult and one juvenile, which 
     takes place on a regular basis over an extended period of 
     time. It is almost always characterized by a ``special bond 
     of mutual commitment'' and ``an emotional character of 
     respect, loyalty, and identification'' (Hamilton, 1990). 
     Although mentoring also is a popular concept for success in 
     the corporate world, this Bulletin focuses on the mentoring 
     of children by adults.
       JUMP is designed to reduce juvenile delinquency and gang 
     participation, improve academic performance, and reduce 
     school dropout rates. To achieve these purposes, JUMP brings 
     together caring, responsible adults and at-risk young people 
     in need of positive role models.
       In the 1992 Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, Congress added Part G--
     Mentoring. This was done in recognition of mentoring's 
     potential as a tool for addressing two critical concerns in 
     regard to America's children--poor school performance and 
     delinquent activity. Senator Frank Lautenberg and Congressman 
     William Goodling were the primary sponsors of this new 
     provision. In Part G, Congress also recognized the importance 
     of school collaboration in mentoring programs, whether as a 
     primary source or as a partner with other public or private 
     nonprofit entities.
       To date Congress has made $19 million available to fund 
     JUMP: $4 million each year in fiscal years (FY's) 1994, 1995, 
     and 1996 and $7 million in FY 1997. OJJDP funded 41 separate 
     mentoring programs under the JUMP unbrella with FY 1994 and 
     1995 funding. JUMP awards for FY 1996 and FY 1997 will be 
     announced in spring 1997.
       While adhering to the basic requirements of JUMP, the 
     grantees are using a variety of program designs. Mentors are 
     law enforcement and fire department personnel, college 
     students, senior citizens, Federal employees, businessmen, 
     and other private citizens. The young people are of all races 
     and range in age from 5 to 20. Some are incracerated or on 
     probation, some are in school, and some are dropouts. Some 
     programs emphasize tutoring and academic assistance, while 
     others stress vocational counseling and training. In its 
     first year (July 1995 to July 1996). JUMP was involved in 
     attempting to keep more than 2,000 at-risk young people in 25 
     States in school and off the streets through one-to-one 
     mentoring.
       Additional FY 1995 funding for mentoring was provided 
     through OJJDP's SafeFutures initiative, which operates in six 
     sites (Boston, Massachusetts; Contra Costa County, 
     California; Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, Harlem, Montana; 
     Imperial County, California; Seattle, Washington; and St. 
     Louis, Missouri). The SafeFutures program assists these 
     communities in developing a coordinated continuum of care to 
     reduce youth violence and delinquency. Mentoring is a 
     component of this coordinated effort in each of the 
     SafeFutures sites.
       In addition to the funding for JUMP and SafeFutures 
     grantees, OJJDP supports mentoring programs through its 
     Formula Grants program to the States. In FY 1995, for 
     example, Formula Grants funds in 28 States supported 91 
     programs that included mentoring as part or all of the 
     program.


              Big Brothers/Big Sisters (BB/BS) of America

       BB/BS is a federation of more than 500 agencies that serve 
     children and adolescents. Its mission is to make a difference 
     in the lives of young people, primarily through a 
     professionally supported one-to-one relationship with a 
     caring adult, and to assist them in reaching their highest 
     potential as they grow into responsible men and women by 
     providing committed volunteers, national leadership, and 
     standards of excellence. The organization's current goals 
     include increasing the number of children served; improving 
     the effectiveness, efficiency, and impact of services to 
     children; and achieving a greater racial and ethnic diversity 
     among volunteers and staff. BB/BS volunteer mentors come from 
     all walks of life, but they share the goal of being a caring 
     adult who can make a difference in the life of a child.
       For more than 90 years, the BB/BS program has paired 
     unrelated adult volunteers with youth from single-parent 
     households. BB/BS does not seek to ameliorate specific 
     problems but to provide support to all aspects of young 
     people's lives. The volunteer mentor and the youth make a 
     substantial time commitment, meeting for about 4 hours, two 
     to four times a month, for at least 1 year.
       Developmentally appropriate activities shared by the mentor 
     and the young person may include taking walks; attending a 
     play, movie, school activity, or sporting event; playing 
     catch; visiting the library; washing the car; grocery 
     shopping; watching television; or just sharing thoughts and 
     ideas about life. Such activities enhance communication 
     skills, develop relationship skills, and support positive 
     decisionmaking.
       The BB/BS mentor relationships between mentors and youth 
     are achieved through professional staff and national 
     operating standards that provide a level of uniformity in 
     recruitment, screening, matching, and supervision of 
     volunteers and youth. BB/BS agencies provide orientation for 
     volunteers, parents, and youth to assist the individuals in 
     determining if involvement in the program is appropriate for 
     them. Opportunities to participate in volunteer education and 
     development programs such as relationship building, 
     communication skills, values clarification, child 
     development, and problem solving are available to local 
     affiliates.
       Supervision includes contact with all parties within the 
     first 2 weeks following a match. BB/BS maintains monthly 
     contact with the volunteer and parent or child for the first 
     year. In addition, inperson or telephone contact is 
     maintained quarterly between case managers and both the 
     volunteer and the parent, guardian, and/or child for the 
     duration of the match. Although its standards are reinforced 
     through national training, national and regional conferences, 
     and periodic agency evaluations, BB/BS is not monolithic. 
     Individual agencies adhere to national guidelines, but they 
     customize their programs to fit the circumstances in their 
     area.


  How youth benefit from big brothers/big sisters relative to similar 
               nonprogram youth 18 months after applying

                              (In percent)

        Outcome                                                  Change
Antisocial activities:
    Initiating Drug Use...........................................-45.8
    Initiating Alcohol Use........................................-27.4
    Number of Times Hit Someone...................................-31.7
Academic outcomes:
    Grades..........................................................3.0
    Scholastic Competence...........................................4.3
    Skipped Class.................................................-36.7

[[Page S12126]]

    Skipped Day of School........................................ -52.2
Family relationships:
    Summary Measure of Quality of the Relationship..................2.1
    Trust...........................................................2.7
    Lying to Parent...............................................-36.6
Peer Relationships: Emotional Support...............................2.3

\1\ For ease of presentation, we will refer to the group that was 
immediately eligible for a mentor as ``mentored youth'' or ``Little 
Brothers and Little Sisters,'' even though this group includes some 
youth (22 percent) who were never matched. The wait-list youth are 
called the ``control'' youth.

Note.--All impacts in this table are statistically significant at least 
at a 90 percent level of confidence.

 public/private ventures (p/pv) evaluation of big brothers/big sisters

       At the same time that Congress was considering Federal 
     support for juvenile mentoring programs, P/PV was beginning a 
     carefully designed evaluation of BB/BS mentoring programs 
     (Tierney and Grossman, 1995), OJJDP followed the progress of 
     this 18-month experimental evaluation closely, believing that 
     the results would confirm the generally accepted proposition 
     that mentoring benefits at-risk youth and would support 
     further national expansion of this activity.
       P/PV chose eight local BB/BS agencies for the study, using 
     two criteria: large caseload (to ensure an adequate number of 
     youth for the research sample) and geographic diversity. The 
     sites selected were in Columbus, Ohio; Houston, Texas; 
     Minneapolis, Minnesota; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Phoenix, 
     Arizona; Rochester, New York; San Antonio, Texas; and 
     Wichita, Kansas.
       The young people in the study were between 10 and 16 years 
     old (with 93 percent between 10 and 14). Slightly more than 
     60 percent were boys, and more than 50 percent were minority 
     group members (of those, about 70 percent were African 
     American). Almost all lived with one parent (usually the 
     mother), the rest with a guardian or relatives. Many were 
     from low-income households, and a significant number came 
     from households with a history of either family violence or 
     substance abuse. For the study, youth were randomly assigned 
     to be immediately eligible for a mentor or put on a waiting 
     list.\1\
       The goal of the research was to determine whether a one-to-
     one mentoring experience made a tangible difference in the 
     lives of these young people. The researchers considered six 
     broad areas that mentoring might affect: antisocial 
     activities, academic performance, attitudes and behaviors, 
     relationships with family, relationships with friends, self-
     concept, and social and cultural enrichment. The findings 
     presented below were based on self reported data obtained 
     from baseline and following up interviews or from forms 
     completed by agency staff.
       The overall findings, summarized in the table, are 
     positive. The most noteworthy results are these:
       Mentored youth were 46 percent less likely than controls to 
     initiate drug use during the study period. An even stronger 
     effect was found for minority Little Brothers and Little 
     Sisters, who were 70 percent less likely to initiate drug use 
     than similar minority youth.
       Mentored youth were 27 percent less likely than were 
     controls to initiate alcohol use during the study period, and 
     minority Little Sisters were only about one-half as likely to 
     initiate alcohol use.
       Mentored youth were almost one-third less likely than were 
     controls to hit someone.
       Mentored youth skipped half as many days of school as 
     control youth, felt more competent about doing schoolwork, 
     skipped fewer classes, and showed modest gains in their grade 
     point averages. These gains were strongest among Little 
     Sisters, particularly minority Little Sisters.
       The quality of their relationship with their parents was 
     better for mentored youth than for controls at the end of the 
     study period, primarily due to a higher level of trust 
     between parent and child. This effect was strongest for white 
     Little Brothers.
       Mentored youth, especially minority Little Brothers, had 
     improved relationships with their peers.
       P/PV did not find statistically significant improvements in 
     self-concept or the number of social and cultural activities 
     in which Little Brothers and Little Sisters participated.
       P/PV concluded that the research presented clear and 
     encouraging evidence that mentoring programs can create and 
     support caring relationships between adults and youth, 
     resulting in a wide range of tangible benefits. It was the 
     researchers' judgment that the successes they observed are 
     unlikely without both the relationship with the mentor and 
     the support from the BB/BS program.
       The study did not find evidence that any mentoring 
     programming will work but that programs that facilitate the 
     specific types of relationships observed in BB/BS work well. 
     The researchers noted that following about the relationships 
     between Little Brothers and Little Sisters and their Big 
     Brothers and Big Sisters:
       They had a high level of contact, typically meeting three 
     times per month for 4 hours per meeting. Many had additional 
     contact by telephone.
       The relationship were built using an approach that defines 
     the mentor as a friend, not a teacher or preacher. The 
     mentor's role is to support the young person in his or her 
     various endeavors, not explicitly to change the youth's 
     behavior or character.
       The study lists the following elements as prerequisites for 
     an effective mentoring program:
       Thorough volunteer screening that weeds out adults who are 
     unlikely to keep their time commitment or who might pose a 
     safety risk to youth.
       Mentor training that includes communication and limit-
     setting skills, tips on relationship-building, and 
     recommendations on the best way to interact with a young 
     person.
       Procedures that take into account the preferences of the 
     youth, their families, and volunteers and that use a 
     professional case manager to determine which volunteer would 
     work best with each youth.
       Intensive supervision and support of each match by a case 
     manager who has frequent contact with the parent or guardian, 
     volunteer, and youth and who provides assistance as 
     difficulties arise.
       One of the strongest conclusions of the P/PV study is the 
     importance of providing mentors with support in building 
     trust and developing positive relationships with youth. Many 
     of the relationships between the volunteers and youth would 
     have faltered and dissolved if they had not been nurtured by 
     BB/BS's caseworkers. Thus to be effective, mentoring programs 
     should provide an infrastructure that fosters and supports 
     the development of effective relationships.
       Over 8 years, P/PV studied numerous mentoring programs 
     other than BB/BS. The extent to which these mentoring 
     programs included standardized procedures in the areas of 
     screening, orientation, training, match supervision and 
     support, matching practices, and regular meeting times varied 
     tremendously. Some programs included virtually none of these 
     elements, while others were highly structured. The 
     researchers identified three of these areas as vitally 
     important to the success of any mentoring program: screening, 
     orientation and training, and support and supervision.
       The screening process provides programs with an opportunity 
     to select adults who are most likely to be successful as 
     mentors by looking for individuals who already understand 
     that a mentor's primary role is to develop a friendship with 
     the youth. Orientation and prematch training provide 
     important opportunities to ensure that youth and their 
     mentors share a common understanding of the adult's role in 
     these programmatically created relationships and to help 
     mentors develop realistic expectations of what they can 
     accomplish. Ongoing staff supervision and support of matches 
     is critical to ensuring that mentors and youth meet regularly 
     over a substantial period of time and develop positive 
     relationships.
       It is interesting to note that matching did not turn out to 
     be one of the most critical elements. None of the objective 
     factors (e.g., age, race, and gender) that staff take into 
     account when making a match correlate very strongly with the 
     frequency of meetings, length of the match, or its 
     effectiveness. Programs may prefer to make same-race matches, 
     and parents and youth sometimes prefer a mentor of the same 
     race. Programs should continue to honor these preferences and 
     make same-race matches whenever possible. At the same time, 
     it is clear that youth who wait a long time for a same-race 
     mentor are in most cases only delaying the benefits that a 
     mentor of any race can provide.
       There are two obstacles to replication of effective 
     mentoring programs: the limited number of adults available to 
     serve as mentors and the scarcity of organizational resources 
     necessary to carry out a successful program. The researchers 
     report that between 5 million and 15 million children could 
     benefit from being matched with a mentor; the organization 
     matches only about 75,000 youth in a year. Even with the 
     multitude of smaller mentoring programs around the country, 
     it seems reasonable to conclude that at best just a small 
     percentage of young people are benefiting from mentoring.
       In regard to organizational resources, the study notes that 
     effective programs require agencies that take substantial 
     care in recruiting, screening, matching, and supporting 
     volunteers. Paid caseworkers carry out these critical 
     functions for BB/BS at a program cost of approximately 
     $1,000 per year per match.


                       ojjdp and the p/pv results

       The P/PV evaluation, plus its 2 years of experience with 
     JUMP, led OJJDP to modify the project design guidelines in 
     its 1996 JUMP solicitation to reflect the latest knowledge 
     about what works--and does not work--in mentoring. Based on 
     the P/PV study, OJJDP expanded the guideline on mentor 
     support and training, emphasizing that the program 
     coordinator should have frequent contact with parents of 
     guardians, volunteers, and youth and should provide 
     assistance when requested or as problems arise. This 
     guideline also specifies the type of training mentors should 
     receive. From its JUMP experience, OJJDP inserted a guideline 
     on the role of the mentor, added a caution about time 
     limitations that may interfere with the effectiveness of 
     college undergraduate or graduate students as mentors, 
     suggested that parents should have a say in the selection of 
     mentors, called for screening mechanisms to weed out 
     volunteers who will not keep their commitments, and 
     established minimum expectations for the time mentors should 
     spend with youth (1 hour per week for at least 1 year).

[[Page S12127]]

                           evaluation of jump

       OJJDP is required by Congress to submit a report regarding 
     the success and effectiveness of JUMP initiatives 120 days 
     after their termination. Evaluations are critical to ensuring 
     that mentoring programs operate as designed and meet their 
     goals in terms of both the process and the impact on youth.
       To prepare for the timely initiation of evaluation 
     activities once the grantee is chosen for the national 
     evaluation, OJJDP directed its management evaluation 
     contractor, Caliber Associated, to design an evaluation and 
     prepare for initial data collection. The JUMP evaluation will 
     be accomplished through a partnership among the grantees, 
     OJJDP, and the JUMP evaluation grantee. Caliber produced a 
     workbook containing an overview of the JUMP initiative and 
     the national evaluation that defined the roles of OJJDP, the 
     evaluator, and JUMP grantees. Caliber also pilot tested 
     grantee administration of data collection instruments and 
     conducted followup interviews of participating grantees. Once 
     the grantee for the evaluation is selected, Caliber also will 
     help coordinate the transition to the evaluation grantee. 
     Selection of the evaluation grantee is expected to take place 
     in spring 1997.
       Although formal evaluations have not yet been implemented, 
     the mentoring programs funded under JUMP appear to be making 
     a difference in the lives of many young people. The 
     preliminary accomplishments of a few of the OJJDP-funded 
     mentoring programs are highlighted below.
       The Big Brothers/Big Sisters of southwest Idaho have made 
     41 matches of at-risk youth and mentors in this JUMP project. 
     According to parents and teachers familiar with the program, 
     30 percent of the youth who participated in the program 
     showed improvement in their school attendance, 30 percent 
     showed academic improvement, 35 percent showed improvement in 
     their general behavior, and 48 percent increased the 
     frequency of appropriate interactions with peers. For 
     example, a female being raised by her father was matched to a 
     female volunteer and, after the match, scored higher in 
     measures of grades, self-satisfaction, self-esteem, positive 
     attitude toward others, and pride in appearance.
       Project Caring Connections in New York City provides 30 
     youth with caring relationships with adult mentors from 
     corporations and the community. As an integral part of the 
     Liberty Partnerships Program, it offers a comprehensive range 
     of services from academic enrichment to cultural experiences 
     to a safe environment in which young people can learn social 
     skills. During afterschool hours, Project Caring Connections 
     mentors work with students one-to-one or in a group to 
     provide academic support, job shadowing (going to the 
     mentor's workplace), and social and cultural enrichment. 
     Through the program, at-risk students may gain exposure to 
     publishing, theater, law, art, government, and business and 
     also do community service. This past year, some youth were 
     able to serve as panelists on a cable news show and discuss 
     crime in their communities, curfews, and the importance of 
     staying in school.
       Big Sisters of Colorado, in Denver, matched 59 girls, 
     mostly Hispanic, with mentors. Program activities funded by 
     OJJPD included a Life Choices program to develop 
     decisionmaking and academic skills; recreation, community 
     service, and challenge course activities; a pregnancy-
     prevention program; and mentor visits to the girls' schools. 
     None of these girls have become pregnant or had problems with 
     alcohol or drugs since their involvement in the program.
       Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Pensacola, Florida, is a JUMP 
     initiative in which 26 youth from single-parent families who 
     are at risk for juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, 
     truancy, and dropping out of school are being mentored by 
     legal professionals, members of the military, corporate 
     employees, and others. The youth are actively encouraged to 
     stay in school and meet the goals their individualized case 
     plans. All have had increased exposure to athletic, 
     recreational, and cultural activities, and many have 
     demonstrated improved social and academic skills. The program 
     has also engaged youth in a 3-day Kids N Kops police mini-
     academy. This innovative program provides mentoring and 
     training by police officers and educates youth about the 
     dangers of drugs, guns, and gangs while strengthening the 
     relationship between police and at-risk youth.
       The Cincinnati Youth Collaborative in Ohio matched 136 
     youth and volunteers in its first year in JUMP. Mentors 
     include doctors, dentists, lawyers, judges, teachers, 
     chemists, police officers, nurses, waiters, postal clerks, 
     travel agents, and college students. Some special activities 
     were a trip to New York City, visits to college campuses, a 
     community bowl-a-thon, job shadowing, and participation in a 
     school beautification project. The project reports that 99 of 
     the 136 young people have improved academically and 102 have 
     improved socially.
       The RESCUE Youth mentoring program in Los Angeles, 
     California, was developed and implemented by the Los Angeles 
     County District Attorney's Office, in conjunction with the 
     Los Angeles County Fire Department, to rescue youth ages 12 
     to 14 at the earliest signs of at-risk behavior. The district 
     attorney's staff match the students with volunteer 
     firefighter mentors in an effort to address truancy, juvenile 
     delinquency, and potentially serious criminal behavior. 
     Through this JUMP initiative, mentors worked with 140 youth 
     on their communication and conflict resolution skills and 
     provided training in fire prevention and first aid.
       The JUMP projects offer many success stories, including the 
     following examples. One student, who began the 1995-96 school 
     year as a repeat first grader, ended the year with straight 
     A's with the help of her mentor. In another instance, a male 
     student being raised by his father alone showed a twofold 
     increase in his grades and in measures of self-esteem after 
     being matched with a female mentor. It is expected that the 
     JUMP evaluation will document a significant number of similar 
     positive outcomes.


                                summary

       The research conducted by P/PV--and the preliminary reports 
     from JUMP--provide powerful evidence that youth can be 
     positively influenced by adults who care. More important, 
     these positive relationships do not have to be left to chance 
     but can be created through structured mentoring programs.
       The P/PV research, however, has even broader implications 
     for social policy than just encouraging the spread of 
     mentoring--namely, that practitioners and policy makers 
     should take a new approach to serving youth. For the past 30 
     years, society's attention and resources were directed 
     predominantly at teenagers' problems, as evidenced by 
     programs focusing on issues such as dropping out of school, 
     truancy, substance abuse, and teen pregnancy. With only small 
     gains to show, the public and politicians alike have 
     concluded, probably prematurely, that youth, even those as 
     young as 14, are too old to be helped.
       The BB/BS results suggest that, where its youth policy is 
     concerned, society's focus has been too narrow. What is 
     desperately needed is a more positive approach that meets the 
     basic needs of youth, especially those living in high-risk 
     neighborhoods, for nurturing and supportive adults, positive 
     things to do after school and on weekends, and volunteer and 
     work opportunities that develop skills, foster learning, and 
     instill a sense of civic responsibility. If society focuses 
     on these basic developmental needs, youth will mature 
     responsibly, avoid many negative behaviors, and become more 
     resilient in the face of inevitable setbacks.
       P/PV's evaluation of BB/BS suggests that strengthening this 
     aspect of youth programming is likely to be more effective in 
     producing responsible young adults than the traditional 
     approach to youth policy, which has attempted to prevent 
     specific problems or to correct problems that have already 
     arisen. These traditional elements will still be needed, but 
     they should complement and support the basic developmental 
     needs addressed by mentoring programs.
       The BB/BS mentoring program did not provide tutoring and 
     antidrug counseling--it simply provided adult friendship on a 
     regular and intensive basis. Yet it achieved improvements in 
     school performance and reductions in antisocial behavior. The 
     findings thus provide a direction for building and 
     strengthening one approach to delinquency prevention.
       Dealing with the problems of juvenile delinquency, creating 
     more positive opportunities for our youth, and helping them 
     find strong and positive adult role models in their lives are 
     among the societal goals that can be achieved in part through 
     the implementation of sound mentoring programs. While many 
     children are being served by these efforts already, hundreds 
     of thousands more could also benefit from the special bond of 
     mentoring before serious problems develop.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am so pleased to join my colleague 
Senator Lautenberg in introducing the JUMP Ahead Act of 1997. As a 
national board member of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, I know 
personally how important this legislation is, and the type of 
opportunity it will give to thousands of at-risk youth around the 
country.
  While intuitively we know that mentoring relationships can make a 
huge difference in the lives of young people, we now have 
scientifically reliable evidence about the positive impact that 
mentoring programs can have. In 1995, Public/Private Ventures, a policy 
research organization in Philadelphia, conducted an impact study of the 
Big Brothers Big Sisters program. The results were startling. The 
addition of a Big Brothers or Big Sister to a young person's life 
drastically reduced first time drug use, significantly lowered 
absenteeism, and reduced violent behavior. Furthermore, the young 
people studied were less likely to start using alcohol and more likely 
to do well in school.
  JUMP Ahead will link community based mentoring programs with public 
schools to give more children the chance to reap the benefits of a one-
to-one mentoring relationship. JUMP Ahead is based on a small, 
innovative, federal program known as the Juvenile Mentoring Program 
[JUMP].
  Building on the success of JUMP, the JUMP Ahead Act will create a 
competitive grant program which allows local, nonprofit social service 
and education agencies to apply cooperatively

[[Page S12128]]

and directly for grants from the Department of Justice's Office of 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. These grants are used to 
establish mentoring services utilizing responsible individuals as 
mentors.
  During the last session of Congress, I introduced the Character 
Development Act as part of my Project for American Renewal. The 
Character Development Act, like the JUMP Ahead Act, Stressed the 
importance of mentoring relationships in the process of cultural 
renewal.
  The need for additional adult support and guidance for our Nation's 
youth has never been greater than at this time. Currently 38 percent of 
all American children live without their fathers. It is increasingly 
important to support the work of organizations that are attempting to 
stand in the gap left by absent fathers.
  Since mentoring programs work through the efforts of volunteers, only 
modest funds are necessary to have a far-reaching impact. I am 
convinced that the investment that the JUMP Ahead Act calls for over 
the next 5 years, will produce tremendous positive results in the lives 
of many at-risk youth.
  I encourage my colleagues to take a close look at this bill and 
consider supporting it. One-to-one mentoring has proven its 
effectiveness in positively impacting the lives of at risk youth. I ask 
my colleagues to join me and Senator Lautenberg in this effort to 
encourage and expand opportunities for one-to-one mentoring 
relationships for at-risk youth. The JUMP Ahead Act of 1997 takes an 
important step forward in meeting the needs of so many of this 
country's hurting youth.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Santorum):
  S. 1642. A bill to authorize the Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal 
National Heritage Corridor Act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


 the delaware and lehigh national heritage corridor act amendments of 
                                  1997

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to 
introduce legislation to reauthorize the Delaware and Lehigh Canal 
National Heritage Corridor Act of 1988, which established a Federal 
Commission to assist in planning and implementing an integrated 
strategy for promoting and protecting the cultural, historical, and 
natural resources in the canal region, which consists of a 150-mile 
long corridor stretching through five counties in eastern Pennsylvania, 
including Luzerne, Carbon, Lehigh, Northampton, and Bucks. As a member 
of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have been pleased to support 
annual funding for the work of the Commission, and believe 
reauthorization is necessary to continue preserving the heritage of the 
canal region and to promote economic development.
  Mr. President, let me provide you and my colleagues with some 
background on the Delaware and Lehigh corridor. The Delaware Canal 
first opened for regular commercial navigation in 1834 and served as 
the primary means for transporting coal and other bulk goods from the 
anthracite region of Pennsylvania to New York, New Jersey, 
Philadelphia, and even to industrial centers in Europe. The canal 
provided an early and essential link in a 4,000 mile national 
transportation route and helped to transform Pennsylvania from a solely 
agrarian State to the center of an industrialized society. The Delaware 
Canal and the Lehigh Navigation Canal played a critical role in 
supplying our developing Nation with the coal that heated its homes and 
the fuel for its burgeoning factories.
  In 1998, Congress wisely established the Corridor and the Delaware 
and Lehigh National Corridor Commission. The commission was charged 
with conserving, interpreting, and promoting the natural, historic, 
cultural, scenic, and recreational resources of the region. Nine 
national historic landmarks, six national recreation trails, two 
national natural landmarks, and hundreds of sites listed on the 
National Register are situated within these boundaries. In addition, 7 
State parks, 3 State historical parks, 14 State scenic rivers, and 14 
State game lands are located in the region. This is an impressive and 
historic area that must be preserved. More than three million visitors 
explore the region each year to see the numerous attractions in the 
area, including the Allentown Art Museum, Eckley Miners Village, 
Washington Crossing, and Moravian Tire Work.
  Another attraction that will preserve the region's heritage and 
promote economic development is a cultural center in Two Rivers Landing 
that will house the city of Easton's National Canal Museum and the 
Crayola Factory. Two Rivers Landing first opened in June 1996, marking 
a rebirth of Easton's downtown. Since then, more than 300,000 visitors 
have come. The project has been credited with attracting 82 businesses 
to downtown and creating nearly 100 jobs.
  The Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor has established a 
strong record of successful partnership projects that link Federal, 
State and local governments with nonprofit organizations and private 
industries. Two Rivers Landing is just one of the many successful 
private/public partnerships led by the Commission. Another example is 
the Lehigh River Foundation, which was formed in 1991 to give private 
sector support the Commission's initiatives. The foundation has raised 
more than $150,000 from local businesses and individuals to create an 
educational film, sponsor heritage events, and establish an information 
center in Bethlehem, the site of the only American 19th century steel 
plant to retain all of its historic elements. The corridor is sustained 
by broad public involvement and nonfederal investment. There are many 
project supporters, such as the Heritage Conservancy, the Pennsylvania 
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the Pennsylvania 
Historical and Museum Commission, and the Pennsylvania Department of 
Community and Economic Development. Corporations such as Binney and 
Smith, makers of Crayola products, Bethlehem Steel, and Mack Trucks 
have also made major financial commitments to support new industrial 
museums and attractions.

  Statutory authority for the Delaware and Lehigh National Corridor 
Commission will expire in November, 1998 unless Congress acts. I 
believe there is ample need for reauthorization because of the 
unfinished work of the Commission. I would note that the Commission was 
authorized to receive up to $350,000 in operating funds a year, but 
funding for the program did not begin until 1990, and since then, it 
has regularly received only $329,000 a year through the annual Interior 
and related agencies appropriations bill.
  The primary reason for reauthorization is the delay in implementing a 
Management Action Plan for the region. The 1988 act mandated a series 
of studies and public meetings in order to complete a management action 
plan, which will serve as an action agenda for the first 10 years of 
corridor development. The management action plan did not received final 
approval from the Secretary of the Interior until August, 1994. 
Further, the findings of the management action plan envisioned a 15-
year implementation period after approved by the Secretary. I am 
concerned that with less than one year left until the Act expires, 
there is insufficient time to implement the plan to help conserve the 
resources of this historically significant region.
  The Corridor Commission has made significant progress and there is 
public enthusiasm and support for the projects being carried out by the 
Commission, particularly where they promote economic development. 
However, they can not do this alone. There is a real need for 
sufficient Federal support of operations. I would note that the 
Commission must, by law, raise sufficient private and other nonfederal 
funds so that the annual Federal grant to the Commission constitutes no 
more than 50 percent of its operating budget. For each government 
dollar raised, the Commission has been successful in leveraging $8 to 
$14 in matching funds. This project has clearly demonstrated that 
Federal investment acts as a catalyst for local and private investment.
  Building on the success of the Corridor Commission, my legislation 
will authorize an increase in the Commission's operating budget from 
$350,000 to $650,000 a year, which will leverage additional private, 
State, and local funds. My legislation retains the 50 percent 
limitation on the amount of the Federal subsidy. Also, the legislation 
authorizes up to $10 million over 10 years to implement projects 
included in the

[[Page S12129]]

management action plan and approved by the Secretary of the Interior, 
including the restoration and preservation of the Delaware Canal, and 
landing developments in 8 to 10 cities. The legislation extends the 
Commission another 10 years, thereby allowing the project to realize 
its goals while improving operating efficiency and extending 
participation.
  The corridor's management action plan has become an important tool 
for both community and economic revitalization. It is recognized as a 
national model for the coordination of grassroots community efforts 
with those of government and private industry. Last year, the 104th 
Congress created nine new national heritage areas based in part on the 
success of the Delaware and Lehigh model. Mr. President, I encourage my 
colleagues to support this valuable Commission and to reauthorize the 
1988 act so that Americans can continue to learn about the rich history 
of the region and appreciate the lands, waterways, and structures 
within the Delaware and Lehigh Heritage Corridor. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the legislation and a section-by-
section summary of my legislation be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1462

         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 ``Delaware and Lehigh National 
     Heritage Corridor Act Amendments of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. NAME CHANGE.

       The Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal National Heritage 
     Corridor Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-692; 102 Stat. 4552) is 
     amended by striking ``Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal 
     National Heritage Corridor'' each place it appears (except 
     section 4(a)) and inserting ``Delaware and Lehigh National 
     Heritage Corridor''.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       Section 3(b) of the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage 
     Corridor Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-692; 102 Stat. 4552) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``subdivisions'' the following: ``in 
     enhancing economic development within the context of 
     preservation and''; and
       (2) by striking ``and surrounding the Delaware and Lehigh 
     Navigation Canal in the Commonwealth'' and inserting ``the 
     Corridor''.

     SEC. 4. CORRIDOR COMMISSION.

       (a) Membership.--Section 5(b) of the Delaware and Lehigh 
     National Heritage Corridor Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-692; 
     102 Stat. 4553) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``appointed not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) 3 individuals, of whom--
       ``(A) 1 shall be the Director of the Pennsylvania 
     Department of Conservation and Natural Resources;
       ``(B) 1 shall be the Director of the Pennsylvania 
     Department of Community and Economic Development; and
       ``(C) 1 shall be the Chairperson of the Pennsylvania 
     Historical and Museum Commission.'';
       (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``recommendations from 
     the Governor, of whom'' and all that follows through 
     ``Delaware Canal region'' and inserting the following: 
     ``nominations from the Governor, of whom--
       ``(A) 1 shall represent a city, 1 shall represent a 
     borough, and 1 shall represent a township; and
       ``(B) 1 shall represent each of the 5 counties of Luzerne, 
     Carbon, Leehigh, Northampton, and Bucks in Pennsylvania''; 
     and
       (4) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``8 individuals'' and inserting ``9 
     individuals''; and
       (B) by striking ``recommendations from the Governor, who 
     shall have'' and all that follows through ``Canal region. A 
     vacancy'' and inserting the following: ``nominations from the 
     Governor, of whom--
       ``(A) 3 shall represent the northern region of the 
     Corridor;
       ``(B) 3 shall represent the middle region of the Corridor; 
     and
       ``(C) 3 shall represent the southern region of the 
     Corridor.
     A vacancy''.
       (b) Terms.--Section 5 of the Delaware and Lehigh National 
     Heritage Corridor Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-692; 102 Stat. 
     4553) is amended by striking subsection (c) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) Terms.--The following provisions shall apply to a 
     member of the Commission appointed under paragraph (3) or (4) 
     of subsection (b):
       ``(1) Length of term.--The member shall serve for a term of 
     3 years.
       ``(2) Carryover.--The member shall serve until a successor 
     is appointed by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Replacement.--If the member resigns or is unable to 
     serve due to incapacity or death, the Secretary shall 
     appoint, not later than 60 days after receiving a nomination 
     of the appointment from the Governor, a new member to serve 
     for the remainder of the term.
       ``(4) Term limits.--A member may serve for not more than 2 
     full terms starting after the date of enactment of this 
     paragraph.''.
       (c) Confirmation.--Section 5 of the Delaware and Lehigh 
     National Heritage Corridor Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-692; 
     102 Stat. 4553) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h) Confirmation.--The Secretary shall accept or reject 
     an appointment under paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (b) 
     not later than 60 days after receiving a nomination of the 
     appointment from the Governor.''.

     SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Conveyance of Real Estate.--Section 7(g)(3) of the 
     Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Act of 1988 
     (Public Law 100-692; 102 Stat. 4555) is amended in the first 
     sentence by inserting ``or nonprofit organization'' after 
     ``appropriate public agency''.
       (b) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 7(h) of the Delaware 
     and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Act of 1988 (Public Law 
     100-692; 102 Stat. 4555) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``any nonprofit 
     organization,'' after ``subdivision of the Commonwealth,''; 
     and
       (2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``such nonprofit 
     organization,'' after ``such political subdivision,''.
       (c) Grants and Loans.--Section 7 of the Delaware and Lehigh 
     National Heritage Corridor Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-692; 
     102 Stat. 4554) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (h) the following:
       ``(i) Grants and Loans.--The Commission may administer any 
     grant or loan from amounts--
       ``(1) appropriated to the Commission for the purpose of 
     providing a grant or loan; or
       ``(2) donated or otherwise made available to the Commission 
     for the purpose of providing a grant or loan.''.

     SEC. 6. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       Section 8(b) of the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage 
     Corridor Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-692; 102 Stat. 4556) is 
     amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting 
     ``, cultural, natural, recreational, and scenic'' after 
     ``interpret the historic''.

     SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

       Section 9(a) of the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage 
     Corridor Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-692; 102 Stat. 4556) is 
     amended by striking ``5 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act'' and inserting ``10 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage 
     Corridor Act Amendments of 1997''.

     SEC. 8. DUTIES OF OTHER FEDERAL ENTITIES.

       Section 11 of the Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage 
     Corridor Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-692; 102 Stat. 4557) is 
     amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``the flow of the Canal or the natural'' and inserting ``the 
     historic, cultural, natural, recreational, or scenic''.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Commission.--Section 12(a) of the Delaware and Lehigh 
     National Heritage Corridor Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-692; 
     102 Stat. 4558) is amended by striking ``$350,000'' and 
     inserting ``$650,000''.
       (b) Management Action Plan.--Section 12 of the Delaware and 
     Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Act of 1988 (Public Law 
     100-692; 102 Stat. 4558) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(c) Management Action Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--To implement the management action plan 
     created by the Commission, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998 through 
     2007.
       ``(2) Limitation on expenditures.--Amounts made available 
     under paragraph (1) shall not exceed 50 percent of the costs 
     of implementing the management action plan.''.

     SEC. 10. LOCAL AUTHORITY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY.

       The Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Act of 
     1988 (Public Law 100-692; 102 Stat. 4552) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 13 as section 14; and
       (2) by inserting after section 12 the following:

     ``SEC. 13. LOCAL AUTHORITY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY.

       ``The Commission shall not interfere with--
       ``(1) the private property rights of any person; or
       ``(2) any local zoning ordinance or land use plan of the 
     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or any political subdivision of 
     Pennsylvania.''.
                                  ____


Section-by-Section Analysis of the Delaware and Lehigh Reauthorization 
                                  Act

       Section 1: Short title.--Delaware and Lehigh National 
     Heritage Corridor Act Amendments of 1997.
       Section 2: Name change.--The Delaware and Lehigh Navigation 
     Canal National Heritage Corridor is changed to Delaware and 
     Lehigh National Heritage Corridor.
       Section 3: Purpose.--The purpose of the Act will include 
     enhancing economic development within the context of 
     preservation in the Corridor.

[[Page S12130]]

       Section 4: Corridor Commission.--The Act is amended to 
     include the approved recommendations of the Management Action 
     Plan concerning the membership of the Commission.
       Section 5: Powers of the Commission.--The Act is amended to 
     allow the Commission to convey real property to a qualifying 
     non-profit organization if that organization is best able to 
     conserve the property.
       Section 6: Duties of the Commission.--The Act is amended to 
     include preservation and interpretation of historic, 
     cultural, natural, recreational, and scenic resources, rather 
     than only historic resources.
       Section 7: Termination of the Commission.--The Commission 
     will terminate ten years after enactment of this Act.
       Section 8: Duties of other Federal Entities.--The Act is 
     amended to require federal entities to consult with the 
     Secretary of the Interior and the Commission regarding 
     activities that affect the historic, cultural, recreational, 
     and scenic resources of the Corridor, not only natural 
     resources and flow of the canal.
       Section 9: Authorization of Appropriations.--The Commission 
     is authorized to receive $650,000 a year as well as $1 
     million a year for ten years to implement the Management 
     Action Plan.
       Section 10: Local Authority and Private Property.--The Act 
     is amended to state that local authority and private property 
     rights shall not be affected by enactment of this 
     legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 1463. A bill to change the date for regularly scheduled Federal 
elections and establish polling place hours; to the Committee on Rules 
and Administration.


                           WEEKEND VOTING ACT

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a disturbing trend in our 
democracy--the decline of voter turnout in our elections.
  During the past 2 years we have debated at length our campaign 
finance system. We have seen in ample detail the corrupting influences 
invading our elections, and the effect these stories are having on the 
American public. Voters are increasingly distrustful of their system of 
government. They have lost confidence in America's institutions, its 
leaders, and its electoral process.
  The Senate is taking steps to reform the campaign finance system, and 
I am hopeful that before the spring we will have a campaign finance 
reform bill to present to the American public. But there are other 
reforms which we can undertake to restore citizens' faith in our 
democracy and increase participation in elections.
  For decades we've seen a gradual decline in voter turnout. In 1952, 
about 63 percent of eligible voters came out to vote--that number 
dropped to about 49 percent in the 1996 election. Non-Presidential year 
voter turnout is even more abysmal.
  Analysts point to a variety of reasons for this dropoff. Certainly, 
common sense suggests that the general decline in voter confidence in 
government institutions is one logical reason. However, I'd like to 
point out, one survey of voters and nonvoters suggested that both 
groups are equally disgruntled with government.
  We must explore ways to make our electoral process more user 
friendly. We must adjust our institutions to the needs of the American 
public of the 21st century. Our democracy has always had the amazing 
capacity to adapt to the challenges thrown before it, and we must 
continue to do so if our country is to grow and thrive.
  I propose that we consider innovative ways to increase voter turnout 
and enhance our citizens' impression of the process. One way to do this 
would be change the hours that polls are open.
  Mr. President, today I am introducing the Weekend Voting Act of 1997, 
which would change the day for congressional and presidential elections 
from the first Tuesday in November to the first weekend in November.
  Mr. President, I come from the business world, where you had a 
perfect gauge of what the public thought of you and your products. If 
you turned a profit, you knew the public liked your product--if you 
didn't, you knew you needed to make changes. If customers weren't 
showing up when your store was open, you knew you had to change your 
store hours.
  In essence, it's time for the American democracy to change its store 
hours. Since the mid-19th century, election day has been on the first 
Tuesday of November. Ironically, this date was selected because it was 
convenient for voters. Tuesdays were traditionally court day, and land-
owning voters were often coming to town anyway.
  Just as the original selection of our national voting day was done 
for voter convenience, we must adapt to the changes in our society to 
make voting easier for the regular family. Two in every three 
households have both parents working. Since most polls in the U.S. are 
open only 12 hours, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., voters often have only 1 or 
2 hours to vote. If they have children, and are dropping them off at 
day care, voters often must take time off work to vote.
  We can do better by offering more flexible voting hours for all 
Americans, especially working families.
  Under this bill, polls would be open nationwide for a uniform period 
of time from Saturday, 6 p.m. eastern time to Sunday, 6 p.m. eastern 
time. Polls in other time zones would also open and close at this time. 
Some Western States have complained that early return information 
broadcast over television networks has decreased voter turnout. By 
establishing uniform nationwide voting schedules, this problem would be 
solved.
  I should note, while I've been an advocate of weekend voting for some 
time, it was NBC Anchor Tom Brokaw who suggested the uniform voting 
schedule, and I thank him for his contribution to this proposal.
  Mr. President, of 27 democracies, 17 of them allow their citizens to 
vote on holidays or the weekends. And in nearly every one of these 
nations, voter turnout surpasses our country's poor performance. We can 
do better.
  Like most innovative plans, States already are experimenting with 
novel ways to increase voter turnout and satisfaction. Texas has 
implemented an early voting plan, California has relaxed restrictions 
on absentee voting, and Oregon's special election for Senator in 1996 
was done entirely by mail. While results are still inconclusive whether 
these new models increase voter turnout, there is no doubt that voters 
are much more pleased with the additional convenience and ease with 
voting.
  Under the Weekend Voting Act, States would be permitted to close the 
polls during the overnight hours if they determine it would be 
inefficient to keep them open. Because the polls are open from Saturday 
to Sunday, they would not interfere with religious observances.
  I know that partisans in both parties will decry this plan as 
detrimental to their candidates. Republican consultants will worry that 
union households that traditionally vote Democratic will have more time 
to go and vote. Democrat consultants will worry that the combination of 
church and voting on Sundays will hurt their party's chances at the 
poll. I hope both are right, and that the end result is more people 
affiliated with both parties coming out to vote. That should be the 
goal of a democracy.
  Mr. President, I recognize a change of this magnitude will take some 
time. But, how much more should voting turnout decline before we 
realize we need a change. How much lower should our citizens' 
confidence plummet before we adapt and create a more ``consumer-
friendly'' polling system.
  The Weekend Voting Act will not solve all of this democracy's 
problems, but it is a commonsense approach for adapting this grand 
democratic experiment of the 18th century to the American family's 
lifestyle of the 21st century.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
  S. 1465. A bill to consolidate in a single independent agency in the 
executive branch the responsibilities regarding food safety, labeling, 
and inspection currently divided among several Federal agencies; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                           the safe food act

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would replace the current fragmented Federal food safety system with a 
consolidated, independent agency with responsibility for all Federal 
food safety activities--the Safe Food Act. I am pleased to be joined by 
Senator Torricelli in this important effort.
  Make no mistake, our country has been blessed with the safest and 
most abundant food supply in the world. However, we can do better. The 
General Accounting Office estimates that

[[Page S12131]]

as many as 33 million people will suffer food poisoning this year and 
more than 9,000 will die. The Department of Health and Human Services 
predicts that foodborne illnesses and deaths are likely to increase 10 
to 15 percent over the next decade. The annual cost of foodborne 
illnesses in this country may rise to as high as $22 billion per year.
  According to a Princeton Research survey conducted last summer, 44 
percent of Americans believe that the food supply in this country is 
less safe than it was 10 years ago, while another 30 percent feel it is 
only ``about as safe.'' The survey also found that 48 percent of 
Americans are ``very concerned'' about the safety of the food that they 
eat.
  Currently, 12 different Federal agencies and 35 different laws govern 
food safety and inspection functions. Of these 12 agencies, six have 
major roles in carrying out food safety and quality activities. With so 
many bureaucrats in the kitchen, breakdowns can more easily occur. With 
overlapping jurisdictions, Federal agencies many times lack 
accountability on food safety-related issues. A single, independent 
agency would help focus our policy and improve the enforcement of food 
safety and inspection laws.
  At a time of government downsizing and reorganization, the United 
States simply can't afford to continue operating multiple systems. In 
order to achieve a successful, effective food safety and inspection 
system, a single agency with uniform standards is needed.
  The Safe Food Act would empower a single, independent agency to 
enforce food safety regulations from farm to table. It would provide an 
easier framework for implementing U.S. standards in an international 
context. Research could be better coordinated within a single agency 
rather than among multiple programs. And, new technologies to improve 
food safety cold be approved more rapidly with one food safety agency.
  With incidents of food recalls and foodborne illnesses on the rise, 
it is important to move beyond short-term solutions to major food 
safety problems. A single, independent food safety and inspection 
agency could more easily work toward long-term solutions to the 
frustrating and potentially life-threatening issue of food safety.
  The administration has stepped forward on the issue of food safety--
from working with Congress to enact HACCP to increased funding to 
improve surveillance and monitoring to last week's announcement on the 
``Fight Bac--Keep Food Safe From Bacteria Campaign'' initiative. I 
commend President Clinton and Secretaries Glickman and Shalala for 
their commitment to improving our Nation's food safety and inspection 
systems. A single, independent food safety agency is the logical next 
step.
  Mr. President, together, we can bring the various agencies together 
to eliminate the overlap and confusion that have, unfortunately, at 
times characterized our food safety efforts. I encourage my colleagues 
to join me in this effort to consolidate the food safety and inspection 
functions of numerous agencies and offices into a single, independent 
food safety agency.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Mack, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
        Conrad, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Murkowski, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 1464. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
permanently extend the research credit, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


The Research and Experimentation Credit Permanent Extension Act of 1997

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce a bill with 
my colleagues Senators Baucus, Mack, Abraham, Conrad, Lieberman, Boxer, 
Murkowski, Rockefeller, Feinstein, Murray, and Durbin to make the tax 
credit for increasing research activities permanent. Companion 
legislation has been introduced in the House by Representatives Nancy 
Johnson and Robert Matsui.
  The United States is a leader in the development of new technology. 
Historically, the R&E credit has played a major role in elevating this 
great Nation to such a significant and influential leadership position. 
The United States is currently ahead of the ever increasing competition 
in developing and marketing new products. With greater market 
challenges in the future, we will have to fight hard to maintain the 
U.S. lead in new technology and innovation. The role of the R&E tax 
credit will be increasingly important.
  But, we must recognize that scientific breakthroughs usually do not 
happen overnight. Research and development is a long-term, on-going 
process. The development of new products and services is the result of 
slow and steady effort and investment. It is for this reason that start 
and stop nature of the R&E credit hinders American progress in 
research. The tax credit is authorized only for a short time--which in 
science is practically no time at all--and then goes to the brink of 
expiration before Congress acts to extend it again. Permanent extension 
of the R&E tax credit would provide badly needed predictability.
  Our country provides very little in the way of direct funding for 
research. While we subsidize basic research to some extent through the 
National Science Foundation and other science agencies, the United 
States depends on the private sector to finance applied research to a 
very substantial degree. This paradigm has worked well. Government does 
not make decisions about what research to fund or make judgments about 
what sectors look promising. Yet, risk-taking, particularly in fields 
such as pharmaceuticals where the cost of developing just one new drug 
can reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars, is an activity that 
we encourage with the R&E tax credit.
  Without the R&E tax credit, American industry is put at a tremendous 
disadvantage relative to foreign competitors whose governments provide 
direct subsidies for research. We simply must not let American 
leadership in science and technology lapse.
  There are enormous benefits from research. Additional investment in 
research yields new jobs--in some cases entire new industries-- 
strengthens our international position, and often results in an 
enhanced quality of life for consumers. Simply put, the tax credit is 
an investment for economic growth and the creation of new jobs.
  Mr. President, my home state of Utah is home to many innovative 
companies that invest a significant percentage of their revenue in 
research and development activities. Scattered across the Wasatch front 
is a large stretch of software and computer engineering firms. This 
area is second only to California's Silicon Valley as a thriving high 
technology commercial area. Utah also has approximately 700 
biotechnology and biomedical firms which employ nearly 9,000 workers. 
These companies were conceived through research and development and 
will continue to grow and thrive only if they can continue to afford to 
take risks.
  In all, Mr. President, there are approximately 80,000 employees 
working in Utah's 1,400 plus and growing technology based firms. 
Research and development is the lifeblood of these Utah firms and 
hundreds of thousands more throughout the Nation that are like them.
  The research and experimentation tax credit has been on the books for 
many years, and there is no doubt that it has proved beneficial to our 
Nation's technology enterprise. But, there is also no doubt that its 
benefits could be even greater if the credit were made permanent and 
the perennial uncertainty with respect to the availability of the 
credit--and thus the cost of doing research--were eliminated.
  With the introduction of this bill, I am pleased to inform you that 
we have included one slight change in this permanent extension. As 
already established, companies whose research efforts do not qualify 
them for the credit are allowed to choose the alternative incremental 
credit. The bill would increase the three alternative incremental 
credit rates by one percentage point each, thereby spurring tax credit 
benefits and encouraging more extensive research and development 
efforts.
  I am aware, Mr. President, that not every company that participates 
in the research and development process benefits from the credit. 
However, I believe that Congress should never permit the credit to 
expire. I urge my colleagues to support this concept of a

[[Page S12132]]

permanent R&E credit by cosponsoring this legislation and support the 
type of research activities that will maintain American technological 
leadership into the 21st century.
  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. 1464

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT.

       (a) Credit Made Permanent.--
       (1) In general.--Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to credit for increasing research activities) 
     is amended by striking subsection (h).
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 45C(b) 
     of such Code is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
       (b) Increase in Alternative Incremental Credit Rates.--
     Subparagraph (A) of section 41(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``1.65 percent'' and 
     inserting ``2.65 percent'',
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking ``2.2 percent'' and 
     inserting ``3.2 percent'', and
       (3) in clause (iii), by striking ``2.75 percent'' and 
     inserting ``3.75 percent''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after June 
     30, 1998.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join with 
my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, and my other colleagues to 
introduce this bill, which is so critical to the ability of American 
businesses to effectively compete in the global marketplace. Companion 
legislation has been introduced in the House by Representatives Nancy 
Johnson and Robert Matsui.
  Our Nation is the world's undisputed leader in technological 
innovation, a position that would not be possible absent U.S. 
companies' commitment to research and development. Investment in 
research is an investment in our Nation's economic future, and it is 
appropriate that both the public and private sector share the costs 
involved, as we share in the benefits. The credit provided through the 
Tax Code for research expenses provides a modest but crucial incentive 
for companies to conduct their research in the United States, thus 
creating high-skilled, high-paying jobs for U.S. workers.
  The R&E credit has played a key role in placing the United States 
ahead of its competition in developing and marketing new products. 
Every dollar that the Federal Government spends on the R&E credit is 
matched by another dollar of spending on research over the short run by 
private companies, and two dollars of spending over the long run. Our 
global competitors are well aware of the importance of providing 
incentives for research, and many provide more generous tax treatment 
for research and experimentation expenses that does the United States. 
As a result, while spending on non-defense R&D in the United States as 
a percentage of GDP has remained relatively flat since 1985, Japan's 
and Germany's has grown.
  The benefits of the credit, though certainly significant, have been 
limited over the years by the fact that the credit has been temporary. 
In addition to the numerous times that the credit has been allowed to 
lapse, last year, for the first time, when Congress extended the credit 
it left a gap of an entire year during which the credit was not 
available. This unprecedented lapse sent a troubling signal to the U.S. 
companies and universities that have come to rely on the Government's 
longstanding commitment to the credit.
  Much research and development takes years to mature. The more 
uncertain the long-term future of the credit is, the smaller its 
potential to stimulate increased research. If companies evaluating 
research projects cannot rely on the seamless continuation of the 
credit, they are less likely to invest on research in this country, 
less likely to put money into cutting-edge technology innovation that 
is critical to keeping us in the forefront of global competition.
  Our country is locked in a fierce battle for high-paying 
technological jobs in the global economy. As more nations succeed in 
creating educationally advanced workforces and join the United States 
as high-technology manufacturing centers, they become more attractive 
to companies trying to penetrate foreign markets. Multinational 
companies sometimes find that moving both manufacturing and basic 
research activities overseas is necessary if they are to remain 
competitive. The uncertainty of the R&E credit factors into their 
economic calculations, and makes keeping these jobs in the United 
States more difficult.
  Although the R&E credit is not exclusively used by high-technology 
firms, they are certainly key beneficiaries of the credit. In my own 
State of Montana, 12 of every 1,000 private sector workers were 
employed by high-tech firms in 1995, the most recent year for which 
statistics are available. Almost 400 establishments provided high-
technology services, at an average wage of $34,500 per year. These jobs 
paid 77 percent more than the average private sector wage in Montana of 
$19,500 per year. Many of these jobs would never have been created 
without the assistance of the R&E credit. Making the credit permanent 
would most certainly provide the incentive needed to create many more 
in the future.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and look forward to 
working with them and with the administration to make the research and 
experimentation tax credit permanent.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Hutchison, and Mr. Coats):
  S. 1466. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to permit 
faith-based substance abuse treatment centers to receive Federal 
assistance, to permit individuals receiving Federal drug treatment 
assistance to select private and religiously oriented treatment, and to 
protect the rights of individuals from being required to receive 
religiously oriented treatment; to the Commission on Labor and Human 
Resources.


            the drug and alcohol abuse treatment choice act

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Effective 
Substance Abuse Treatment Act. This legislation will increase the 
variety and effectiveness of drug and alcohol treatment centers. It 
will do so by allowing faith-based organizations, consistently shown to 
be most effective at treating substance abuse, to accept Federal funds 
without sacrificing their religious character. In addition, it will 
allow individuals receiving drug and alcohol abuse treatment services 
to choose a faith-based treatment center for their care.
  This legislation builds on the charitable choice provision included 
in last year's welfare bill. That provision allowed faith-based 
charities to contract with government to supply social services without 
having to give up their religious character.
  Mr. President, each year we face staggering statistics about the use 
of illegal drugs and the abuse of alcohol. The percentage of teenagers 
who admitted using illicit drugs during the last month more than 
doubled between 1992 and 1995. This increase in drug use, especially 
among young people, demands that we find new ways to address the 
addiction that often follows. I believe we owe it to our citizens and 
particularly those addicted to drugs or alcohol, to make the most 
effective treatment available to them. That treatment is provided by 
faith based charities.
  Mr. President, government-run drug rehabilitation programs generally 
have long-run success rates in the single digits. This is a tragedy for 
addicts, their friends and their families, all of whom are given false 
hope by institutions that rarely produce the results they promise. 
However, there are many programs that do work. For example, Burton 
Fulsom of Michigan's Mackinac Center reports on the Mel Trotter 
Ministries in Grand Rapids. Named for its former alcoholic founder, the 
Mel Trotter Ministries has an astounding 70-percent long term success 
rate in its faith based rehabilitation program.
  According to director Thomas Laymon, government programs leave 
addicts without spiritual support. Worse, addicts are not held 
accountable for addictions, and they have no incentive to change their 
behavior. Meanwhile, Trotter Ministries provides guidance, a supporter 
community and integration into a life beyond drugs.
  Another successful faith based substance abuse treatment center is 
San Antonio's Victory Fellowship, run by

[[Page S12133]]

Pastor Freddie Garcia. Victory Fellowship has saved thousands of 
addicts in some of the city's toughest neighborhoods. The program 
offers addicts a safe haven, a chance to recover, job training, and a 
chance to provide for themselves and their families. It has served more 
than 13,000 people and has a success rate of over 80 percent.
  It is very simple, Mr. President, where most treatment centers fail, 
those that are faith based work. This being the case, we have a duty to 
make faith based treatment more available. This does not require any 
special program, Mr. President. Rather, we can achieve this important 
goal by allowing faith based programs to stand on an equal footing with 
other centers in applying for Federal funds to heal individuals in need 
without changing the nature of the care they give.
  We owe it to our families and communities, torn apart by drugs and 
drug related violence, to fight the scourge of substance abuse. We owe 
it to the individuals in need to allow them to obtain the best 
treatment available. This legislation will achieve these goals without 
increasing the cost of government. I ask my colleagues for their 
support.
  I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the bill be entered 
into the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1466

       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 ``Drug and Alcohol Abuse 
     Treatment Choice Act''.

     SEC. 2. PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE; SERVICES 
                   PROVIDED THROUGH RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

       Title V of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

      ``Part G--Services Provided Through Religious Organizations

     ``SEC. 581. APPLICABILITY TO DESIGNATED PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Designated Programs.--Subject to subsection (b), this 
     part applies to each program under this Act that makes awards 
     of Federal financial assistance to public or private entities 
     for the purpose of carrying out activities to prevent or 
     treat substance abuse (in this part referred to as a 
     `designated program'). Designated programs include the 
     program under subpart II of part B of title XIX (relating to 
     formula grants to the States).
       ``(b) Limitation.--This part does not apply to any award of 
     Federal financial assistance under a designated program for a 
     purpose other than the purpose specified in subsection (a).
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this part (and subject 
     to subsection (b)):
       ``(1) Designated award recipient.--The term `designated 
     award recipient' means a public or private entity that has 
     received an award under a designated program (whether the 
     award is a designated direct award or a designated subaward).
       ``(2) Designated direct award.--The term `designated direct 
     award' means an award under a designated program that is 
     received directly from the Federal Government.
       ``(3) Designated subaward.--The term `designated subaward' 
     means an award of financial assistance made by a non-Federal 
     entity, which award consists in whole or in part of Federal 
     financial assistance provided through an award under a 
     designated program.
       ``(4) Designated program.--The term `designated program' 
     has the meaning given such term in subsection (a).
       ``(5) Financial assistance.--The term `financial 
     assistance' means a grant, cooperative agreement, contract, 
     or voucherized assistance.
       ``(6) Program beneficiary.--The term `program beneficiary' 
     means an individual who receives program services.
       ``(7) Program participant.--The term `program participant' 
     has the meaning given such term in section 582(a)(2).
       ``(8) Program services.--The term `program services' means 
     treatment for substance abuse, or preventive services 
     regarding such abuse, provided pursuant to an award under a 
     designated program.
       ``(9) Religious organization.--The term `religious 
     organization' means a nonprofit religious organization.
       ``(10) Voucherized assistance.--The term `voucherized 
     assistance' means--
       ``(A) a system of selecting and reimbursing program 
     services in which--
       ``(i) the beneficiary is given a document or other 
     authorization that may be used to pay for program services;
       ``(ii) the beneficiary chooses the organization that will 
     provide services to him or her according to rules specified 
     by the designated award recipient; and
       ``(iii) the organization selected by the beneficiary is 
     reimbursed by the designated award recipient for program 
     services provided; or
       ``(B) any other mode of financial assistance to pay for 
     program services in which the program beneficiary determines 
     the allocation of program funds through his or her selection 
     of one service provider from among alternatives.

     ``SEC. 582. RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AS PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Scope of authority.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a religious organization--
       ``(A) may be a designated award recipient;
       ``(B) may make designated subawards to other public or 
     nonprofit private entities (including other religious 
     organizations);
       ``(C) may provide for the provision of program services to 
     program beneficiaries through the use of voucherized 
     assistance; and
       ``(D) may be a provider of services under a designated 
     program, including a provider that accepts voucherized 
     assistance.
       ``(2) Definition of program participant.--For purposes of 
     this part, the term `program participant' means a public or 
     private entity that has received a designated direct award, 
     or a designated subaward, regardless of whether the entity 
     provides program services. Such term includes an entity whose 
     only participation in a designated program is to provide 
     program services pursuant to the acceptance of voucherized 
     assistance.
       ``(b) Religious Organizations.--The purpose of this section 
     is to allow religious organizations to be program 
     participants on the same basis as any other nonprofit private 
     provider without impairing the religious character of such 
     organizations, and without diminishing the religious freedom 
     of program beneficiaries.
       ``(c) Nondiscrimination Against Religious Organizations.--
       ``(1) Findings.--The Congress finds that the establishment 
     clause of the first amendment to the Constitution of the 
     United States does not require that--
       ``(A) social-welfare programs discriminate against faith-
     based providers of services; or
       ``(B) faith-based providers of services, as a prerequisite 
     to participation in Federal programs, abandon their religious 
     character and censor their religious expression.
       ``(2) Nondiscrimination.--Religious organizations are 
     eligible to be program participants on the same basis as any 
     other nonprofit private organization. Neither the Federal 
     Government nor a State receiving funds under such programs 
     shall discriminate against an organization that is or applies 
     to be a program participant on the basis that the 
     organization has a religious character.
       ``(d) Religious Character and Freedom.--
       ``(1) Religious organizations.--Except as provided in this 
     section, any religious organization that is a program 
     participant shall retain its independence from Federal, 
     State, and local government, including such organization's 
     control over the definition, development, practice, and 
     expression of its religious beliefs.
       ``(2) Additional safeguards.--Neither the Federal 
     Government nor a State shall require a religious organization 
     to--
       ``(A) alter its form of internal governance; or
       ``(B) remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other 
     symbols;
     in order to be a program participant.
       ``(e) Nondiscrimination in Employment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or 
     affect the provisions of any other Federal or State law or 
     regulation that relates to discrimination in employment on 
     the basis of religion.
       ``(2) Exception.--A religious organization that is a 
     program participant may require that an employee rendering 
     programs services adhere to--
       ``(A) the religious beliefs and practices of such 
     organization; and
       ``(B) any rules of the organization regarding the use of 
     drugs or alcohol.
       ``(f) Rights of Program Beneficiaries.--
       ``(1) Objections regarding religious organizations.--With 
     respect to an individual who is a program beneficiary or a 
     prospective program beneficiary, if the individual objects to 
     a program participant on the basis that the participant is a 
     religious organization, the following applies:
       ``(A) If the organization received a designated direct 
     award, the organization shall arrange for the individual to 
     receive program services through an alternative entity.
       ``(B) If the organization received a designated subaward, 
     the non-Federal entity that made the subaward shall arrange 
     for the individual to receive the program services through an 
     alternative program participant.
       ``(C) If the organization is providing services pursuant to 
     voucherized assistance, the designated award recipient that 
     operates the voucherized assistance program shall arrange for 
     the individual to receive the program services through an 
     alternative provider.
       ``(D) Arrangements under any of subparagraphs (A) through 
     (C) with an alternative entity shall provide for program 
     services the monetary value of which is not less than the 
     monetary value of the program services that the individual 
     would have received from the religious organization involved.
       ``(2) Nondiscrimination.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B) 
     or as otherwise provided in law, a religious organization 
     that is a program participant shall not in providing program 
     services discriminate against a program beneficiary on the 
     basis of religion or religious belief.

[[Page S12134]]

       ``(B) Limitation.--A religious organization that is a 
     program participant may require a program beneficiary who has 
     elected in accordance with paragraph (1) to receive program 
     services from such organization--
       ``(i) to actively participate in religious practice, 
     worship, and instruction; and
       ``(ii) to follow rules of behavior devised by the 
     organizations that are religious in content or origin.
       ``(g) Fiscal Accountability.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), any 
     religious organization that is a program participant shall be 
     subject to the same regulations as other recipients of awards 
     of Federal financial assistance to account, in accordance 
     with generally accepted auditing principles, for the use of 
     the funds provided under such awards.
       ``(2) Limited audit.--With respect to the award involved, 
     if a religious organization that is a program participant 
     maintains the Federal funds in a separate account from non-
     Federal funds, then only the Federal funds shall be subject 
     to audit.
       ``(h) Compliance.--With respect to compliance with this 
     section by an agency, a religious organization may obtain 
     judicial review of agency action in accordance with chapter 7 
     of title 5, United States Code.

     ``SEC. 583. LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     funds provided directly to an entity under a designated 
     program shall be expended for sectarian worship or 
     instruction.
       ``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     assistance provided to or on behalf of a program beneficiary 
     if the beneficiary may choose where such assistance is 
     redeemed or allocated.

     ``SEC. 584. ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM AND TREATMENT OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) Funds Not Aid to Institutions.--Financial assistance 
     under a designated program provided to or on behalf of 
     program beneficiaries is aid to the beneficiary, not to the 
     organization providing program services. The receipt by a 
     program beneficiary of program services at the facilities of 
     the organization shall not constitute Federal financial 
     assistance to the organization involved.
       ``(b) Prohibition on State Discrimination in Use of 
     Funds.--No provision in any State constitution or State law 
     shall be construed to prohibit the expenditure of Federal 
     funds under a designated program in a religious facility or 
     by a religious organization that is a program participant. If 
     a State law or constitution would prevent the expenditure of 
     State or local public funds in such a facility or by such an 
     organization, then the State or local government shall 
     segregate the Federal funds from State or other public funds 
     for purposes of carrying out the designated program.

     ``SEC. 585. EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PERSONNEL IN DRUG 
                   TREATMENT PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) establishing formal educational qualification for 
     counselors and other personnel in drug treatment programs may 
     undermine the effectiveness of such programs; and
       ``(2) such formal educational requirements for counselors 
     and other personnel may hinder or prevent the provision of 
     needed drug treatment services.
       ``(b) Limitation on Educational Requirements of 
     Personnel.--
       ``(1) Treatment of religious education.--If any State or 
     local government that is a program participant imposes formal 
     educational qualifications on providers of program services, 
     including religious organizations, such State or local 
     government shall treat religious education and training of 
     personnel as having a critical and positive role in the 
     delivery of program services. In applying educational 
     qualifications for personnel in religious organizations, such 
     State or local government shall give credit for religious 
     education and training equivalent to credit given for secular 
     course work in drug treatment or any other secular subject 
     that is of similar grade level and duration.
       ``(2) Restriction of discrimination requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (1), a State or 
     local government that is a program participant may establish 
     formal educational qualifications for personnel in 
     organizations providing program services that contribute to 
     success in reducing drug use among program beneficiaries.
       ``(B) Exception.--The Secretary shall waive the application 
     of any educational qualification imposed under subparagraph 
     (A) for an individual religious organization, if the 
     Secretary determines that--
       ``(i) the religious organization has a record of prior 
     successful drug treatment for at least the preceding 3 years;
       ``(ii) the educational qualifications have effectively 
     barred such religious organization from becoming a program 
     provider;
       ``(iii) the organization has applied to the Secretary to 
     waive the qualifications; and
       ``(iv) the State or local government has failed to 
     demonstrate empirically that the educational qualifications 
     in question are necessary to the successful operation of a 
     drug treatment program.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon:
  S. 1467. A bill to address the declining health of forests on Federal 
lands in the United States through a program of recovery and protection 
consistent with the requirements of existing public land management and 
environmental laws, to establish a program to inventory, monitor, and 
analyze public and private forests and their resources, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

                          ____________________