[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.
____________________