Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I support public disclosure of the overall funding law and would start with the language of the Constitution, which I believe supports that disclosure: No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. On the base, that calls for public disclosure. I know some courts have limited that interpretation to what Congress says. But I believe, as a constitutional matter, disclosure ought to be made. And beyond that, as a public policy matter for the Congress, disclosure ought to be made. In the 8 years I served on the Senate Intelligence Committee--2 years as chairman--it seemed to me that much too much is kept secret, and disclosing the overall amount is not to disclose the programs. We have seen terrorism as the instrumentally for political purposes, replacing war. Intelligence is very important to fight terrorism, and I believe if the American people knew how much money was being spent on intelligence gathering, the people would want more spent and not less. Just yesterday, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee took issue with the way the Central Intelligence Agency is being run, saying it is not being run effectively. Much too much is being kept secret, Mr. President. We can protect important sources and methods and means from being disclosed, but still have a great deal more candor for the American people about what is going on in intelligence. When we look at the budget of the CIA or the FBI for domestic intelligence, those are items which ought to be subject to public debate. The public ought to be demanding more. The public ought to be receiving more. As a very basic first step, it is my sense--having some familiarity with the Intelligence Committee operations and overall budget--that the funding level ought to be disclosed. I thank the Chair and inquire how much of the 2\1/2\ minutes is left.

Mr. SPECTER. I leave that to the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. The legislation I am introducing today builds on the significant progress made in the 104th Congress, where we enacted tax credits for adoption and authorized, through the welfare bill, an additional $50 million for fiscal years 1998 to 2002 to provide abstinence education. As my colleagues may recall, I introduced similar legislation in the 104th Congress on April 29, 1996. At the outset, let me provide my colleagues with a brief summary of the legislation. My first proposal would reauthorize and expand the Adolescent Family Life Program, providing $75 million annually to promote abstinence education for teens. My second proposal would increase the tax credit for adopting special-needs children to $7,500 and would permit penalty-free withdrawals from individual retirement accounts for adoption expenses. These two bills complement my efforts to advocate adequate prenatal care, especially for teens, through the Healthy Start Program. We know that in most instances, prenatal care is effective in preventing premature births. I saw my first 1-pound baby more than a decade ago. It is really a startling sight, a child no bigger than my hand, carrying scars for a lifetime and costing as much as $400,000 in medical care per child over a lifetime, according to the most recent data from the National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality. Mr. President, nearly 200 years ago, the French writer Alexis de Tocqueville is said to have observed that ``America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.'' His analysis is timeless. It is impossible to be a public official today, to travel throughout States such as Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the United States, without recognizing that America's problems are more moral than material. As we have tried to steer toward a growing economy and a balanced budget, we have seen a growing consensus that all our goals must rest on a restored ethic of personal responsibility. A crisis of values, in fact, underlies many of the public policy problems the Senate addresses on a daily basis. This has impressed upon me the need for people of strong moral commitments to enter public service and public debate, so that we may confront the underlying problems together and move our Nation forward. While the news media offer us a monthly snapshot of leading economic indicators, it may be that our leading moral indicators are more telling, such as the staggering number of teenage pregnancies and the rapid rise in juvenile crime, which suggest that the erosion of the American family continues unabated. Further, today more than 50 percent of American marriages end in divorce, meaning that millions of children face at least some instability in their home environment. Marriage is obviously important in that a strong family structure, based on a commitment of mutual support and respect, is vital for children. On the subject of family values, I speak with considerable pride about the manner in which my parents and my siblings have respected the institution of marriage. In addition to my own marriage of 44 years and my parents' marriage of 45 years, my brother, Morton, and his wife, Joyce, were married for 51 years until his death in 1993. My sister, Hilda, and her husband, Arthur Morgenstern, celebrated their 54th wedding anniversary in April 1997. My sister, Shirley, was married to Edward Kety for 46 years until his death in 1995. My son, Shanin, and his wife, Tracey, celebrated their 10th wedding anniversary on June 29, 1996. So our family totals 250 years of marriage, and counting. On this critical question of the health of America's families, the grim statistics are worth airing. The number of teenage pregnancies in the United States continues to reach alarming levels. According to data compiled by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, in 1992, the most recent year for which statistics are available, approximately 931,000 women aged 15 to 19 became pregnant. Further, the National Center for Health Statistics reports that there were 500,744 births to women aged 15 to 19 in 1995, and an additional 12,318 births to women under 15 years of age. By comparison, the United Nations Population Division reports that the United States teenage birth rate, 64 births per 1,000 females aged 15 to 19 for the period 1990-95, is the highest in the industrialized world. France and Japan report some of the lowest teenage birth rates, at 9 and 4 births per 1,000 females, respectively. Another leading moral indicator is the rapid increase in the number of unwed teenage mothers. According to Child Trends, Inc., the percentage of births to mothers under age 20 that occurred outside of marriage rose from 48 percent in 1980 to 76 percent in 1994. Teenage mothers face more complications in childbirth, and their children are 50 percent more likely to be born premature. These children also have a greater risk of dying in the first year of life, suffering developmental problems, and becoming teen parents themselves. Further, the Office of Population Affairs of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that 80 percent of children born to unwed teenage mothers who have not completed high school live in poverty. By contrast, of those children born to 20-year-old married parents who are high school graduates, only 8 percent live in poverty. In addition, more than three-fourths of unmarried teen mothers began receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC] within 5 years after the birth of their first child. A report released in 1996 by the Robin Hood Foundation estimated that adolescent childbearing costs the taxpayers $6.9 billion each year in welfare and food stamp benefits, medical care expenses, lost tax revenue, incarceration expenses, and foster care. To me, this necessitates a strong response from concerned citizens, the clergy, and public officials. We can, and we must, confront our leading moral indicators head-on. We must press harder in the fight to reduce the alarming number of teenage pregnancies in the United States. And, when a child comes into the world as the result of an unintended pregnancy, we must do all that we can to ensure that it is raised in a loving, stable family environment. It is the American family, of course, that chiefly bears these responsibilities. Nonetheless, I believe that the government can play a role and that we in the Congress must pursue legislative avenues to strengthen the social fabric and family stability of our Nation. My first legislative proposal, the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1997, would reauthorize the existing Adolescent Family Life Program, known as title XX, a valuable program which focuses directly on the issues of abstinence, adolescent sexuality, adoption alternatives, pregnancy, and parenting. If you want to reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States, teaching children to resist negative peer pressure is a starting place. In 1981, Congress, with bipartisan support, established the Adolescent Family Life Program as the only Federal program of its kind. The program was reauthorized in 1984, and its authority expired in 1985. Since then, the program has been funded through annual appropriations bills. As chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I pressed to appropriate $14.2 million for the Adolescent Family Life program in fiscal year 1997, an increase of $6.5 million over fiscal year 1996. Within that amount, $10.8 million is provided for abstinence demonstration programs. A major focus of the Adolescent Family Life prevention projects is delaying the onset of sexual activity, thereby reducing the incidence of adolescent pregnancy as well as the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Investing in programs that prevent unintended teenage births to unwed mothers is also vital in this time of budgetary constraints. Addressing the problem of teenage pregnancy, which alone costs the government about $6.9 billion each year, will save millions of dollars in welfare costs. Since its inception, the Adolescent Family Life Program has supported approximately 196 care and prevention demonstration projects and 63 research projects. On April 10, 1996, I met with officials at Mercy Hospital in Pittsburgh, which has received a 2-year, $1 million grant to create a care network to meet the physical, emotional, psychological, and educational needs of pregnant and parenting adolescents, and to expand upon school-based education programs. The results there have been significant. Now, more than 10 years after the authority for this valuable program expired, it is vital that Congress reauthorize the Adolescent Family Life Program to stem the staggering emotional and financial cost of teenage pregnancy. My legislation, the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1997, would authorize $75 million in Federal spending annually between now and fiscal year 2001 for the Adolescent Family Life Program, substantially higher than the $30 million authorized in 1985. My legislation would also amend title XX of the Public Health Service Act to state expressly that the education services provided by the recipients of Federal funds should include information about abstinence. Updating Federal law to expressly advocate abstinence education provides necessary guidance to the Department of Health and Human Services. I have also proposed amending the law to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that approved grants reflect a geographic diversity with adequate representation of both urban and rural areas. Further, to address concerns raised by Pennsylvania constituents, my legislation would establish a simplified, expedited application process for groups seeking title XX demonstration project funding of less than $15,000. I urge my colleagues and others to join me in the effort to reduce teenage pregnancies and make America a good society by supporting this legislation. The legislation on adoption, Mr. President, builds upon legislation I introduced last year with my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, who is the principal cosponsor on both of these bills. Our legislation, and there are many others in the field, provided for a $5,000 tax credit for adoption. There are many children in America who need homes, and many people in America who would like to adopt, but it is a very, very expensive proposition. I was pleased that Congress adopted legislation last year providing a $5,000 tax credit for adoption, $6,000 in the case of a special needs child, and this legislation would build on that to provide for an additional $1,500 for special needs children, for a total of $7,500. Another provision in this bill would allow for a $2,000 withdrawal tax free from individual retirement accounts. Far too many children are left to grow up in foster care without ever experiencing the rewards of being a permanent family member. When couples find that they are not able to conceive their own children or that it is not medically advisable, many consider adoption. Many other couples blessed with their own children consider adopting another child out of a sense of love and community, particularly where a child has been in foster care. Recognizing that the costs associated with adoption can be prohibitive, Congress passed the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 last August, which provided a nonrefundable tax credit for qualified adoption expenses, such as reasonable and necessary adoption fees, court costs, attorney fees, and other expenses related to a legal adoption. The act also contained a tax exclusion for benefits received under employer- sponsored adoption assistance programs. Both the tax credit and the exclusion of benefits are capped at $5,000 per child, or $6,000 per child in the case of a special needs adoption, and are fully phased out for adjusted gross incomes above $115,000. During Senate consideration of this legislation, I wrote to Majority Leader Dole and Finance Chairman Roth urging the inclusion of a $7,500 tax credit for special needs adoptions, rather than $5,000 as contained in the House-passed bill. I was pleased that the final bill included a higher level of $6,000 for special needs adoptions, but this is just not enough. We should be doing more to encourage, in particular, the adoption of children with special needs. Under current law, a child with a special need is one who has a mental, physical or emotional handicap, or who falls into a specific age, gender or minority group, which requires assistance to place that child with adoptive parents. This clinical explanation belies the frustrating condition of these children. A New York Times op-ed column by David S. Liederman, Executive Director of the Child Welfare League of America, published on May 9, 1996, stated that there are some 21,000 children with special needs waiting to be adopted, and another 65,000 in the care of welfare agencies, awaiting legal clearance to be made available. Many of these children have been placed in foster care because of parental neglect and abuse, exposure to drugs or HIV infection, serious emotional and physical disabilities, and other problems. These children, especially those with physical disabilities, are often very expensive to raise, which further compounds the difficulty of placing them in adoptive families. The legislation I am introducing today, the Adoption Promotion Act of 1997, would increase the tax credit and the exclusion of benefits received under employer-provided adoption assistance for special needs adoptions from $6,000 to $7,500. While it is often much less expensive to adopt a special-needs child than a typical infant, related costs may arise, such as the remodeling of a house to accommodate a physically handicapped child. Increasing the tax credit and exclusion to $7,500 will help to defray such additional expenses. Finally, I have included a provision in my legislation to allow the penalty-free withdrawal of up to $2,000 from an Individual Retirement Account [IRA] to help cover the costs of adoptions. I understand that a tax credit is simply inadequate to cover all the expenses associated with adoption, and I believe the Federal Tax Code should encourage savings and reward taxpayers, rather than penalizing them for the wise use of their hard-earned money. I have supported other efforts in the past that would allow the use of IRA funds for personal capital expenses such as the purchase of a family home, investment in college education, or payment of medical expenses. In my judgment, using IRA funds for adoption expenses is equally meritorious. Given the substantial prior support in both the Senate and House for tax incentives to promote adoption, I am hopeful that my colleagues will favorably consider the mix of incentives contained in the Adoption Promotion Act of 1997 and enact this legislation in the near future. By reducing the financial hurdles to adoption, I hope we will be able to give new hope to the thousands of children who live in foster care awaiting the chance to be brought into a loving family environment on a permanent basis. In conclusion, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in restoring the health of America's families by supporting the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1997 and the Adoption Promotion Act of 1997. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of these bills be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1997, and the Adoption Promotion Act of 1997. This legislation updates similar legislation which I introduced in the 104th Congress. The abstinence legislation is cosponsored by Senators Santorum, Bond, Inouye, Lugar, Warner, Biden, and DeWine, and the adoption legislation is cosponsored by Senators Santorum, Bond, Inouye, Cochran, and Harkin. This legislation, Mr. President, is directed at one of the most controversial and divisive issues confronting America today, and that is the issue of abortion. In my judgment, this is the most divisive issue confronting the United States since slavery. While I am personally very much opposed to abortion, I do not believe that it can be controlled by the Government. I think it is a matter for families, for women, for rabbis, ministers and priests, and it is essentially a moral issue. But I believe there is a consensus and general agreement on working toward the elimination of abortion which most Americans would find agreeable from all perspectives. I think that America is not pro- abortion, but there is a disagreement as to whether the choice of women can be controlled by the Federal Government. One area of agreement is that we ought to do everything we can to discourage premarital sex among teenagers, unintended pregnancies, and the abortions which follow. Senator Jeremiah Denton was a leading sponsor of abstinence education when he served in the Senate, and in 1987, more than a decade ago, I took up Senator Denton's cause in maintaining funding for abstinence education in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Last year, as chairman of that subcommittee, we increased the funding for abstinence education very substantially, but there has not been an authorization bill for some time. This legislation would call for an authorization up to some $75 million a year. I think we are not going to be able to get there in the immediate future, but I think that is a target where we ought to have authorization to give the Appropriations Committee ample room to work. I have visited schools around the country. I have found it very much to the point to talk in very direct and candid terms to teenagers in schools about the problems of drugs and about the importance of abstinence, and there is an interest I think among teenagers in wishing to discuss it in an open and frank way. What young women need is to have counter peer pressure which would move toward abstinence. On Friday, March 15, 1996, I had the opportunity to kick off the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Teen Pregnancy Prevention Week at Central High School in Philadelphia. During that week, communities throughout Pennsylvania conducted special activities to promote pre- marital abstinence as the healthiest way to prevent teen pregnancy and the many other physical and emotional consequences of early sexual activity. Last April, I visited Carrick High School in Pittsburgh, where I met with students who are involved in an abstinence program. I also visited the Susquehanna Valley Pregnancy Service in Lancaster, which works with young people who have taken pledges of abstinence and counsels them on overcoming peer pressure with counter peer pressure. I met and discussed abstinence and other issues with students at Susquehanna Township High School in Harrisburg, Manheim Township High School in Lancaster, Cedar Cliff High School in New Cumberland, Central York High School in York, and Liberty High School in Bethlehem. Throughout the 104th Congress, I conducted hearings on the issues of teen pregnancy, abstinence education, and adoption in my capacity as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Numerous witnesses shared their expertise and experiences. I ask unanimous consent a complete list of these witnesses be printed in the Record as exhibit 1.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 18, 1997, in order to report out S. 858, the intelligence authorization bill, and other matters at 4:45 p.m.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am submitting this resolution commemorating the 50th anniversary of India's independence. This resolution will designate August 15, 1997, as ``Independence Day for the Nation of India,'' a day of celebration of Indian and American democracy. On August 15, 1947, India came into existence and has been dedicated to democracy and the rule of law for the past 50 years. It is a multiethnic country of 950 million people, who speak more than 18 major languages and hundreds of dialects. I have had the pleasure to visit India on a number of occasions, most recently with the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Senator Brown, in August 1995, when we met with Prime Minister Rao. That was a fascinating meeting when the Prime Minister immediately undertook a discussion of the necessity to have the subcontinent nuclear free. Regrettably, there has been much controversy, much tension between Pakistan and India. On that occasion, Prime Minister Rao emphasized his desire to see the subcontinent nuclear free. The next day, Senator Brown and I had occasion to visit with Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in Islamabad and talk to her about establishing a nuclear free subcontinent. Later, Senator Brown and I wrote jointly to President Clinton urging that the President invite the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan to the White House to see if a nuclear free subcontinent might be accomplished with the assistance of the good offices of the United States. I am delighted to see my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, assuming the Chair, the lofty position of presiding over the U.S. Senate. I am glad to see my colleague here. Back to my resolution. India's democracy has thrived over the past 50 years, testimony to the fact that principles of freedom are not limited to the most prosperous countries of the West, but a country which has become independent and democratic, notwithstanding its problems with its economy. There are strong links between the two nations, India and the United States. We are both former British colonies and, in our own civil rights struggles of the last generation, great Americans, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, borrowed the concepts of peaceful dissent from India from the teaching of India's independence leader, Mahatma Gandhi. The number of Indian, Americans living in the United States continues to increase steadily. The rich cultural heritage and traditions of the Indian people contribute to the great diversity of the United States of America. Relations between our countries have seen some difficulties, and there are still areas for improvement, but our mutual values of democracy and the rule of law bridge these differences. I submit this resolution because it is proper and desirable to celebrate with the Indian people and to reaffirm the democratic principles which our two great nations cherish. I ask the American people to join with me in celebrating 50 years of India's independence.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of our distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 923, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 923.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, at this time I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this bill would amend existing law to deny benefits to veterans who have been convicted of a Federal capital offense. Current law denies such benefits to veterans convicted of Federal crimes, such as sabotage, treason, and sedition, but not murder. I offer this bill on behalf of myself and my distinguished colleague from New Jersey, Senator Torricelli, and also Senator Byrd, Senator Nickles, Senator Inhofe, Senator Feinstein, Senator Campbell, and the distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator Santorum. Mr. President, yesterday I was informed by staff in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, which I chair, that there is a gap in the law which allows Mr. Timothy McVeigh to be entitled to veterans benefits notwithstanding his murder of 168 persons, and his conviction for murder in the first degree in connection with his terrorist attack on the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. Frankly, I was surprised to learn of the current gap in the law which would allow him to claim veterans benefits. Those guilty of offenses such as sedition, treason, and espionage forfeit veterans benefits, but those who are guilty of murder in the first degree do not. The terrorist attack in Oklahoma City was the most heinous criminal act in the history of the United States of America, to my knowledge. It resulted in the murder of 168 persons, including many children. It also resulted in the wounding and maiming of hundreds of others who were in that building. Yesterday, Senator Torricelli introduced legislation similar to mine. We talked this morning, and we decided to join our efforts. Senator Lott consented to have the matter placed on the calendar for quick action. And we have had it now cleared by all Senators. I think this is a piece of legislation which ought to be adopted promptly. It would set a mark, saying that capital murderers, like those who commit espionage and similar offenses, forfeit a variety of veterans benefits. I cannot say exactly what benefits Mr. McVeigh might be eligible for--there could be a variety of possibilities, including education, employment or housing benefits. Certainly he would be entitled to burial benefits, under current law. It surely would be unseemly to have Timothy McVeigh buried in a veterans cemetery with heroes who served the United States of America. So I believe this is a fair piece of legislation. We ought to act on it promptly. I am pleased now to yield to my distinguished cosponsor, the Senator from New Jersey. Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER. We are awaiting Senator Nickles. We invite other Senators to make a statement, but in the interim I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SPECTER. During the pendency of this bill, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 5 minutes be allotted to Senator Nickles for debate.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. In the absence of any other Senator present, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Faircloth]. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 934 and S. 935 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, it is my hope that yet this afternoon we will be able to take action on legislation cosponsored by Senator Torricelli, Senator Nickles, and Senator Inhofe which would deal with the issue of eliminating veterans benefits for anyone who has been convicted of a capital offense. This legislation was introduced yesterday and is designed to deal with the situation of Mr. Timothy McVeigh, who last week was convicted of murder in the first degree on 168 murders arising out of the destruction of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City back on April 19, 1995. I was surprised to learn from my staff on the Veterans Affairs Committee that someone in Mr. McVeigh's situation would be able to receive veterans benefits. There are a wide variety of possible benefits. Exactly which ones apply to Mr. McVeigh would have to be determined, but they are benefits which would include employment training--obviously he cannot do that at the present time--education, other compensation, burial benefits. There was a gap in the law where someone who has been convicted of a number of crimes cannot receive veterans benefits--crimes like treason, sabotage, or espionage--but oddly enough, curiously enough, a conviction for murder in the first degree is not covered. Senator Torricelli had introduced legislation yesterday and so had I. I did not know this when I introduced my legislation and spoke briefly on the Senate floor yesterday afternoon about Senator Torricelli's legislation, but I found out about it later in the day and talked to him this morning, and we are coordinating our efforts to produce a joint bill. I discussed the matter yesterday with the majority leader, Senator Lott, who said he would work with us to have a prompt determination for the Senate, and we have put it on the hotline, and we are almost complete, with one Senator yet to respond, and there has been a checking now with the administration, with the White House, with the Executive Office of the President, and also with the Veterans' Administration to see if there is any objection. I do not believe that there will be any. It is my hope we would be able to take action fairly soon this afternoon, or, if we cannot, we may have to put it over until tomorrow. There has been considerable public interest and people expressing surprise that someone in Timothy McVeigh's situation could have veterans benefits and could, illustratively, be buried with heroes from the veterans wars of World War II, Vietnam, Korea, or the gulf war. So we are proceeding at this time. I wanted to alert my colleagues we are hopeful that bill will come up this afternoon and try to expedite the advice from both the White House and the Veterans' Administration as to their positions. It is my firm expectation that they will not have an objection but would rather welcome this legislation, but I wanted to inform my colleagues of the status at this time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. The legislation I am introducing today builds on the significant progress made in the 104th Congress, where we enacted tax credits for adoption and authorized, through the welfare bill, an additional $50 million for fiscal years 1998 to 2002 to provide abstinence education. As my colleagues may recall, I introduced similar legislation in the 104th Congress on April 29, 1996. At the outset, let me provide my colleagues with a brief summary of the legislation. My first proposal would reauthorize and expand the Adolescent Family Life Program, providing $75 million annually to promote abstinence education for teens. My second proposal would increase the tax credit for adopting special-needs children to $7,500 and would permit penalty-free withdrawals from individual retirement accounts for adoption expenses. These two bills complement my efforts to advocate adequate prenatal care, especially for teens, through the Healthy Start Program. We know that in most instances, prenatal care is effective in preventing premature births. I saw my first 1-pound baby more than a decade ago. It is really a startling sight, a child no bigger than my hand, carrying scars for a lifetime and costing as much as $400,000 in medical care per child over a lifetime, according to the most recent data from the National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality. Mr. President, nearly 200 years ago, the French writer Alexis de Tocqueville is said to have observed that ``America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.'' His analysis is timeless. It is impossible to be a public official today, to travel throughout States such as Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the United States, without recognizing that America's problems are more moral than material. As we have tried to steer toward a growing economy and a balanced budget, we have seen a growing consensus that all our goals must rest on a restored ethic of personal responsibility. A crisis of values, in fact, underlies many of the public policy problems the Senate addresses on a daily basis. This has impressed upon me the need for people of strong moral commitments to enter public service and public debate, so that we may confront the underlying problems together and move our Nation forward. While the news media offer us a monthly snapshot of leading economic indicators, it may be that our leading moral indicators are more telling, such as the staggering number of teenage pregnancies and the rapid rise in juvenile crime, which suggest that the erosion of the American family continues unabated. Further, today more than 50 percent of American marriages end in divorce, meaning that millions of children face at least some instability in their home environment. Marriage is obviously important in that a strong family structure, based on a commitment of mutual support and respect, is vital for children. On the subject of family values, I speak with considerable pride about the manner in which my parents and my siblings have respected the institution of marriage. In addition to my own marriage of 44 years and my parents' marriage of 45 years, my brother, Morton, and his wife, Joyce, were married for 51 years until his death in 1993. My sister, Hilda, and her husband, Arthur Morgenstern, celebrated their 54th wedding anniversary in April 1997. My sister, Shirley, was married to Edward Kety for 46 years until his death in 1995. My son, Shanin, and his wife, Tracey, celebrated their 10th wedding anniversary on June 29, 1996. So our family totals 250 years of marriage, and counting. On this critical question of the health of America's families, the grim statistics are worth airing. The number of teenage pregnancies in the United States continues to reach alarming levels. According to data compiled by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, in 1992, the most recent year for which statistics are available, approximately 931,000 women aged 15 to 19 became pregnant. Further, the National Center for Health Statistics reports that there were 500,744 births to women aged 15 to 19 in 1995, and an additional 12,318 births to women under 15 years of age. By comparison, the United Nations Population Division reports that the United States teenage birth rate, 64 births per 1,000 females aged 15 to 19 for the period 1990-95, is the highest in the industrialized world. France and Japan report some of the lowest teenage birth rates, at 9 and 4 births per 1,000 females, respectively. Another leading moral indicator is the rapid increase in the number of unwed teenage mothers. According to Child Trends, Inc., the percentage of births to mothers under age 20 that occurred outside of marriage rose from 48 percent in 1980 to 76 percent in 1994. Teenage mothers face more complications in childbirth, and their children are 50 percent more likely to be born premature. These children also have a greater risk of dying in the first year of life, suffering developmental problems, and becoming teen parents themselves. Further, the Office of Population Affairs of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that 80 percent of children born to unwed teenage mothers who have not completed high school live in poverty. By contrast, of those children born to 20-year-old married parents who are high school graduates, only 8 percent live in poverty. In addition, more than three-fourths of unmarried teen mothers began receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC] within 5 years after the birth of their first child. A report released in 1996 by the Robin Hood Foundation estimated that adolescent childbearing costs the taxpayers $6.9 billion each year in welfare and food stamp benefits, medical care expenses, lost tax revenue, incarceration expenses, and foster care. To me, this necessitates a strong response from concerned citizens, the clergy, and public officials. We can, and we must, confront our leading moral indicators head-on. We must press harder in the fight to reduce the alarming number of teenage pregnancies in the United States. And, when a child comes into the world as the result of an unintended pregnancy, we must do all that we can to ensure that it is raised in a loving, stable family environment. It is the American family, of course, that chiefly bears these responsibilities. Nonetheless, I believe that the government can play a role and that we in the Congress must pursue legislative avenues to strengthen the social fabric and family stability of our Nation. My first legislative proposal, the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1997, would reauthorize the existing Adolescent Family Life Program, known as title XX, a valuable program which focuses directly on the issues of abstinence, adolescent sexuality, adoption alternatives, pregnancy, and parenting. If you want to reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States, teaching children to resist negative peer pressure is a starting place. In 1981, Congress, with bipartisan support, established the Adolescent Family Life Program as the only Federal program of its kind. The program was reauthorized in 1984, and its authority expired in 1985. Since then, the program has been funded through annual appropriations bills. As chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I pressed to appropriate $14.2 million for the Adolescent Family Life program in fiscal year 1997, an increase of $6.5 million over fiscal year 1996. Within that amount, $10.8 million is provided for abstinence demonstration programs. A major focus of the Adolescent Family Life prevention projects is delaying the onset of sexual activity, thereby reducing the incidence of adolescent pregnancy as well as the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Investing in programs that prevent unintended teenage births to unwed mothers is also vital in this time of budgetary constraints. Addressing the problem of teenage pregnancy, which alone costs the government about $6.9 billion each year, will save millions of dollars in welfare costs. Since its inception, the Adolescent Family Life Program has supported approximately 196 care and prevention demonstration projects and 63 research projects. On April 10, 1996, I met with officials at Mercy Hospital in Pittsburgh, which has received a 2-year, $1 million grant to create a care network to meet the physical, emotional, psychological, and educational needs of pregnant and parenting adolescents, and to expand upon school-based education programs. The results there have been significant. Now, more than 10 years after the authority for this valuable program expired, it is vital that Congress reauthorize the Adolescent Family Life Program to stem the staggering emotional and financial cost of teenage pregnancy. My legislation, the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1997, would authorize $75 million in Federal spending annually between now and fiscal year 2001 for the Adolescent Family Life Program, substantially higher than the $30 million authorized in 1985. My legislation would also amend title XX of the Public Health Service Act to state expressly that the education services provided by the recipients of Federal funds should include information about abstinence. Updating Federal law to expressly advocate abstinence education provides necessary guidance to the Department of Health and Human Services. I have also proposed amending the law to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that approved grants reflect a geographic diversity with adequate representation of both urban and rural areas. Further, to address concerns raised by Pennsylvania constituents, my legislation would establish a simplified, expedited application process for groups seeking title XX demonstration project funding of less than $15,000. I urge my colleagues and others to join me in the effort to reduce teenage pregnancies and make America a good society by supporting this legislation. The legislation on adoption, Mr. President, builds upon legislation I introduced last year with my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, who is the principal cosponsor on both of these bills. Our legislation, and there are many others in the field, provided for a $5,000 tax credit for adoption. There are many children in America who need homes, and many people in America who would like to adopt, but it is a very, very expensive proposition. I was pleased that Congress adopted legislation last year providing a $5,000 tax credit for adoption, $6,000 in the case of a special needs child, and this legislation would build on that to provide for an additional $1,500 for special needs children, for a total of $7,500. Another provision in this bill would allow for a $2,000 withdrawal tax free from individual retirement accounts. Far too many children are left to grow up in foster care without ever experiencing the rewards of being a permanent family member. When couples find that they are not able to conceive their own children or that it is not medically advisable, many consider adoption. Many other couples blessed with their own children consider adopting another child out of a sense of love and community, particularly where a child has been in foster care. Recognizing that the costs associated with adoption can be prohibitive, Congress passed the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 last August, which provided a nonrefundable tax credit for qualified adoption expenses, such as reasonable and necessary adoption fees, court costs, attorney fees, and other expenses related to a legal adoption. The act also contained a tax exclusion for benefits received under employer- sponsored adoption assistance programs. Both the tax credit and the exclusion of benefits are capped at $5,000 per child, or $6,000 per child in the case of a special needs adoption, and are fully phased out for adjusted gross incomes above $115,000. During Senate consideration of this legislation, I wrote to Majority Leader Dole and Finance Chairman Roth urging the inclusion of a $7,500 tax credit for special needs adoptions, rather than $5,000 as contained in the House-passed bill. I was pleased that the final bill included a higher level of $6,000 for special needs adoptions, but this is just not enough. We should be doing more to encourage, in particular, the adoption of children with special needs. Under current law, a child with a special need is one who has a mental, physical or emotional handicap, or who falls into a specific age, gender or minority group, which requires assistance to place that child with adoptive parents. This clinical explanation belies the frustrating condition of these children. A New York Times op-ed column by David S. Liederman, Executive Director of the Child Welfare League of America, published on May 9, 1996, stated that there are some 21,000 children with special needs waiting to be adopted, and another 65,000 in the care of welfare agencies, awaiting legal clearance to be made available. Many of these children have been placed in foster care because of parental neglect and abuse, exposure to drugs or HIV infection, serious emotional and physical disabilities, and other problems. These children, especially those with physical disabilities, are often very expensive to raise, which further compounds the difficulty of placing them in adoptive families. The legislation I am introducing today, the Adoption Promotion Act of 1997, would increase the tax credit and the exclusion of benefits received under employer-provided adoption assistance for special needs adoptions from $6,000 to $7,500. While it is often much less expensive to adopt a special-needs child than a typical infant, related costs may arise, such as the remodeling of a house to accommodate a physically handicapped child. Increasing the tax credit and exclusion to $7,500 will help to defray such additional expenses. Finally, I have included a provision in my legislation to allow the penalty-free withdrawal of up to $2,000 from an Individual Retirement Account [IRA] to help cover the costs of adoptions. I understand that a tax credit is simply inadequate to cover all the expenses associated with adoption, and I believe the Federal Tax Code should encourage savings and reward taxpayers, rather than penalizing them for the wise use of their hard-earned money. I have supported other efforts in the past that would allow the use of IRA funds for personal capital expenses such as the purchase of a family home, investment in college education, or payment of medical expenses. In my judgment, using IRA funds for adoption expenses is equally meritorious. Given the substantial prior support in both the Senate and House for tax incentives to promote adoption, I am hopeful that my colleagues will favorably consider the mix of incentives contained in the Adoption Promotion Act of 1997 and enact this legislation in the near future. By reducing the financial hurdles to adoption, I hope we will be able to give new hope to the thousands of children who live in foster care awaiting the chance to be brought into a loving family environment on a permanent basis. In conclusion, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in restoring the health of America's families by supporting the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1997 and the Adoption Promotion Act of 1997. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of these bills be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1997, and the Adoption Promotion Act of 1997. This legislation updates similar legislation which I introduced in the 104th Congress. The abstinence legislation is cosponsored by Senators Santorum, Bond, Inouye, Lugar, Warner, Biden, and DeWine, and the adoption legislation is cosponsored by Senators Santorum, Bond, Inouye, Cochran, and Harkin. This legislation, Mr. President, is directed at one of the most controversial and divisive issues confronting America today, and that is the issue of abortion. In my judgment, this is the most divisive issue confronting the United States since slavery. While I am personally very much opposed to abortion, I do not believe that it can be controlled by the Government. I think it is a matter for families, for women, for rabbis, ministers and priests, and it is essentially a moral issue. But I believe there is a consensus and general agreement on working toward the elimination of abortion which most Americans would find agreeable from all perspectives. I think that America is not pro- abortion, but there is a disagreement as to whether the choice of women can be controlled by the Federal Government. One area of agreement is that we ought to do everything we can to discourage premarital sex among teenagers, unintended pregnancies, and the abortions which follow. Senator Jeremiah Denton was a leading sponsor of abstinence education when he served in the Senate, and in 1987, more than a decade ago, I took up Senator Denton's cause in maintaining funding for abstinence education in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Last year, as chairman of that subcommittee, we increased the funding for abstinence education very substantially, but there has not been an authorization bill for some time. This legislation would call for an authorization up to some $75 million a year. I think we are not going to be able to get there in the immediate future, but I think that is a target where we ought to have authorization to give the Appropriations Committee ample room to work. I have visited schools around the country. I have found it very much to the point to talk in very direct and candid terms to teenagers in schools about the problems of drugs and about the importance of abstinence, and there is an interest I think among teenagers in wishing to discuss it in an open and frank way. What young women need is to have counter peer pressure which would move toward abstinence. On Friday, March 15, 1996, I had the opportunity to kick off the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Teen Pregnancy Prevention Week at Central High School in Philadelphia. During that week, communities throughout Pennsylvania conducted special activities to promote pre- marital abstinence as the healthiest way to prevent teen pregnancy and the many other physical and emotional consequences of early sexual activity. Last April, I visited Carrick High School in Pittsburgh, where I met with students who are involved in an abstinence program. I also visited the Susquehanna Valley Pregnancy Service in Lancaster, which works with young people who have taken pledges of abstinence and counsels them on overcoming peer pressure with counter peer pressure. I met and discussed abstinence and other issues with students at Susquehanna Township High School in Harrisburg, Manheim Township High School in Lancaster, Cedar Cliff High School in New Cumberland, Central York High School in York, and Liberty High School in Bethlehem. Throughout the 104th Congress, I conducted hearings on the issues of teen pregnancy, abstinence education, and adoption in my capacity as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Numerous witnesses shared their expertise and experiences. I ask unanimous consent a complete list of these witnesses be printed in the Record as exhibit 1.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. First, Mr. President, I would like to update my colleagues on our efforts to have an amendment on veterans benefits occasioned by the conviction of Timothy McVeigh who does have veterans benefits. We have been working to put the legislation in final form, and I think we are now very close to it. If we can accomplish that, we still have time today to introduce the bill and, I think, to get a rollcall vote on it. That will be the final call, obviously, of our majority leader, Senator Lott, but I do think we have a chance to do that. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the submission of Senate Resolution 102 are located in today's Record under ``Submissions of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor in the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.