Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I strenuously oppose this amendment. As chairman of the subcommittee having jurisdiction over LIHEAP funding, I can tell you that we have fought hard for program funding this year. There have been consistent reductions in program funding. We are into the bone. The LIHEAP funds are indispensable for the aging. We are talking about people who have the option of heating or eating. The vast majority, 80 percent, goes to people who have incomes of $7,000 or less. This funding ought not to be cut.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the subcommittee which I chair addresses a wide array of programs--from the educational needs of children, the training and retraining of this nation's work force, to confronting the problem of teen pregnancy, AIDS, and the causes and cures of disease Collectively, the programs in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill address many of the present needs of this nation's people and are investments in our future. Because of the wide array of funding needs contained in the Labor- HHS-Education appropriations and given our tight budget situation, it has become exceedingly difficult to craft a bill that addresses all of these needs. The amendment which I offer today adds a total of $2.7 billion to levels in the resolution for education, training, and social services programs in function 500, and to health activities in function 550. This increase will bring funding in these functions to freeze levels as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office and will help in funding the education, job training and health programs under my subcommittee's jurisdiction. Just last month, the Senate voted 88-11 to approve a compromise amendment offered by Senator Harkin and myself to the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations for fiscal year 1996. That compromise is what it took to break loose the stalemate on fiscal year 1996 funding for Labor, HHS and Education programs and to get a bill through the Congress. Without the amendment I am offering today, I think that we could see a repeat of last year's long and disruptive appropriations process, and that would be an embarrassment that this body ought not let occur again. The fiscal year 1996 bill required an additional $2.7 billion, and I believe that we will again need this amount to get the bill through fiscal year 1997. The increase in the amendment applies only to fiscal year 1997 and does not increase spending in the outyears. The amendment is offset by an across-the-board cut of a little more than one-half of 1-percent from all executive branch administrative expenses. That is, administrative and personnel services and contractual services on a pro-rata basis from funds available to every Federal agency, department, and office in the executive branch, including the Office of the President. The resolution before the Senate provides $36.3 billion for education and employment and training programs, a decrease of $1.2 billion below what CBO has estimated to freeze these programs in fiscal year 1997. The resolution also provides $21.6 billion or $1.5 billion below a freeze for health programs. This amendment simply restores funding for education, job training and health programs to a very modest freeze level. Even at a freeze level, the Labor-HHS-Education subcommittee will be faced with the formidable task of maintaining our commitment to the core education programs, including Pell grants, campus-based aid, title I, and head start. For employment and training programs, an additional $67 million is needed in fiscal year 1997 just to cover the operational cost increases resulting from opening four new Job Corps centers. Without passage of this amendment, the subcommittee will be forced either to not fund the operation of these new centers or further reduce services in other training programs for this nation's workforce at a time of heightened anxiety over economic security. Last week was Brain Awareness Week and many of my colleagues visited with researchers and advocates urging the Congress to expand support for research on the brain. Others, attended the Wednesday's May 15 press conference with actor Christopher Reeve of ``Superman'' fame in which he appealed for increased funding for spinal cord injury research. Still others, have met with constituents urging us to expand funding for research on cancer, heart disease, AIDS, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease. Without this amendment, we will be unable to maintain level support for critical health care priorities, jeopardizing funding for the National Institutes of Health, for community and migrant health centers, for breast and cervical cancer prevention, and for childhood immunizations. I, therefore, urge my colleagues once again to join Senator Harkin and me in supporting this $2.7 billion amendment.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the vote to table the Rockefeller amendment, I supported the budget resolution, which is moderate and maintains the solvency of Medicare. Contrary to the argument that there are Medicare cuts, the fact is that Medicare expenditures increase by an average of 6.1 percent annually with the following total expenditures each year: 1996, $196 billion; 1997, $209 billion; 1998, $224 billion; 1999, $236 billion; 2000, $249 billion; 2001, $263 billion; 2002, $279 billion. On the 1996 budget resolution, I voted to increase Medicare expenditures when the rate of increase was reduced by $268 billion and there was a tax cut of $245 billion. In this budget resolution, the tax cut is limited to $122 billion to cover a child tax credit. I ask unanimous consent that the table on the ``Chairman's Mark Budget Aggregates'' be printed in the Record together with the ``Medicare Fact Sheet.''

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to name the new U.S. courthouse being constructed in Scranton, PA, for one of Pennsylvania's most distinguished Federal judges, Judge William Nealon. Judge Nealon was born and raised in Scranton and attended its public schools. After service in the Marine Corps during the Second War, Judge Nealon graduated from Villanova University and then received a law degree from Catholic University here in Washington. Returning to Scranton to practice law, he became a widely respected trial lawyer. When a vacancy opened up on the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, Judge Nealon was appointed by President Kennedy to serve as U.S. district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. At the time of his appointment, Judge Nealon was the youngest Federal judge in the Nation. Judge Nealon has served the people of the middle district of Pennsylvania for almost 34 years since then, including over 12 years chief judge of the court. He has been widely respected among the bar of the middle district for his intelligence, dedication, and judicial demeanor. Throughout his long career, he has been considered by many to be the model of a trial judge. Judge Nealon has been active in many efforts to improve the administration of justice across the Nation. He served as the representative of the third circuit to the Committee on the Administration of the Criminal Law of the Judicial Conference of the United States for 6 years. For 4 years he served as a member of the Third Circuit Judicial Council, and for 3 years, from 1987 to 1990, he was elected by the other district judges in the third circuit to serve as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body that oversees the Federal courts. To this record of distinction in his professional career, Judge Nealon can add a record a community involvement matched by few others. It can truly be said that Scranton is a better place because of Judge Nealon. He is a former chairman of the board of Mercy Hospital in Scranton, of the Scranton Catholic Youth Center, and of the University of Scranton. He has also served as a member of the board of Lackawanna Junior College, St. Michael's School for Boys, the Everhart Museum, and the Scranton-Lackawanna Health and Welfare Authority. He has received the Distinguished Service Award from the Boy Scouts of America and was the 1995 recipient of the Champion of Youth Award of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Scranton, in addition to numerous awards from legal and academic institutions. One would think that this lengthy record of accomplishment would be enough for any one person, but Judge Nealon has also raised an outstanding family. He and his wife Jean have 10 children and 26 grandchildren. Earlier this year, I sponsored Senate passage of a bill introduced in the House by Representative Kanjorski to name the U.S. Courthouse in Wilkes-Barre after Judge Max Rosenn of the third circuit, Wilkes- Barre's leading jurist. I can think of no one more deserving than Judge Nealon of the honor of having the new U.S. Courthouse in Scranton named after him. I am pleased to introduce this legislation. I hope my colleagues will support it and that the Senate will adopt it this year. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to name the new U.S. courthouse being constructed in Scranton, PA, for one of Pennsylvania's most distinguished Federal judges, Judge William Nealon. Judge Nealon was born and raised in Scranton and attended its public schools. After service in the Marine Corps during the Second War, Judge Nealon graduated from Villanova University and then received a law degree from Catholic University here in Washington. Returning to Scranton to practice law, he became a widely respected trial lawyer. When a vacancy opened up on the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, Judge Nealon was appointed by President Kennedy to serve as U.S. district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. At the time of his appointment, Judge Nealon was the youngest Federal judge in the Nation. Judge Nealon has served the people of the middle district of Pennsylvania for almost 34 years since then, including over 12 years chief judge of the court. He has been widely respected among the bar of the middle district for his intelligence, dedication, and judicial demeanor. Throughout his long career, he has been considered by many to be the model of a trial judge. Judge Nealon has been active in many efforts to improve the administration of justice across the Nation. He served as the representative of the third circuit to the Committee on the Administration of the Criminal Law of the Judicial Conference of the United States for 6 years. For 4 years he served as a member of the Third Circuit Judicial Council, and for 3 years, from 1987 to 1990, he was elected by the other district judges in the third circuit to serve as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body that oversees the Federal courts. To this record of distinction in his professional career, Judge Nealon can add a record a community involvement matched by few others. It can truly be said that Scranton is a better place because of Judge Nealon. He is a former chairman of the board of Mercy Hospital in Scranton, of the Scranton Catholic Youth Center, and of the University of Scranton. He has also served as a member of the board of Lackawanna Junior College, St. Michael's School for Boys, the Everhart Museum, and the Scranton-Lackawanna Health and Welfare Authority. He has received the Distinguished Service Award from the Boy Scouts of America and was the 1995 recipient of the Champion of Youth Award of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Scranton, in addition to numerous awards from legal and academic institutions. One would think that this lengthy record of accomplishment would be enough for any one person, but Judge Nealon has also raised an outstanding family. He and his wife Jean have 10 children and 26 grandchildren. Earlier this year, I sponsored Senate passage of a bill introduced in the House by Representative Kanjorski to name the U.S. Courthouse in Wilkes-Barre after Judge Max Rosenn of the third circuit, Wilkes- Barre's leading jurist. I can think of no one more deserving than Judge Nealon of the honor of having the new U.S. Courthouse in Scranton named after him. I am pleased to introduce this legislation. I hope my colleagues will support it and that the Senate will adopt it this year. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill appear in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, last year the Supreme Court overturned 40 years of statutory interpretation and held that the statute that prohibits making false statements to agencies of the Federal Government only prohibits false statements made to agencies of the executive branch. There is no reason why Congress should receive less protection than the executive. The cardinal principle at stake is that in dealing with the Government, any agency of the Government, people must, in the words of Justice Holmes, ``cut square corners,'' just as the Government must cut square corners in dealing with its citizens. One who lies to an entity of Government, be it an agency of the executive or a subcommittee of Congress, is under a justifiable expectation that if he or she lies, he or she will be punished. This is not a difficult issue. For 40 years, Congress received the same protection as the executive. Anyone who lied knowingly and wilfully in a material way to either an executive agency or a component of Congress was subject to prosecution. In its Hubbard decision of last year, the Supreme Court took that protection away from Congress. Let me offer some examples of the types of lies that can now knowingly be made without fear of criminal sanction. Recently Congress enacted lobbying disclosure. Lobbyists must make more thorough disclosures in filings with Congress. Knowing and material misstatements in these disclosure forms are no longer a basis for criminal prosecution. Many of us asks the General Accounting Office to investigate the operations of executive branch agencies. An employee of an agency being investigated by the GAO can now knowingly lie to a GAO investigator, or indeed a Senator, without having to fear criminal prosecution. Of course, if instead of the GAO the review was being conducted by an agency inspector general, then section 1001 would apply. This distinction cannot be justified. Congress relies on accurate information to legislate, to oversee, to direct public policy. Unless the information coming to us is accurate, we are unable to fulfill our constitutional functions. This issue is a simple one. When someone provides information to Congress, its members, committees, or offices, that person should not knowingly provide untruthful information. So simple is this principle that I first offered legislation to overturn the Hubbard decision a week after it was decided. Since introduction of my bill, S. 830, I have been working with Senator Levin on the language of amended section 1001 and on some other ancillary matters. The bill Senator Levin and I are introducing today will amend section 1001 to restore coverage for misstatements made to both Congress and the Federal judiciary, although it will codify the judiciary created exception to the pre-Hubbard section 1001 to exempt from its coverage statements made to a court performing an adjudicative function. The rational for this exception is that our adversary system relies on unfettered argument and the chilling effect from applying section 1001 to statements to a court adjudicating a case could be significant. In addition, cross-examination and argument from the other side is adequate to reveal misstatements in the judicial context. No similar legislative-function exemption is proposed for statements made to Congress, and none is needed. Congress does not rely on cross- examination to get at the truth. Instead, we must rely on the truthfulness of statements made to us in the course of the performance of our official duties. In addition to restoring section 1001 liability for misstatements made to Congress and the courts, this bill would restore force to the prohibition against obstructing congressional proceedings by narrowing the meaning of the provision. This amendment is needed to respond to a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which found the current statute too vague to be enforceable. The bill also clarifies when officials of executive branch agencies can assert a privilege and decline to respond to inquiries from Congress. The bill requires that an employee of an executive agency would have to demonstrate that the head of the agency directed that the privilege be asserted. This will ensure that the assertion of the privilege is reviewed at the highest levels of the agency by someone accountable to the President and ultimately the people. It will also ensure that any privileges that are asserted are governmental privileges and not personal ones. Finally, the bill would make a minor technical amendment to the statute allowing Congress to seek to take immunized testimony from witnesses by clarifying that the testimony can be taken either at proceedings before a committee or subcommittee or any proceeding ancillary to such proceedings, such as depositions. Mr. President, I believe this is an important bill that will restore to the law of the land the principle that one cannot knowingly and wilfully lie about a material matter to Congress. I hope my colleagues will support this principle by supporting the bill, which I hope we can enact this year. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, last year the Supreme Court overturned 40 years of statutory interpretation and held that the statute that prohibits making false statements to agencies of the Federal Government only prohibits false statements made to agencies of the executive branch. There is no reason why Congress should receive less protection than the executive. The cardinal principle at stake is that in dealing with the Government, any agency of the Government, people must, in the words of Justice Holmes, ``cut square corners,'' just as the Government must cut square corners in dealing with its citizens. One who lies to an entity of Government, be it an agency of the executive or a subcommittee of Congress, is under a justifiable expectation that if he or she lies, he or she will be punished. This is not a difficult issue. For 40 years, Congress received the same protection as the executive. Anyone who lied knowingly and wilfully in a material way to either an executive agency or a component of Congress was subject to prosecution. In its Hubbard decision of last year, the Supreme Court took that protection away from Congress. Let me offer some examples of the types of lies that can now knowingly be made without fear of criminal sanction. Recently Congress enacted lobbying disclosure. Lobbyists must make more thorough disclosures in filings with Congress. Knowing and material misstatements in these disclosure forms are no longer a basis for criminal prosecution. Many of us asks the General Accounting Office to investigate the operations of executive branch agencies. An employee of an agency being investigated by the GAO can now knowingly lie to a GAO investigator, or indeed a Senator, without having to fear criminal prosecution. Of course, if instead of the GAO the review was being conducted by an agency inspector general, then section 1001 would apply. This distinction cannot be justified. Congress relies on accurate information to legislate, to oversee, to direct public policy. Unless the information coming to us is accurate, we are unable to fulfill our constitutional functions. This issue is a simple one. When someone provides information to Congress, its members, committees, or offices, that person should not knowingly provide untruthful information. So simple is this principle that I first offered legislation to overturn the Hubbard decision a week after it was decided. Since introduction of my bill, S. 830, I have been working with Senator Levin on the language of amended section 1001 and on some other ancillary matters. The bill Senator Levin and I are introducing today will amend section 1001 to restore coverage for misstatements made to both Congress and the Federal judiciary, although it will codify the judiciary created exception to the pre-Hubbard section 1001 to exempt from its coverage statements made to a court performing an adjudicative function. The rational for this exception is that our adversary system relies on unfettered argument and the chilling effect from applying section 1001 to statements to a court adjudicating a case could be significant. In addition, cross-examination and argument from the other side is adequate to reveal misstatements in the judicial context. No similar legislative-function exemption is proposed for statements made to Congress, and none is needed. Congress does not rely on cross- examination to get at the truth. Instead, we must rely on the truthfulness of statements made to us in the course of the performance of our official duties. In addition to restoring section 1001 liability for misstatements made to Congress and the courts, this bill would restore force to the prohibition against obstructing congressional proceedings by narrowing the meaning of the provision. This amendment is needed to respond to a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which found the current statute too vague to be enforceable. The bill also clarifies when officials of executive branch agencies can assert a privilege and decline to respond to inquiries from Congress. The bill requires that an employee of an executive agency would have to demonstrate that the head of the agency directed that the privilege be asserted. This will ensure that the assertion of the privilege is reviewed at the highest levels of the agency by someone accountable to the President and ultimately the people. It will also ensure that any privileges that are asserted are governmental privileges and not personal ones. Finally, the bill would make a minor technical amendment to the statute allowing Congress to seek to take immunized testimony from witnesses by clarifying that the testimony can be taken either at proceedings before a committee or subcommittee or any proceeding ancillary to such proceedings, such as depositions. Mr. President, I believe this is an important bill that will restore to the law of the land the principle that one cannot knowingly and wilfully lie about a material matter to Congress. I hope my colleagues will support this principle by supporting the bill, which I hope we can enact this year. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for yielding to me, and I congratulate him and the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, for the tremendous amount of work and success which they have brought into a program for a 7-year balanced budget. My sense is that with a centrist approach, which is represented by the charts which Senator Breaux has spoken about and the one which is next to Senator Chafee, we can have a balanced budget, and we can do it with a scalpel and not with a meat ax. The bill which we passed last week and which was signed by the President is illustrative, in my judgment, of what we can do if we really set our minds to it. I chair the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education. And, as I have said on this floor, it has been an embarrassment to me that that bill could be brought to the floor at a much, much earlier time. I will not review the bidding as to why it could not be brought to the floor, but suffice it to say that there were riders which kept it from consideration by the Senate. Then Senator Harkin, the ranking member on the subcommittee, and I crafted an amendment to add $2.7 billion, significantly for education, but also for health, human services, and worker safety. That amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 84 to 16, which is obviously a very strong bipartisan showing. We then went to conference with the House of Representatives. The very difficult part is finding the figures which will be signed by the President and which will be acceptable to the House of Representatives. We had 20 hours of negotiations over 2 days, and we finally worked it through on the House-Senate conference with the House conferees to bring it to a narrow 6-to-5 vote, but it was accomplished. I believe that is indicative of what we can do with this centrist approach. It is my hope that this will be reduced to bill form and that we will put it forward. I have urged my colleague, Senator Chafee, to bring the proposal to the floor and to bring it to a vote because I believe that there are many Senators, besides the 20 or so who have joined in these meetings, who would be willing to support it if it came to the Senate floor for a vote. It is reminiscent of the tremendous job which the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, did on health care back in 1992, 1993, and 1994. He had so many meetings in his office at 8:30 in the morning every Thursday that most of us should have been lessees. We should have paid rent over there. One of the concerns that I had on the tremendous job which he did was that it never came to the floor for a vote under the time of pressure for which I think we would have enacted that bill. He did set the stage, I think, for those of us working with him, and under Senator Chafee's leadership, for the legislation which was passed last week, the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. This bill, which is targeted, did not have the problems of the administration's bill which was a complete revolution. So that with this centrist approach, I think we have it. I hope we will bring it to the floor. I think it is the model for accommodation, and I am glad to be a part of the team. Again, I thank my colleagues who yielded the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 1715 and S. 1716 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce, on behalf of 14 Senators, the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1996 and, on behalf of 12 Senators, the Adoption Promotion Act of 1996. I am pleased to be introducing these bills with many colleagues from both parties, which I shall describe shortly. Toward a ``Good'' Society Mr. President, I am introducing two bills designed to bring Americans together on one of the most controversial, if not the most controversial matter facing the United States domestically today, and that is the question of abortion, pro-choice, pro-life. While we cannot achieve agreement on all aspects of that underlying controversy, I believe it is possible to make enormous steps forward on the issue of abstinence; that is, to try to curtail premarital sex, especially among teenagers, which results in unintended pregnancies, and to promote adoption through tax credits, to try to encourage those who are in the situation of unintended pregnancy to carry through to term. At the outset, let me provide my colleagues with a brief summary of the legislation. This legislation would support an authorization for $75 million annually to have abstinence education. While there is great concern about education dealing with matters of sex generally, there appears to be an exception when you talk about abstinence. Within the past several weeks, I have had the opportunity to visit the Carrick High School in Pittsburgh, where I met with students who are involved in an abstinence program and with officials of Mercy Hospital which has been the recipient of a $250,000 federal grant for abstinence education. The results there have been very profound. Later, I visited a program in Lancaster, PA, where young people are taking the abstinence pledge and are being counseled in how to respond to peer pressure with counter peer pressure. As I say, while we cannot agree on all aspects of the issue of abortion, pro-choice, pro-life, I believe when we talk about abstinence, that is an area of agreement. Similarly, on adoption, there have been many efforts to give tax breaks. This legislation is another effort, with up to a $5,000 tax credit for adoption, and up to $7,500 for adopting children with special needs. These two bills will supplement legislation which I have already pushed on prenatal care for pregnancies, again involving many youngsters in their teens. I saw my first one-pound baby more than a decade ago. It is really a startling sight, a child no bigger than my hand, carrying medical problems for a lifetime and costing up to $200,000 in medical care per child for just the first year. I believe this abstinence legislation, in conjunction with adequate prenatal care and the Healthy Start program, will go a long way toward avoiding teenage pregnancies and the complications that can arise, such as low- birth-weight babies. Mr. President, on March 28, 1996, I spoke on the Senate floor in support of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Teen Pregnancy Prevention Week. During that week, communities throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania conducted special activities to promote pre-marital abstinence as the best, healthiest way to prevent teen pregnancy and the many other physical, emotional, and relational consequences of early sexual activity. On Friday, March 15, 1996, I had the opportunity to kick-off this important week at Central High School in Philadelphia, and during my remarks, I stated that I would be introducing two legislative proposals that deal with the important issue of teen pregnancy, one on abstinence education and one on promoting adoption. By way of background, 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.'' Although de Tocqueville is long gone, 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. The news media offer us a monthly snapshot of leading economic indicators, but it may be that our leading moral indicators are more telling, such as the staggering number of teenage pregnancies, the national divorce rate, and the rapid rise in juvenile crime. As we have tried to steer towards a growing economy and a balanced budget, there has been a growing consensus that all our goals-- personal, economic, and national security--must rest on a restored ethic of personal responsibility. There has been an increased recognition that a crisis of values underlies the many 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. On the critical question of the health of America's families, the grim statistics are well known, but worth repeating. These leading moral indicators suggest that the erosion of the American family continues unabated. For example, more than 50 percent of American marriages now end in divorce, meaning that millions of American children face at least some instability in their home environment. Then, there is the alarming number of teenagers getting pregnant in the United States. According to statistics released by the Centers for Disease Control in 1995, there were an estimated 835,000 teenage pregnancies in 1990. Further, the National Center for Health Statistics reports that in 1993, 12,000 girls under 15 years of age gave birth to a child. To me, this necessitates a strong response from public officials, the clergy, and concerned citizens. A leading moral indicator is the rapid increase in the number of unwed mothers. The percentage of teen births that occurred outside of marriage has risen from 48 percent in 1980 to 72 percent of all teenage births in 1993. According to my distinguished colleague, Senator Moynihan, within 10 years, unless we reverse current trends, more than half our children will be born to unmarried women. By comparison, the United States teenage birth rate--60 births per 1,000 females aged 15 to 19--is double the rate in other industrialized societies such as Australia and the United Kingdom. France and Japan report some of the lowest teenage birth rates, at nine and four births per 1,000 females, respectively. It is worth pausing to reflect on the enormous significance of these statistics regarding out-of-wedlock births. Marriage is obviously important as it relates to the benefits for children to have a strong family structure based on a commitment of mutual support and respect. On the subject of family values, I speak with considerable pride about the institution of marriage with my parents and my siblings. In addition to 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 53rd wedding anniversary in April. My sister, Shirley, was married to Edward Kety for 46 years until his death last summer. My son, Shanin, and his wife, Tracey, will celebrate their 10th wedding anniversary on June 29, 1996. So our family totals 248 years of marriage. In considering the troubling statistics on out-of-wedlock births, I believe there is much we can do to reduce the likelihood that an unmarried teenager will become pregnant in the first place. While I am personally opposed to abortion, I do not believe it can be controlled by the Government. I believe it is a matter for the woman and family, with appropriate guidance by ministers, priests, and rabbis. I do believe the government has a significant role in promoting alternatives to abortion. In my view, there is no reason why people on both sides of the abortion debate cannot work together to promote those alternatives. We can reduce teenage pregnancies by encouraging abstinence and personal responsibility. If a teen pregnancy does occur, we should promote adoption as a socially beneficial alternative. 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. 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, to which these responsibilities chiefly belong. Nonetheless, I believe that the Government can play a role and that we in the Congress must seek out appropriate legislative means to advance this cause. Accordingly, I am today introducing these two bills which will strengthen the social fabric and family stability of our Nation. Before I go into greater detail on these two bills, I want to point out that I have benefited from thoughtful review and comments by a number of individuals with expertise on the issues of teen pregnancy, abstinence, and adoption, including Bill Pierce of the National Council on Adoption; H. Woodruff Turner and Katrina Schulhof of the Pittsburgh Adoptive Family Rights Council; David Keene of the American Conservative Union; Ms. Molly Kelly of Philadelphia; Larry Breitenstein of the Westmoreland County Childrens Bureau; Dr. Carol Jean Vale, President of Chestnut Hill College; Sister Roseanne Bonfini of Immaculata College; James Stark of the Fayette County Community Action Agency; Danelle Stone and Melissa Mizner of Catholic Charities Counseling and Adoption Services--Erie Diocese; Washington County Commissioner Diana Irey; Reverend Horace Strand, Sr. of the Faith Temple Holy Church and Christian School; Rev. Msgr. Philip Cribben of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia; and Ted Meehan of the Mainstream Republicans. Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1996 My first legislative proposal provides for the continued funding of programs that are designed to reduce teenage pregnancy and to increase abstinence education. The existing Adolescent Family Life Program, known as the title XX program, is a worthwhile 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 say no to negative peer pressure is a starting place. In 1981, Congress established the Adolescent Family Life Program as the only Federal program of its kind. Through demonstration grants and contracts, Adolescent Family Life focuses on a comprehensive range of health, educational, and social services needed to improve the health of adolescents, including the complex issues of early adolescent sexuality, pregnancy, and parenting. This legislation had bipartisan support when originally enacted in 1981 and when it was reauthorized in 1984. Authority for title XX expired in 1985 and since then, the program has been operating under funding provided in the annual Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill. For fiscal year 1996, the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, which I chair, provided $7.7 million for the Adolescent Family Life program. Now, more than 10 years after the authority for this valuable program expired, it is important that Congress reauthorize it to demonstrate our commitment to this important Adolescent Family Life Program. As I stated at the outset, my legislation, the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1996, would provide authority for $75 million annually between now and fiscal year 2000, substantially higher than the $30 million authorized in 1985. My legislation would also amend title XX to state expressly that the education services provided by the recipients of federal funds should include information about abstinence. 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 have a geographic diversity that shows 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. As I noted at the beginning of my remarks, teenage pregnancies exact a substantial emotional and financial toll on our society and deserve priority consideration by Congress. Adolescent pregnancy threatens the health of both the young mother and child. Teenage mothers are more likely to lack adequate prenatal care and to give birth to a low birthweight baby. When I refer to the problem of low birthweight babies, I am talking about babies weighing as little as 12 ounces who when born are no larger than my hand. It is tragic that these babies are not born more healthy, for low birthweight babies will carry scars for a lifetime and often do not live very long. The Adolescent Family Life Program, in addressing early sexual relations among teenagers, can also protect their health with respect to sexually transmitted diseases. Early sexual activity, particularly with multiple partners, increases the chance that a teenager will contract such a disease. The Title XX program is designed to get teenagers to focus on the potential consequences of early sexual activity, and these health concerns certainly provide additional justification for Federal support of abstinence education. In making the case for funding programs to address the teen pregnancy problem it is important to focus primarily on the physical, emotional, and spiritual costs associated with a young girl becoming pregnant. At a time when Federal, State, and local governments face difficult budgetary constraints, I should also note that in 1990, an estimated 51 percent of Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments went to recipients who were 19 or younger when they first became mothers. Billions of dollars could be saved by preventing unwanted teenage births to unwed mothers. Reauthorizing the Adolescent Family Life Program at $75 million will demonstrate that Congress recognizes the serious emotional and financial impact of teenage pregnancy. Updating federal law to advocate abstinence education expressly is also necessary to provide guidance to the Department of Health and Human Services. I urge my colleagues and others to making America a ``good'' society to support this legislation and join me in the effort to reduce teenage pregnancies. The Adoption Promotion Act of 1996 My second legislative proposal, the ``Adoption Promotion Act of 1996,'' is intended to provide appropriate tax incentives to encourage adoption, a policy which serves as a compassionate response to children whose own parents are unable or unwilling to care for them. This is particularly important in an era when so many teenagers are having babies and are unable to care for them. Based upon my own strong sense of family, I firmly believe that the family is the primary building block of our society. To reinforce the important role families play in our society, the Senate and the House of Representatives recently passed balanced budget legislation which contained provisions to benefit families. For instance, the agreement provided a $500 per child tax credit to help cover the rising costs of raising children. That legislation also provided a $5,000 nonrefundable tax credit for families who follow the long and arduous, but rewarding, process of adopting a child. Although this legislation was vetoed by the President, I believe it made a very strong statement in support of the American family. I have spent the past year advocating scrapping our current Tax Code and replacing it with a flat tax that would encourage saving, stimulate growth, and promote fundamental simplicity. In March 1995 I introduced S. 488, the Flat Tax Act of 1995, which would increase economic growth by $2 trillion and reduce interest rates by 2 full percentage points. Further, S. 488 would provide much more generous personal exemptions and deductions for children. However, as the Congress debates the merits and necessity of fundamental tax reform, and until such legislation is enacted, I believe we need to move forward with specialized tax legislation that promotes adoption. As I stated earlier, today I am introducing the Adoption Promotion Act of 1996, which would encourage the adoption of children into healthy and stable existing families. Far too many children are left to grow up in foster care without ever experiencing the rewards of being a permanent family member. Many other couples, unable to conceive their own child, turn to infant adoption to start a family. Recognizing the cost hurdles that may discourage many American families from adopting a child, my legislation would provide a nonrefundable adoption tax credit for up to $5,000 in qualified adoption expenses for families earning up to $65,000 in annual adjusted gross income. The credit is available at a gradually reduced percentage to families with adjusted gross income between $65,000 and $95,000. The credit is available during the year of the legal, finalized adoption, but may cover expenses incurred in previous years toward the adoption. As I will explain in greater detail later, my legislation also would allow all families to make penalty free withdrawals of up to $2,000 from Individual Retirement Accounts to pay adoption expenses. In addition, the bill allows employers to offer their employees tax-free benefits for adoption. To address the particular problem of placing children with special needs in adoptive families, my legislation would provide a $7,500 nonrefundable tax credit for such adoptions. Mr. President, when couples realize 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 a child out of a sense of love and community, particularly where a child has been in foster care. These couples quickly learn that the costs associated with adoption can be prohibitive. It is not uncommon for the adopting family to pay thousands of dollars in legal expenses, prenatal care for the birth mother, and the cost of the adopted child's hospital delivery. In fact, according to information from congressional testimony by the National Council on Adoption, adoption costs range between zero and $30,000, averaging $15,000 for infants born in the United States. My bill includes a provision to encourage in particular the placement of special needs children because there is good reason to provide a particular incentive for their adoption. This legislation adopts the definition contained in the balanced budget legislation and states that a child with a special need is one who has a mental, physical or emotional handicap or who may fall into a specific age, gender or minority group. However, this clinical explanation belies the frustrating condition of these children. According to the Ways and Means Committee, in fiscal year 1990, 71 percent of children with one or more special needs were waiting for adoptive placement. In cases where children have medical conditions, most through no fault of their own, costs of care can be prohibitive. It then becomes even more difficult to place such children in adoptive families because of these tragic circumstances. I am hopeful that the $7,500 tax credit will ease the financial burden on families considering adopting a special needs child. I would note that the credit is not tied solely to the actual costs of the adoption, because such adoptions are often less expensive than a typical infant adoption. Therefore, this credit is available to defray additional expenses of having a special needs child join one's family. Under current law, if an employer helps to pay an employee's pregnancy expenses by funding an insurance policy or paying the fees for an employee to join an health maintenance organization, these expenses are treated as tax-free fringe benefits. But if an employer helps his or her employees with adoption expenses, it has to pay these expenses in after-tax dollars. That is why my legislation provides that employer-provided adoption assistance is tax free for up to $5,000 in benefits for each child (up to $7,500 for special needs children). This tax provision is also phased out based on income, but at a higher level than the tax credit, in order to allow more families to take full advantage of employee fringe benefits. I am proud to mention that several companies in Pennsylvania, including First Pennsylvania Bank, Rohm and Haas, and Wyeth-Ayerst already provide adoption assistance to their employees. Other companies offering such benefits include General Motors, DuPont and PepsiCo. Finally, I have included provisions in my legislation to allow the penalty-free withdrawal from Individual Retirement Accounts [IRA] to help cover the costs of adoption expenses. I understand the fact that a tax credit is simply not enough to cover all the expenses associated with adoption. I believe the federal tax code must encourage savings and reward taxpayers not penalize them for the wise uses 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 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 prior support in both the Senate and House for some type of 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 1996 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 permanently. In conclusion, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record a ``Dear Colleague'' letter, dated March 25, together with a summary of the legislative provisions, together with the bills themselves, which identify the 14 sponsors of the abstinence bill and the 12 sponsors of the adoption bill, together with seven letters: one from David Keene of the American Conservative Union; the second from Danelle Stone and Melissa Mizner of the Catholic Charities (Erie Diocese); the third from Pastor Horace W. Strand of the Faith Temple Holy Church and Christian School; the fourth from Commissioner Colin A. Hanna of Chester County; the fifth from Commissioner Joseph A. Ford of Washington County; the sixth from Commissioner Jim Beckwith of Mifflin County; and the seventh from President Carol Jean Vale of Chestnut Hill College.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce, on behalf of 14 Senators, the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1996 and, on behalf of 12 Senators, the Adoption Promotion Act of 1996. I am pleased to be introducing these bills with many colleagues from both parties, which I shall describe shortly. Toward a ``Good'' Society Mr. President, I am introducing two bills designed to bring Americans together on one of the most controversial, if not the most controversial matter facing the United States domestically today, and that is the question of abortion, pro-choice, pro-life. While we cannot achieve agreement on all aspects of that underlying controversy, I believe it is possible to make enormous steps forward on the issue of abstinence; that is, to try to curtail premarital sex, especially among teenagers, which results in unintended pregnancies, and to promote adoption through tax credits, to try to encourage those who are in the situation of unintended pregnancy to carry through to term. At the outset, let me provide my colleagues with a brief summary of the legislation. This legislation would support an authorization for $75 million annually to have abstinence education. While there is great concern about education dealing with matters of sex generally, there appears to be an exception when you talk about abstinence. Within the past several weeks, I have had the opportunity to visit the Carrick High School in Pittsburgh, where I met with students who are involved in an abstinence program and with officials of Mercy Hospital which has been the recipient of a $250,000 federal grant for abstinence education. The results there have been very profound. Later, I visited a program in Lancaster, PA, where young people are taking the abstinence pledge and are being counseled in how to respond to peer pressure with counter peer pressure. As I say, while we cannot agree on all aspects of the issue of abortion, pro-choice, pro-life, I believe when we talk about abstinence, that is an area of agreement. Similarly, on adoption, there have been many efforts to give tax breaks. This legislation is another effort, with up to a $5,000 tax credit for adoption, and up to $7,500 for adopting children with special needs. These two bills will supplement legislation which I have already pushed on prenatal care for pregnancies, again involving many youngsters in their teens. I saw my first one-pound baby more than a decade ago. It is really a startling sight, a child no bigger than my hand, carrying medical problems for a lifetime and costing up to $200,000 in medical care per child for just the first year. I believe this abstinence legislation, in conjunction with adequate prenatal care and the Healthy Start program, will go a long way toward avoiding teenage pregnancies and the complications that can arise, such as low- birth-weight babies. Mr. President, on March 28, 1996, I spoke on the Senate floor in support of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Teen Pregnancy Prevention Week. During that week, communities throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania conducted special activities to promote pre-marital abstinence as the best, healthiest way to prevent teen pregnancy and the many other physical, emotional, and relational consequences of early sexual activity. On Friday, March 15, 1996, I had the opportunity to kick-off this important week at Central High School in Philadelphia, and during my remarks, I stated that I would be introducing two legislative proposals that deal with the important issue of teen pregnancy, one on abstinence education and one on promoting adoption. By way of background, 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.'' Although de Tocqueville is long gone, 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. The news media offer us a monthly snapshot of leading economic indicators, but it may be that our leading moral indicators are more telling, such as the staggering number of teenage pregnancies, the national divorce rate, and the rapid rise in juvenile crime. As we have tried to steer towards a growing economy and a balanced budget, there has been a growing consensus that all our goals-- personal, economic, and national security--must rest on a restored ethic of personal responsibility. There has been an increased recognition that a crisis of values underlies the many 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. On the critical question of the health of America's families, the grim statistics are well known, but worth repeating. These leading moral indicators suggest that the erosion of the American family continues unabated. For example, more than 50 percent of American marriages now end in divorce, meaning that millions of American children face at least some instability in their home environment. Then, there is the alarming number of teenagers getting pregnant in the United States. According to statistics released by the Centers for Disease Control in 1995, there were an estimated 835,000 teenage pregnancies in 1990. Further, the National Center for Health Statistics reports that in 1993, 12,000 girls under 15 years of age gave birth to a child. To me, this necessitates a strong response from public officials, the clergy, and concerned citizens. A leading moral indicator is the rapid increase in the number of unwed mothers. The percentage of teen births that occurred outside of marriage has risen from 48 percent in 1980 to 72 percent of all teenage births in 1993. According to my distinguished colleague, Senator Moynihan, within 10 years, unless we reverse current trends, more than half our children will be born to unmarried women. By comparison, the United States teenage birth rate--60 births per 1,000 females aged 15 to 19--is double the rate in other industrialized societies such as Australia and the United Kingdom. France and Japan report some of the lowest teenage birth rates, at nine and four births per 1,000 females, respectively. It is worth pausing to reflect on the enormous significance of these statistics regarding out-of-wedlock births. Marriage is obviously important as it relates to the benefits for children to have a strong family structure based on a commitment of mutual support and respect. On the subject of family values, I speak with considerable pride about the institution of marriage with my parents and my siblings. In addition to 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 53rd wedding anniversary in April. My sister, Shirley, was married to Edward Kety for 46 years until his death last summer. My son, Shanin, and his wife, Tracey, will celebrate their 10th wedding anniversary on June 29, 1996. So our family totals 248 years of marriage. In considering the troubling statistics on out-of-wedlock births, I believe there is much we can do to reduce the likelihood that an unmarried teenager will become pregnant in the first place. While I am personally opposed to abortion, I do not believe it can be controlled by the Government. I believe it is a matter for the woman and family, with appropriate guidance by ministers, priests, and rabbis. I do believe the government has a significant role in promoting alternatives to abortion. In my view, there is no reason why people on both sides of the abortion debate cannot work together to promote those alternatives. We can reduce teenage pregnancies by encouraging abstinence and personal responsibility. If a teen pregnancy does occur, we should promote adoption as a socially beneficial alternative. 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. 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, to which these responsibilities chiefly belong. Nonetheless, I believe that the Government can play a role and that we in the Congress must seek out appropriate legislative means to advance this cause. Accordingly, I am today introducing these two bills which will strengthen the social fabric and family stability of our Nation. Before I go into greater detail on these two bills, I want to point out that I have benefited from thoughtful review and comments by a number of individuals with expertise on the issues of teen pregnancy, abstinence, and adoption, including Bill Pierce of the National Council on Adoption; H. Woodruff Turner and Katrina Schulhof of the Pittsburgh Adoptive Family Rights Council; David Keene of the American Conservative Union; Ms. Molly Kelly of Philadelphia; Larry Breitenstein of the Westmoreland County Childrens Bureau; Dr. Carol Jean Vale, President of Chestnut Hill College; Sister Roseanne Bonfini of Immaculata College; James Stark of the Fayette County Community Action Agency; Danelle Stone and Melissa Mizner of Catholic Charities Counseling and Adoption Services--Erie Diocese; Washington County Commissioner Diana Irey; Reverend Horace Strand, Sr. of the Faith Temple Holy Church and Christian School; Rev. Msgr. Philip Cribben of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia; and Ted Meehan of the Mainstream Republicans. Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1996 My first legislative proposal provides for the continued funding of programs that are designed to reduce teenage pregnancy and to increase abstinence education. The existing Adolescent Family Life Program, known as the title XX program, is a worthwhile 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 say no to negative peer pressure is a starting place. In 1981, Congress established the Adolescent Family Life Program as the only Federal program of its kind. Through demonstration grants and contracts, Adolescent Family Life focuses on a comprehensive range of health, educational, and social services needed to improve the health of adolescents, including the complex issues of early adolescent sexuality, pregnancy, and parenting. This legislation had bipartisan support when originally enacted in 1981 and when it was reauthorized in 1984. Authority for title XX expired in 1985 and since then, the program has been operating under funding provided in the annual Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill. For fiscal year 1996, the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, which I chair, provided $7.7 million for the Adolescent Family Life program. Now, more than 10 years after the authority for this valuable program expired, it is important that Congress reauthorize it to demonstrate our commitment to this important Adolescent Family Life Program. As I stated at the outset, my legislation, the Adolescent Family Life and Abstinence Education Act of 1996, would provide authority for $75 million annually between now and fiscal year 2000, substantially higher than the $30 million authorized in 1985. My legislation would also amend title XX to state expressly that the education services provided by the recipients of federal funds should include information about abstinence. 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 have a geographic diversity that shows 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. As I noted at the beginning of my remarks, teenage pregnancies exact a substantial emotional and financial toll on our society and deserve priority consideration by Congress. Adolescent pregnancy threatens the health of both the young mother and child. Teenage mothers are more likely to lack adequate prenatal care and to give birth to a low birthweight baby. When I refer to the problem of low birthweight babies, I am talking about babies weighing as little as 12 ounces who when born are no larger than my hand. It is tragic that these babies are not born more healthy, for low birthweight babies will carry scars for a lifetime and often do not live very long. The Adolescent Family Life Program, in addressing early sexual relations among teenagers, can also protect their health with respect to sexually transmitted diseases. Early sexual activity, particularly with multiple partners, increases the chance that a teenager will contract such a disease. The Title XX program is designed to get teenagers to focus on the potential consequences of early sexual activity, and these health concerns certainly provide additional justification for Federal support of abstinence education. In making the case for funding programs to address the teen pregnancy problem it is important to focus primarily on the physical, emotional, and spiritual costs associated with a young girl becoming pregnant. At a time when Federal, State, and local governments face difficult budgetary constraints, I should also note that in 1990, an estimated 51 percent of Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments went to recipients who were 19 or younger when they first became mothers. Billions of dollars could be saved by preventing unwanted teenage births to unwed mothers. Reauthorizing the Adolescent Family Life Program at $75 million will demonstrate that Congress recognizes the serious emotional and financial impact of teenage pregnancy. Updating federal law to advocate abstinence education expressly is also necessary to provide guidance to the Department of Health and Human Services. I urge my colleagues and others to making America a ``good'' society to support this legislation and join me in the effort to reduce teenage pregnancies. The Adoption Promotion Act of 1996 My second legislative proposal, the ``Adoption Promotion Act of 1996,'' is intended to provide appropriate tax incentives to encourage adoption, a policy which serves as a compassionate response to children whose own parents are unable or unwilling to care for them. This is particularly important in an era when so many teenagers are having babies and are unable to care for them. Based upon my own strong sense of family, I firmly believe that the family is the primary building block of our society. To reinforce the important role families play in our society, the Senate and the House of Representatives recently passed balanced budget legislation which contained provisions to benefit families. For instance, the agreement provided a $500 per child tax credit to help cover the rising costs of raising children. That legislation also provided a $5,000 nonrefundable tax credit for families who follow the long and arduous, but rewarding, process of adopting a child. Although this legislation was vetoed by the President, I believe it made a very strong statement in support of the American family. I have spent the past year advocating scrapping our current Tax Code and replacing it with a flat tax that would encourage saving, stimulate growth, and promote fundamental simplicity. In March 1995 I introduced S. 488, the Flat Tax Act of 1995, which would increase economic growth by $2 trillion and reduce interest rates by 2 full percentage points. Further, S. 488 would provide much more generous personal exemptions and deductions for children. However, as the Congress debates the merits and necessity of fundamental tax reform, and until such legislation is enacted, I believe we need to move forward with specialized tax legislation that promotes adoption. As I stated earlier, today I am introducing the Adoption Promotion Act of 1996, which would encourage the adoption of children into healthy and stable existing families. Far too many children are left to grow up in foster care without ever experiencing the rewards of being a permanent family member. Many other couples, unable to conceive their own child, turn to infant adoption to start a family. Recognizing the cost hurdles that may discourage many American families from adopting a child, my legislation would provide a nonrefundable adoption tax credit for up to $5,000 in qualified adoption expenses for families earning up to $65,000 in annual adjusted gross income. The credit is available at a gradually reduced percentage to families with adjusted gross income between $65,000 and $95,000. The credit is available during the year of the legal, finalized adoption, but may cover expenses incurred in previous years toward the adoption. As I will explain in greater detail later, my legislation also would allow all families to make penalty free withdrawals of up to $2,000 from Individual Retirement Accounts to pay adoption expenses. In addition, the bill allows employers to offer their employees tax-free benefits for adoption. To address the particular problem of placing children with special needs in adoptive families, my legislation would provide a $7,500 nonrefundable tax credit for such adoptions. Mr. President, when couples realize 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 a child out of a sense of love and community, particularly where a child has been in foster care. These couples quickly learn that the costs associated with adoption can be prohibitive. It is not uncommon for the adopting family to pay thousands of dollars in legal expenses, prenatal care for the birth mother, and the cost of the adopted child's hospital delivery. In fact, according to information from congressional testimony by the National Council on Adoption, adoption costs range between zero and $30,000, averaging $15,000 for infants born in the United States. My bill includes a provision to encourage in particular the placement of special needs children because there is good reason to provide a particular incentive for their adoption. This legislation adopts the definition contained in the balanced budget legislation and states that a child with a special need is one who has a mental, physical or emotional handicap or who may fall into a specific age, gender or minority group. However, this clinical explanation belies the frustrating condition of these children. According to the Ways and Means Committee, in fiscal year 1990, 71 percent of children with one or more special needs were waiting for adoptive placement. In cases where children have medical conditions, most through no fault of their own, costs of care can be prohibitive. It then becomes even more difficult to place such children in adoptive families because of these tragic circumstances. I am hopeful that the $7,500 tax credit will ease the financial burden on families considering adopting a special needs child. I would note that the credit is not tied solely to the actual costs of the adoption, because such adoptions are often less expensive than a typical infant adoption. Therefore, this credit is available to defray additional expenses of having a special needs child join one's family. Under current law, if an employer helps to pay an employee's pregnancy expenses by funding an insurance policy or paying the fees for an employee to join an health maintenance organization, these expenses are treated as tax-free fringe benefits. But if an employer helps his or her employees with adoption expenses, it has to pay these expenses in after-tax dollars. That is why my legislation provides that employer-provided adoption assistance is tax free for up to $5,000 in benefits for each child (up to $7,500 for special needs children). This tax provision is also phased out based on income, but at a higher level than the tax credit, in order to allow more families to take full advantage of employee fringe benefits. I am proud to mention that several companies in Pennsylvania, including First Pennsylvania Bank, Rohm and Haas, and Wyeth-Ayerst already provide adoption assistance to their employees. Other companies offering such benefits include General Motors, DuPont and PepsiCo. Finally, I have included provisions in my legislation to allow the penalty-free withdrawal from Individual Retirement Accounts [IRA] to help cover the costs of adoption expenses. I understand the fact that a tax credit is simply not enough to cover all the expenses associated with adoption. I believe the federal tax code must encourage savings and reward taxpayers not penalize them for the wise uses 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 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 prior support in both the Senate and House for some type of 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 1996 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 permanently. In conclusion, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record a ``Dear Colleague'' letter, dated March 25, together with a summary of the legislative provisions, together with the bills themselves, which identify the 14 sponsors of the abstinence bill and the 12 sponsors of the adoption bill, together with seven letters: one from David Keene of the American Conservative Union; the second from Danelle Stone and Melissa Mizner of the Catholic Charities (Erie Diocese); the third from Pastor Horace W. Strand of the Faith Temple Holy Church and Christian School; the fourth from Commissioner Colin A. Hanna of Chester County; the fifth from Commissioner Joseph A. Ford of Washington County; the sixth from Commissioner Jim Beckwith of Mifflin County; and the seventh from President Carol Jean Vale of Chestnut Hill College.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I think the work of the consortium which you have described is the kind of work which is needed to continue universal newborn hearing screening consistent with the healthy people 2000 report and the NIH recommendations. I would support the continued funding of these activities by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau. vista literacy corps

Mr. SPECTER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, when H.R. 3019 passed the Senate on March 19, substantial progress had been made to protect critical funding for education and training programs. The amendment I offered with Senator Harkin during Senate consideration provided $2.7 billion more for education, job training and Head Start programs for the 1996/1997 academic year. These additional funds were fully offset, thus preserving the balanced budget objectives for discretionary appropriations in fiscal year 1996. The conference agreement before the Senate today maintains the increased funds for education provided by the Specter/Harkin amendment. It also protects funding for other important objectives, such as, worker safety, medical research, health services, and domestic violence prevention. Overall, H.R, 3019 appropriates $64.6 billion for discretionary programs of the Labor, HHS and Education Subcommittee. This is $204 million above the Senate passed bill, $2.6 billion above the House bill, and $2.6 billion, or 4 percent, below the 1995 post-rescission level. Included in the bill is the termination of over 110 programs viewed by the conferees as either having met their objectives, being duplicative of other programs, or having low priority. The bill's highlights include the following: $625 million for the 1996 Summer Youth Employment Program of the Department of Labor; the House bill had terminated this program; $1.1 billion for the Dislocated Worker Retraining Program, bringing the total $233 million above the House bill; $1.3 billion for worker protection programs, bringing the average funding level for each enforcement agency to 98 percent of the 1995 level; $350 million for the School to Work Program, jointly administered by the Departments of Labor and Education, an increase of $105 million from the 1995 appropriated level. $11.9 billion for medical research supported by the National Institutes of Health. This is an increase of $654 million over the 1995 level, or 5.8 percent; $738 million for the Ryan White AIDS Programs. this is an increase of $105 million over 1995. Within the total is $52 million specifically set aside for the AIDS drugs reimbursement program. These additional funds will enable states to better meet the growing cost and demand for new AIDS drugs; $93 million to continue the Healthy Start Program. This is $43 million above the original level passed by the House. $3.57 billion for the Head Start Program. This is $36 million above the 1995 level; 350 million for the GOALS 2000 Educate America Act Program. The House bill had terminated funding for this program; $7.2 billion for the Title I, Compensatory Education for the Disadvantaged Program. This is the same as the 1995 level and nearly $1 billion more than the House bill; $466 million for the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. This is $266 million above the House bill; and $78 million for education technology programs which assist schools in expanding the availability of technology enhanced curricula and instruction to improve educational services. This is $23 million above 1995. H.R. 3019 also preserves funding for student aid programs. The agreement raises the maximum Pell Grant to $2,470. This is an increase of $130 in the maximum grant and is the highest maximum grant ever provided. Funds also are provided to maintain the capital contributions to the Perkins Loan Program and Federal support for the State Student Incentive Grants Program. Finally, the agreement includes $900 million for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) in fiscal year 1996. The original House bill, H.R. 2127, had included no funding for the LIHEAP Program. H.R. 3019, also makes available $420 million in ``emergency'' contingency funds for the fiscal year 1997 program. Regular funding for next winter's LIHEAP Program will be considered during the fiscal year 1997 appropriations process. It is always easy to add money, but much more difficult to find the offsets for additional spending in order to not add to the Federal deficit. The conference agreement before the Senate today succeeds in both restoring funding to critical education, health and training programs and in maintaining our commitment to balance the federal budget. It is an excellent appropriations bill, and I urge my colleagues to give it their support.

Mr. SPECTER. I agree with my distinguished colleagues and am encouraged by the significant contributions such a project can make. Consideration should be given to the establishment of the pediatric intensive care center with empowerment zone funds. Universal Newborn hearing screening colloquy

Mr. SPECTER. The Senator is correct in his understanding of our intent.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to oppose the pending amendment, but at the outset, I want to compliment my colleague, Senator Simpson, for the outstanding work that he has done for so many years on this very important subject, and similarly to compliment my colleague, Senator Kennedy, for his work in the immigration field and for his work in Judiciary in general. Senator Simpson has been intimately involved in immigration work for more than a decade, going back to Simpson-Mazzoli. In my tenure in the Senate, Senator Simpson has taken on some of the toughest jobs which we have had in this body. I talk about Senator Simpson in particular because he will be leaving us at the end of this year. It will be an enormous loss for the Senate and for the country. The first extensive contacts I had with Senator Simpson were on the Veterans' Committee where we had a disagreement or two. I would frequently cite the experience of my father, Harry Specter, who was a World War I veteran. When Senator Simpson came to talk to me recently about the immigration legislation that he has worked on judiciously, two private visits to talk to me, he noticed a grouping of photographs on the wall and said when he had been in my office occasionally for lunch he had never taken the time to look at the pictures. So I introduced him to my mother's father, Mordecai Shanin, who came from a small town on the Russian border when my mother was 5 and settled in St. Joe, MO. And I reintroduced Senator Simpson to my father, Harry Specter, who was in his uniform, and I recounted that he emigrated from Ukraine, walking across Europe with barely a ruble in his pocket. At that point, Senator Simpson said to me he did not think he and I would agree too much on the pending immigration legislation. I come to this issue from a somewhat different vantage point. My sense is that America is a big, broad, growing country and that we do have room for immigrants. I grew up in Kansas. I was born in Wichita and grew up in the small town of Russell, with wide open spaces like Wyoming. My sense is that it is not in the national interest to reduce immigration from 675,000 to 607,000. Both categories of immigrants--the family-based and the employment-based--will make a great contribution to our country. This is a country of immigrants. When we had the debate in the committee, Senator Abraham started off with his immigrant background. Senator Feinstein talked about her immigrant background and I talked about mine, and everybody on the committee could talk about it in one way or another because we are a country of immigrants. I understand the priorities for minor children and spouses, and, of course, these groups have to be the first priority. But I believe that when you talk about siblings and adult children, talk about family values and talk about having room for the families, that the figures are relatively modest. When we talk about illegal immigration, there is no doubt about the need to control our borders and to control illegal immigration. But when we talk about legal immigration, I think we are talking about something that is very, very different. When there is a proposal to reduce employment-based visas by some 28.5 percent, from 140,000 a year to 100,000 for a period of 5 years, I must say that this is a fundamental mistake. In Pennsylvania, I have had many of my constituents come to me and say that there is a real need for these visas; that the immigrants who come here legally are very highly skilled, are Ph.D.'s, are technicians, and they will be instrumental in creating more jobs, not in taking jobs. I have worked on the bill in committee to be sure that people who come in on these visas do not take existing jobs; that there has to be a premium payment and there has to be a care and consideration so they do not displace existing workers, but these highly skilled people will create more jobs. I was involved in this issue back in 1989 and 1990 on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce where I think we increased the number by about 40,000. The situation is so acute in my State, Pennsylvania, that I have held meetings in both Pittsburgh and Philadelphia which were very, very well attended. At these meetings various companies having immediate needs for highly skilled people came in to comment to me about their opposition to the reduction in the number of visas. There is no doubt that there is concern about displacing U.S. workers, and I think we have to be careful not to do that, to make sure that does not happen by requiring a premium payment for those who come in as legal immigrants. I wanted to make these few brief comments. It is not an easy matter. When Senator Simpson and Senator Kennedy are the managers and go through this bill and have very protracted hearings and a markup before the Judiciary Committee, it is a very large job. So, again, I compliment my colleagues on their work and do express my view that this legal immigration is something which will build a stronger America and provide more jobs. The humanitarian aspects have to be considered as we have the families who ought to have an opportunity to come into this country. Currently, the waiting period to enter the country is as long as 10 years for some family members. We ought not to extend that waiting period. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the action by the PLO today changing its charter and eliminating the provision calling for the destruction of Israel should put all Palestinian terrorists on notice that terrorism and the destruction of Israel is no longer the order of the day as far as the PLO is concerned. This was a vote of 10 to 1; some 500 voted in favor of changing the PLO charter, some 54 voted against, a vote of 10 to 1 by the Palestinian national authority saying that the charter ought to be changed. No longer is it the PLO position that Israel ought to be destroyed. That ought to have a significant effect on changing the attitude of the terrorists who are trying to destroy Israel and trying to destroy the peace process, because now technically it is the Palestinian Parliament in exile which has called for the dropping of that language. It is the Palestinian National Council which voted 504 in favor of amending the 32-year-old charter, 54 against, and 4 abstaining saying that no longer is it the PLO policy to seek to destroy Israel. You have at the present time Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations carrying on a reign of terror, of bloodshed, killing, an effort to destroy Israel and an effort to defeat the peace process. But with this action today by the PLO officially formally changing the charter, eliminating the call for the destruction of Israel, it is now evident that terrorism is out of step with the dominant Palestinian view. That ought to be followed, and every Palestinian who seeks to destroy Israel, every terrorist who seeks to destroy Israel, knows now that it is the official position, led by Chairman Yasser Arafat, that that idea has changed, that idea is passe, that idea is gone, and that the emphasis by responsible Palestinian leaders is to promote the peace process and to end terrorism. With action by the U.S. Congress in 1994 in adopting the amendment put forward by Senator Shelby and myself, which conditions U.S. aid on the change in the charter and more active action on the part of the PLO in combating terrorism, at least the first part has now been fulfilled. The issue of the Mideast peace process has been tortuous. There have been so many developments since Israel emerged as a state in 1949. The enmity which has existed for thousands of years has meant senseless killing, terrorism against women and children as well as men in Israel, Hezbollah firing rockets into northern Israel, prompting the justified retaliation by Israel as a matter of national self-defense. That killing and those terrorist activities ought now to stop in view of this official declaration by the Palestinian leaders that no longer does the charter of the PLO call for the destruction of Israel. Mr. President, I am hopeful that the activities by Secretary of State Christopher will reach fruition. It is not an easy matter. The press is full of reports about how President Assad of Syria is keeping Secretary Christopher cooling his heels while President Assad talks to others or President Assad is otherwise busy. It is not an easy matter to negotiate in the Mideast. I compliment Secretary of State Christopher, and I compliment the President on the accomplishments which have been made. The Mideast has been a particular point of interest to me. I made my first trip to Israel back in 1964. I traveled there again as a private citizen in 1969, again in 1978, again in 1980, and after being elected to the Senate traveled there considerably. I have had the opportunity to visit Damascus on many occasions. I made my first trip there in 1984. As long as the Secretary of State has cooled his heels, this Senator cooled his heels a lot longer. I returned there in 1988 after the Soviets had advised the Syrians they were no longer going to finance Syrian military operations, and in 1988 President Assad was prepared to see Arlen Specter; I had a meeting of 4 hours and 35 minutes, and I have made many trips back and have had an opportunity to gain some understanding as to the negotiating process in the Mideast. I suggest that the attitude of the Syrians has changed considerably in the 12 years which have intervened since my first trip to Damascus in 1984 and today, 1996. When I first had an opportunity to talk to President Assad, the idea of negotiations with Israel was totally out of the question. We have seen problems that the United States has had in Lebanon with the killing of so many of our marines, and we have seen grave difficulties in Lebanon in 1982 with Israeli action there. I believe that a cease-fire can be attained there, and I believe the peace process can be promoted. We had the historic activity of President Sadat of Egypt in the first breakthrough back in 1978 and 1979. We have since seen the peace process with an Israeli-Jordanian peace agreement. We have seen an event at the White House lawn back on September 13, 1993, that I never thought would have been possible with Chairman Arafat honored there. But when then Prime Minister Rabin shook the hand of Chairman Arafat and then Foreign Minister Peres shook the hand of Chairman Arafat, the U.S. policy was to support the peace process. If Israel, which had been the principal object of PLO terrorism, was prepared to deal with Chairman Arafat, then so was the United States. I have had an opportunity to meet with Chairman Arafat on three occasions since that historic event at the White House on September 13, 1993. I have gone there in a visit with Senator Brown in August of last year, carrying with us a list of specific terrorists where we thought the Palestinian authority had not turned them over to Israeli officials in accordance with the agreements which had been made, presented them one by one, and, candidly, heard many excuses offered by Chairman Arafat. Senator Shelby and I had an opportunity to visit again with Chairman Arafat this past January 2 and again talked about the language of the PLO charter and pushed to have it revised. At that time, Chairman Arafat said he would do his utmost. The elections were coming up with the Palestinians on January 20. Those elections were held, and now we have had this historic event with the Palestinian Parliament in exile dropping the language by a vote of 504 in favor of eliminating the language calling for the destruction of Israel, 54 against, and 14 abstaining. That language had been in the charter for some 32 years. So, you have a vote of 10 to 1, a very, very sizable majority, which ought to put all of the Palestinian terrorists on notice that it is no longer acceptable, even from the Palestinian point of view, to call for the destruction of Israel and to carry out acts of terrorism. So it is my hope that this historic vote, when it is communicated to the Palestinians in that region, when it is communicated to the Palestinians around the world, may have the effect of letting the Palestinian terrorists know--Hezbollah, Hamas, and the other terrorist organizations--that it is no longer appropriate, it is no longer proper, it is condemned by the Palestinian authority itself, that terrorist acts against Israel ought not to be carried forward. If we can stop Hezbollah, if we can stop Hamas and the other terrorist organizations, then I think we can move forward with the peace process. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for up to 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment briefly on a trip which I made recently, earlier this month to The Hague, Serbia, and Bosnia for the purpose of taking a look at the situation with our military forces in Bosnia and taking a look at what is happening at The Hague with the War Crimes Tribunal. I would like to highlight a few of my observations because there are a few moments available on the Senate floor this afternoon. In visiting Tuzla on April 4, which followed the visit to Serbia on April 3 and the visit to The Hague on April 2, before returning to Paris en route back to the United States, in Tuzla, I saw the presence of the U.S. Army of which people of the United States can be very, very proud. The United States moved in as part of the NATO force, the IFOR force, short for the Implementation Force, with an overwhelming strength to stop the fighting and preserve the peace. It is a truly remarkable scene to see an army moved halfway around the world with the power and force of the United States, really the one remaining superpower in the world. As I have had the opportunity to travel abroad, to see the great respect and admiration in which the United States is held, it is something that we ought to focus on in this country. A mark of our power is our military force. When we spend as much as we do on the defense budget, some $243 billion this year, we see it in operations; we have gone in there with overwhelming force. All of the participants to the conflict have stopped fighting and are observing the rules and regulations set up by IFOR, the NATO forces and U.S. forces. We had the opportunity to talk to many in the military there on a tour provided by General Cherrie. We visited a military installation on Mount Viz, 450 meters through solid mud, virtually straight up, traveling on a tracked military vehicle in order to climb an incline 60 degrees on terrain which did not seem possible to move up. But the mechanism of the military force carried us to the top where we had a briefing on the military operation where we were briefed by military personnel and where I visited with quite a number of military personnel from Pennsylvania, my State, as well as from other States. They had very high morale and were glad to see a visitor from the United States. We had an excellent lunch prepared in the field. I talked to a young lieutenant colonel who was in command of the operation. The lieutenant colonel told us about taking over the mount from a Serbian major who talked about the killing, the military casualty of his brother-in-law in the fighting which had occurred prior to the time the United States and NATO forces took over. As a matter of fact, in a professional way, with no animus, at least by all surface indications, the Bosnian Serb major said to the U.S. colonel, ``Take care of my mountain. I intend to take it back.'' It was sort of foreboding as to what may occur after the United States and the NATO forces depart the premises. But as of the moment, there is peace there. I had heard, and was glad to have repeated, that we have had only two casualties. Of course, two is two too many, but the casualties occurred, one from a motor vehicle accident and the other when someone was dismantling a landmine contrary to regulations. When we arrived in Tuzla, we heard about the visit just the day before of Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown. General Cherrie, who met us on our arrival there, midmorning of April 4, told us that Secretary Brown had been there the day before, arriving at about 6:20 in the morning and departing shortly before 2 p.m. when the tragic accident occurred. We had seen Secretary Brown the night before in Paris at a reception at the residence of Ambassador Pamela Harriman. We renewed our longstanding friendship, talked about possibly meeting in either Sarajevo or in Zagreb. Of course, that was not to be. When I flew out of Paris on the morning of April 3 and went to Belgrade, we had planned to fly to Sarajevo. Because of the weather conditions, the very high winds, our plane was grounded. We did not undertake the flight. I think those may have been the same weather conditions which caused or related to the fatality involving Secretary Brown, whose presence will be sorely missed, as will the presence of all those 34 people who were on board with him on that ill-fated flight. We had an opportunity to talk to the people in Bosnia about the efforts to gather evidence, which is very important for the War Crimes Tribunal. They have drawn a fine line. That is, IFOR will protect the personnel of the War Crimes Tribunal, but they will not protect the evidence itself. But the War Crimes Tribunal personnel are engaged there and are taking a look at a lot of the grave sites, gathering evidence for prosecutions. So long as the personnel from the war crimes prosecution team are there gathering evidence, then military personnel will protect the prosecution team. We discussed with the military personnel, General Cherrie, the issue about the potential of taking into custody the Bosnian Serb President Karadzic and General Mladic. The word was that individuals, such as those two people, under indictment would be taken into custody if the NATO and U.S. forces came upon them, but they would not be sought out or hunted. While we were there at the headquarters at Tuzla, we saw posters, candidly not very good identifying pictures, but, as to the major people under indictment including Bosnian Serb President Karadzic and General Mladic. We heard about an incident where IFOR forces had come upon General Mladic, but he was surrounded by many of his own military personnel, and to attempt on that occasion to take him into custody would have precipitated a battle. Since the IFOR forces were outnumbered, they did not seek to take him into custody at that time. But I think it is very important that, ultimately, President Karadzic and General Mladic be taken into custody so they can be prosecuted at the War Crimes Tribunal. I believe prosecutions at the War Crimes Tribunal are a very, very important aspect of what the United States and NATO are doing there. That may be the event of the decade or perhaps the event of the century if international legal precedence can be established that genocide and the atrocities will not be tolerated and they will in fact be prosecuted by an international tribunal. The establishment of the rule of law as an outgrowth of what has happened in Bosnia would be an enormous step forward in international law, and is something which has to be pursued. I had traveled to the Hague on January 4th this year and talked to the prosecution team at that time. I found that there were a number of very serious problems and I undertook to write to the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Director of the FBI, the Director of the CIA, and the Secretary of Defense. Their letter replies are attached and I ask that they be printed at the conclusion of my remarks along with the full text of my statement. A great deal has been done. The prosecution team was much more encouraged when I met with them on April 2; I was impressed with their approach back on January 4. I am pleased to say that CIA Director John Deutch has been very cooperative in working hard to make information available which is necessary to obtain the convictions of those under indictment at the War Crimes Tribunal. Mr. President, a very fundamental issue is what will happen with Bosnia, when our forces are due to withdraw by December 1996. The Intelligence Committee, which I chair, heard from General Pat Hughes about the problems which exist there at the present time and the prognosis is that if there is not a significant improvement in the infrastructure, the economy and the local police forces in Bosnia, there is likely to be a problem of fighting erupting again. We heard about the implementation of the Dayton accord, that it is proceeding on schedule, as detailed in the statement that I will introduce into the Record. I was pleased to see in the press Sunday April 21, statements by the military commanders in Bosnia, Adm. Leighton Smith and Lt. Col. Ben Barry, about the compliance by the warring faction in withdrawing their military forces and complying with the Dayton accord. That is certainly good news. A great deal more has to be done in terms of fulfilling the commitments which have been made by the major Western democracies, by Japan and by other countries, to see to it that local police forces are established, that the infrastructure is built up, that the economy is supported, so that there is a realistic opportunity for peace to prevail there. Mr. President, that is a brief summary of the highlights. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record certain letters.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to report on my recent visit to the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague on April 2, Serbia on April 3, and Bosnia on April 4. The primary purpose of this trip was to assess the progress being made on implementation of the Dayton accords, particularly the prosecution of war criminals, and the degree of intelligence support to the War Crimes Tribunal and the Implementation Force [IFOR]. Our first stop was The Hague, where the International War Crimes Tribunal sits. There, we met with Judge Antonio Cassese, the President of the Tribunal prosecuting crimes against humanity committed in the former Yugoslavia. Judge Cassese stated that the first trial of indicted war criminals will commence on the 7th of May. At this time, there are five other trials planned against six indictees--two Moslems, one Bosnian-Croat, and three Bosnian-Serbs, all of whom are being held in custody. The Tribunal is in the somewhat delicate position of needing to maintain judicial independence while relying heavily on the political support of the former Yugoslavian adversaries and the IFOR countries. One of the issues I discussed with Judge Cassese was the role of IFOR support of the tribunal. While some progress has been made in this effort, there is apparently still some disagreement between the Court and U.S. force commanders on the degree of IFOR support. Of particular importance is the issue of United States support for the apprehension of indicted war criminals, especially Bosnia-Serb President Karadzic and General Mladic. Judge Cassese indicated that the Europeans believe that only the Americans have the capacity to arrest Karadzic and Mladic. Neither the French, British or Italians appear ready to arrest these individuals for various unspecified reasons. President Cassese advised that he had initiated a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister who urged the War Crimes Tribunal not to proceed against Mladic or Karadzic until after the September elections. The judge commented that he advised the Russian Minister that he would take his views into account but would not be influenced as to what action the Judicial Tribunal would take. As evidence of the conflicting pressures on the tribunal, at least one NATO country has reportedly urged that as many suspected war criminals as possible should be indicted before the elections in order to preclude their running in those elections, but that no additional suspects should be indicted after elections so that there is no risk of indicting newly elected officials. We also met with the one American judge on the tribunal, Judge Gabrielle McDonald, formerly a U.S. District Court judge in Texas, who is currently the presiding judge on two trials. Judge McDonald highlighted the difficulties the tribunal faces in attempting to move promptly against indicted war criminals. For example, she pointed out that while the first trial is scheduled for May 7, 1996, against a Bosnian-Serb by the name of Tadic, there may be a delay if the tribunal does not receive some key equipment--simultaneous translation equipment with a 2 to 3 second broadcast time delay--by April 23 and if the U.N. fails to accept this equipment as a gift. The delayed transmission is required to ensure there is no inadvertent broadcast of names. Judge McDonald also expressed her view that there are not enough tribunal courtrooms to try all the cases and attempting to try multiple defendants won't work in this particular situation. We also met with the prosecution team which is assisting Judge Goldstone in investigating and prosecuting the war crimes. Included in this group are representatives from the Department of Justice, Department of State, Defense Department, and the FBI. The 10 individuals with whom I met were very impressive and very dedicated to the task of trying to bring justice to this great tragedy in current history. I had met with this team earlier this year, on January 4, 1996. After assessing their needs at that time, I wrote to the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Director of the CIA, the Director of the FBI and the Ambassador to the United Nations. When I met with the prosecution team on January 4, they were concerned with cooperation by IFOR and the various agencies of the U.S. Government in supplying personnel and assistance in carrying out the efforts of the tribunal investigators. At the April 2 meeting, attended by many of the same people who were present on January 4, there was considerably more optimism because they had received assurances of support, including replacement personnel for the team, and assistance was being given to the gathering of evidence in Bosnia. To date the United States has been the biggest supporter of the tribunal and its chief contributor. By the end of this fiscal year 1997, the U.S. will have contributed nearly $35 million to the court. Included in this figure is $3 million in services from more than 23 prosecutors, investigators and other experts from the departments and agencies of the U.S. Government. It is clear, however, that this U.S. support alone is not sufficient. International pressure is needed on all parties to the Dayton accords to abide by that agreement to force them to turn over indicted personnel to the tribunal. The tribunal team reported that there is a prevailing view among potential witnesses that the tribunal will not be continually supported and this is affecting witness willingness to step forward. The prosecution team highlighted one particular set of indictments in which greater Serbian cooperation is needed. A Serbian army colonel by the name of Veselin Sljidancanin and two other Serbians have been indicted for ordering the mass killings of 260 Croatians near Vukovar, Croatia after they forcibly removed these people from a hospital on March 20, 1991. Sljidancanin is free in Serbia and there is no indication that the Serbian Government intends to extradite him to the tribunal. I advised the prosecution team that I would raise this issue with Serbian officials. The next day, April 3, I raised the issue with Serbian Foreign Minister Milutinovic and Assistant Foreign Minister Jovanovic. I discussed the charges which had been filed against three men and gave the Foreign Minister a copy of the indictment and the transcript of the argument made by the prosecutor before the War Crimes Tribunal on this issue. I ask unanimous consent that the indictment and the transcript of the argument be inserted in the Congressional Record. Foreign Minister Milutinovic said that Serbia could not extradite Colonel Sljivancanin because it was prohibited by the Serbian constitution. It appears that the other two men, Mrksic and Radic, are not in Serbia at the present time. I responded to Foreign Minister Milutinovic that a legal analysis had been made showing that the Serbian constitution only prohibited extradition to another nation but the constitution did not prohibit extradition to the War Crimes Tribunal. Foreign Minister Milutinovic showed little interest in having his government assist in bringing Colonel Sljivancanin to the trial. I asked Foreign Minister Milutinovic if his government would cooperate in bringing Bosnian Serb President Karadzic and General Mladic to trial before the War Crimes Tribunal. While Foreign Minister Milutinovic said that Karadzic and Mladic should be ousted from power, he would not assist in taking those men into custody so they could be tried under pending indictments issued by the War Crimes Tribunal. On April 4 we traveled to Tuzla, the headquarters of the American contingent of IFOR. Our military operation there was enormously impressive. The United States had moved an army of nearly 18,000 men and women with spectacular results. I noted that women comprised between 10 to 15 percent of the American force serving in a variety of jobs including military police and senior intelligence. Our host was Brig. Gen. Stan Cherrie. Due to weather, we were unable to visit one of the mass grave sites that was being investigated by the War Crimes Tribunal. Instead, we visited one of the intelligence surveillance outposts at the top of Mount Vis. The purpose of our force on Mount Vis is to monitor the perimeter areas to be sure there are no violations of the accords. Getting there in knee-deep mud was accomplished riding in a track vehicle up the mountainside. This turned out to be an adventure in itself. Foremost in my mind during this visit was what happens in December 1996 when U.S. forces, which make up approximately one-third of the Implementation Force, are scheduled to withdraw from the region. By coming in with overwhelming force, IFOR has been able to dominate the entire scene. The United States has suffered only two deaths; one was an individual who was dismantling a mine without following instructions and the other was a motor vehicle fatality. It is problematic what will happen when IFOR leaves. Of particular concern is the prospect that while IFOR may have completed its mission to stabilize the area militarily and allow political, economic and law enforcement initiatives to generate peace to the region, the civil mission to rebuild the economy and infrastructure will not have made sufficient progress. In testimony on March 27, 1996, before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Gen. Pat Hughes, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, stated that violence is likely to resume in Bosnia unless allied forces quickly help improve living conditions and provide the basis for a stable economy. The message I heard in Bosnia was similar: there is a need for economic development to take hold. One senior military officer highlighted the danger of not providing sufficient incentive to maintain the peace, noting that the region is marked by the greatest level of hatred and distrust that he has ever seen. There is some evidence that the fighting forces on all sides are tired. There are other indications that fighting will resume once IFOR leaves. Many at the scene predict that stability can be maintained if the economy and infrastructure are developed and the local authorities are able to put their police forces into operation. Some of our military personnel in Bosnia were more optimistic about Bosnia's future. One ranking officer noted that if the September elections result in moderates replacing the current corrupt regime, then the prospects for peace were good. He further advised that the schedule of confidence-building measures is proceeding according to the Dayton accords. On day 1, a one kilometer zone of separation was established. On days 30 to 45, both factions--Bosnians and Bosnians Serbs--gave the locations of their heavy weapons to the United States and to each other. On D+90, the Dayton accords called for the consolidation of air-defense weapons systems into approved sites. Seventy-five percent of those weapons were located and moved into those sites by the deadline. Now it's up to 90 percent. On D+120 days, which will be on April 20, all armed forces are to be in their containment and barrack areas. Inspection teams will visit those areas. Any deployments from containment areas will give IFOR a warning of intentions to initiate possible military action. I raised with General Cherrie the role of IFOR in assisting the War Crimes Tribunal. He stated what he understood to be IFOR's mission: U.S. forces in IFOR would not seek out those indicated, such as General Mladic, for example, but would be prepared to arrest him if IFOR forces came upon him. All checkpoints have picture posters of those indicted. We saw one of those posters. Regrettably, the photographs on many of them are nearly impossible to make a clear identification. I also asked General Cherrie for more details on IFOR's tasking in regard to support for the War Crimes Tribunal investigators examining the sites of atrocities. He answered that it was to protect the War Crimes Tribunal personnel but not the war crimes sites. When War Crimes Tribunal personnel leave a site, IFOR will leave. If the War Crimes Tribunal personnel were to remain overnight, then IFOR would remain to protect them. At the top of Mount Vis we were treated to lunch with the military personnel. There we found their morale to be very high. They are doing an excellent job under an extraordinarily difficult situation. Wherever we turned, the mud was ankle deep. One quip which seemed particularly appropriate was that Bosnia was Latin for mud. I also had a chance to meet several soldiers from Pennsylvania; including one young man from Philadelphia, S.Sgt. Michael J. Smith, another from Pittsburgh, Christopher Klauer, and a third from Allentown, M.Sgt. Douglas Sleeth. We departed Tuzla by 2:15 p.m. and headed for Aviano Air base in Italy where we received an operational and intelligence brief on air support capabilities to the Bosnia area. Air support and air strikes may be one option in which military force can be brought to bear after the pullout of IFOR forces. We had been scheduled to travel to Zagreb, where we were to meet with Croatian President Tudjman, but that part of the trip was canceled after the tragic crash of the plane carrying Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown and his delegation. Instead, we held a series of meetings on April 5 with officials in our Embassy in Paris. These discussions also focused primarily on the situation in the former Yugoslavia, where France is a key player. Ambassador Harriman noted that France is now probably the most important United States ally in Europe. She is concerned that a planned 40-percent cut in the U.S. embassy in Paris will severely hamper her ability to deal with the political and economic requirements of this increasingly important relationship. She noted that, in spite of press accounts to the contrary, there is excellent United States-French cooperation in the evolution of NATO, on the Former Yugoslavia, arms control issues, terrorism, and organized crime. The Ambassador further noted that the implementation of embassy cuts also will affect their ability to encourage free trade and to promote U.S. exports. We also discussed with Ambassador Harriman the issue of economic espionage and the impact of the recent controversy when France accused the United States of using spies based at the Embassy to attempt to recruit French government officials to gather information on economic policies. We talked with the Embassy team about the history of French activities targeting United States economic information, including proprietary information of United States firms. I sought their views regarding legislation we are considering on the Intelligence Committee to criminalize theft of trade secrets, as well as a bill to prevent corrupt trade practices by foreign firms along the lines of the prohibitions currently in place for U.S. firms. As amplified in a floor statement on April 17, we were very favorably impressed by the operation of the U.S. Embassy in Paris. Exhibit 1 United States Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC, January 18, 1996. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: When you called me on November 25, 1995 seeking support for your Bosnian policy, we had an opportunity to talk briefly about the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. On January 4, I had an opportunity to meet with the prosecution team in The Hague and was enormously impressed with what they are doing. In my view, these prosecutions are of historic importance. I strongly believe that the United States government should do everything in its power to assist in the prosecutions. Toward that end, I have written the various Department and Agency heads urging cooperation in a number of specific ways. I believe that support by the American people and by the Congress could be enhanced by successful prosecutions by the War Crimes Tribunal. I am sending to your National Security Council head, Tony Lake, a copy of this letter and copies of my letters to the respective Department and Agency heads. I look forward to an opportunity to discuss this issue with your further at your earliest convenience. My best. Sincerely, Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995 and want to commend my colleagues, Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy, for their excellent work on this important subject. As a cosponsor of this bill, I believe that enactment of legislation improving health insurance coverage is long overdue. We owe it to the American people to pass this bill. The Health Insurance Reform Act represents the type of incremental health care reform which I have long supported. It targets the problems with our current health care system while leaving in place a system that works well for most Americans. Mr. President, in June 1993, I had my own health problem when a magnetic resonance imaging machine discovered an intercranial lesion in my head. I was the beneficiary of the greatest health care delivery system in the world--the American health care system. That experience made me ever more aware, knowledgeable of, and sensitive to the subject than I had been in the past. There are some who believed health care reform was dead and declared as much in the fall of 1994 when Congress failed to enact comprehensive health care reform legislation. I am hopeful that they will be proven wrong by the enactment of this bill. President Clinton was in error when he proposed health care by Government mandate and massive bureaucracy. But anyone who read the repudiation of the Clinton bill as an excuse to do nothing is equally in error. We still have a great need to correct the problems in our health care system for the 15.2 percent or 39.7 million Americans, for whom the system does not work. In my own State of Pennsylvania, there is even a greater need, because the number of uninsured under the age of 65 has grown from 10.8 percent to 13.4 percent of the population while we in Congress have done little but debate the correct approach to take concerning health reform. It is high time that Congress takes a real step forward in health care reform, without big government and without turning the best health care system in the world on its head. To be sure, health care reform remains a very complex issue for Congress to address. But it is not so complex that we cannot act on a bipartisan basis. This is something we should have done years ago. Sixty-five Democrats and Republicans have agreed to cosponsor a bill containing policy matters we all agree on, such as the need to limit exclusions for preexisting conditions and make health insurance more portable for workers changing jobs. Of course, more can and should be done. But this is what we can agree on now. We will be helping a great many people who desperately need these critical changes in law by acting now. By way of background, I would note that the legislation before the Senate today, S. 1028, contains provisions very similar to those contained in title I of my own health care reform bill, the Health Assurance Act of 1995,--S. 18--which I introduced on January 4, 1995. I have heard for years from constituents, friends, and family on how important it is that we pass basic insurance market reforms to protect those who are not in perfect health but have some preexisting medical condition. We all are aware of people who are afraid to leave their jobs because they have a heart condition or another medical condition and therefore would be unable to obtain insurance for this problem outside of their present employer. Under the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, a person can be assured that no preexisting condition exclusion can ever last more than 12 months for conditions discovered in the 6 months prior to coverage. Equally important, the bill enables those workers that were covered under a group health insurance plan to reduce this 12-month preexisting condition exclusion for each month they were covered by a plan. So if an employee with a medical problem is covered by a plan under her current job for more than 12 months, if she takes a job elsewhere, she will be covered under the plan of the new employer. S. 1028 also contains language similar to my legislation which extends the COBRA health benefits options in a limited manner. S. 1028 specifically extends this option when a former employee or family member becomes disabled during the initial coverage period, and allows newborns and adopted children to be covered immediately under a parent's COBRA policy. Also, S. 1028 provides individuals access to affordable insurance through purchasing groups, which was also allowed under S. 18. This and the other elements of S. 1028 will give the 228 million workers who now have insurance the security of knowing that health coverage options exist if they change jobs, or become unemployed for a limited period of time. Mr. President, as my colleagues are aware, I have been advocating incremental health care reform in one form or another throughout my 15 years in the Senate, and have introduced and cosponsored numerous bills concerning health care in our country since 1983. In my first term, I sponsored the Health Care Cost Containment Act of 1983, S. 2051, which would have granted a limited antitrust exemption to health insurers, permitting them to engage in certain activities aimed at curtailing then escalating health-care costs. In 1985, I introduced the Community Based Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Projects Act of 1985, S. 1873, directed at reducing the human tragedy of low birthweight babies and infant mortality. During the 102d Congress, I again pressed for Senate action on this issue. On July 29, 1992, I offered an amendment to legislation pending on the Senate floor that would have increased the deductibility for health care insurance purchased by self-employed persons from 25 to 100 percent, and would have made health coverage more affordable for small businesses through insurance market reforms. This amendment included provisions from legislation introduced by Senator Chafee, which I cosponsored, and which was previously proposed by Senators Bentsen and Durenberger. My amendment was defeated on a procedural motion by a vote of 35 to 60 along party lines, and the Senate did not consider comprehensive health care legislation during the balance of the 102d Congress. The substance of that amendment, however, was adopted later by the Senate on September 23, 1992 as an amendment to H.R. 11, the broader tax legislation introduced by Senators Bentsen and Durenberger and which I cosponsored. This latter amendment, which included substantially the same self-employed deductibility and small group reforms that I had proposed on July 29, passed the Senate by voice vote. Unfortunately, these provisions were later dropped from H.R. 11 in the House-Senate conference. On August 12, 1992, I introduced legislation entitled the ``Health Care Affordability and Quality Improvement Act of 1992,'' S. 3176, that would have enhanced informed individual choice regarding health care services by providing certain information to health care recipients, lowered the cost of health care through use of the most appropriate provider, and improved the quality of health care. On January 21, 1993, the first day of the 103d Congress, I introduced comprehensive health care legislation entitled the ``Comprehensive Health Care Act of 1993,'' S. 18. This legislation was comprised of reform initiatives that would have improved both access to and the affordability of insurance coverage, and would have implemented systemic changes to lower the escalating cost of care in this country. On March 23, 1993, I introduced the Comprehensive Access and Affordability Health Care Act of 1993, S. 631, which was a composite of health care legislation introduced by Senators Cohen, Kassebaum, Bond, and McCain, as well as my bill, S. 18. I introduced this legislation in an attempt to move ahead on the consideration of health care legislation and provide a critical mass as a starting point. On April 28, 1993, I proposed this bill as an amendment to the legislation then pending on the Senate floor, the Department of Environment Act, S. 171, in an attempt to urge the Senate to act on health care reform. My amendment was tabled by a vote of 65 to 33, largely along party lines. As I mentioned earlier, on January 4, 1995, I introduced S. 18, the Health Assurance Act of 1995, which improved upon many provisions included in my health care legislation from the 103d Congress and provided a framework for targeted reform that could be built upon if needed. In addition to addressing the portability issue, S. 18 has three other important objectives: First, to provide affordable health insurance for the 40 million Americans now not covered; second, to reduce health care costs for all Americans; and third, to improve coverage for underinsured individuals and families. All of these objectives are accomplished through initiatives that our health care system could readily adopt without creating an enormous new bureaucracy. In total, I have come to the Senate floor on 14 occasions over the past 4 years to urge the Senate to address health care reform. As early as June 26, 1984, I stated that the issue of health care is one of the most important matters facing the Nation today. That statement continues to ring true today, nearly 12 years later. According to the Health Care Financing Administration, national health expenditures totaled an estimated $949.4 billion in 1994, representing 13.7 percent of GDP. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] projected that national health expenditures will total an estimated $1 trillion for 1995, or 14.1 percent of GDP. According to CBO, spending for health care grew about 6 percent in 1994, and was expected to grow about 7 percent in 1995. I believe we have learned a great deal about our health care system and what the American people are willing to accept from the Federal Government as a result of debate over President Clinton's proposal in the fall of 1994. The message we heard loudest was that Congress was acting too hastily, and that Americans did not want a massive overhaul of the health care system. Instead, our constituents want Congress to proceed more slowly and to target what isn't working in the health care system while leaving in place what is working. As I have said both publicly and privately, I was willing to cooperate with President Clinton in solving the problems facing the country. However, there were many important areas where I differed with the President's approach and I did so because I believed they were proposals that would have been deleterious to my fellow Pennsylvanians, to the American people, and to our health care system. Most importantly, I did not support creating a large new government bureaucracy because I believe that savings should go to health care services and not bureaucracies. On this latter issue, I became concerned about the creation of such a bureaucracy, and asked my staff to review the President's 1,342-page Health Security Act when it was transmitted to Congress on October 27, 1993. My staff found an increase of 105 new agencies, boards, and commissions and 47 existing departments, programs, and agencies with new or expanded jobs. This chart received national attention after being used by Senator Bob Dole in his response to the President's State of the Union address on January 24, 1994. The response to the chart was tremendous, with more than 12,000 people from across the country contacting my office for a copy. Numerous groups and associations, such as United We Stand America, the American Small Business Association, the National Federation of Republican Women, and the Christian Coalition, reprinted the chart in their publications amounting to hundreds of thousands more in distribution. In addressing our health care problems, let me be clear: In creating solutions it is imperative that we do so without adversely affecting the many positive aspects of our health care system which works for 85 percent of all Americans. The pending legislation, the Health Insurance Reform Act, achieves this objective and should be viewed as the first step of an incremental approach to health care reform. It is my hope that we can accomplish some additional health care reforms that are equally necessary but would also not disrupt our system, such as increasing the deduction for the health care of the self-employed. Further, we should continue to pursue other initiatives to help reduce health care costs and increase the quality of health care that the majority of this body can agree upon. The Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995 deserves our strong support and I urge my colleagues to enact this much-needed legislation.