John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that addresses a critical problem that demands immediate attention from the Congress. For many years now I have been involved with a variety of issues that affect the technology sector. As I have said before, no other sector of the economy is as vibrant and forward looking. The ingenuity, drive and vision of this industry should be a model for all of us, including those of us in the Senate. Moreover, the importance of this industry should only grow in the coming years. However, as I look to the future with the hope of seeing the next century stamped ``Made in America'' I see one large impediment--the Year 2000 bug. The 105th Congress must consider this problem and assist the country in trying to avoid a potentially disastrous crisis. We cannot wait for disaster to strike. We must act now to enable companies to avert the crisis. No individual will be left untouched if the country fails to address this problem and experiences widespread ramifications. No company will escape huge costs if they cannot successfully fix their own problems and have some assurances that their business partners and suppliers have fixed their problems. A great deal of effort has been undertaken to bring attention to this problem, including several efforts here in the U.S. Senate. However, it is now time to move beyond simply highlighting the problem. We need to roll up our sleeves and get to work on a solution. I begin today to lay out my plan for assisting individuals and businesses to walk safely through the minefield called the Y2K problem. The first part of this overall plan is the Year 2000 Enhanced Cooperation Solution. This legislation provides a very narrow exemption to the antitrust laws if and when a company is engaged in cooperative conduct to alleviate the impact of a year 2000 date failure in hardware or software. The exemption has a clear sunset and expressly ensures that the law continues to prohibit anti-competitive conduct such as boycotts or agreements to allocate markets or fix prices. This simple, straightforward proposal is critical to allowing for true cooperation in an effort to rectify the problem. No company can solve the Y2K problem alone. Even if one company devises a workable solution to their own problems they still face potential disaster from components provided by outside suppliers. What is more, when companies find workable solutions we certainly want to provide them with every incentive to disseminate those solutions as widely as possible. Cooperation is essential. But without a clear legislative directive, potential antitrust liability will stand in the way of cooperation. We must provide our industries with the appropriate incentives and tools to fix this problem without the threat of antitrust lawsuits based on the very cooperation we ought to be encouraging. I do want to be very clear on one point--as important as it is that this legislation be enacted and enacted soon, it is merely the first piece of a difficult puzzle. The Administration has presented the Congress with their view of how information sharing on the Y2K problem should be furthered. Based on my initial review, that proposal appears to be headed in the right direction but falls far short of the target destination. Most importantly, the proposed approach which purports to promote information sharing does not accomplish its objective as it leaves the problem of potential antitrust liability. In other words, it does not accomplish the task that it set out to complete. I will seek the introduction of the second piece of the solution, the Year 2000 Enhanced Information Solution, which while working within the guidelines of the Administration's language will add the teeth, make clear that good faith disclosure of information will be protected, and provide for protection of individual consumers. Together with the antitrust legislation I introduce today, this should provide sufficient protection to promote the kind of cooperation that will be essential to addressing this looming problem. The final piece of the package will be the Year 2000 Litigation Solution. Real harm from inadequate efforts to address this problem must be compensated. However, we cannot allow the prospect of frivolous litigation to block efforts to avoid such harm. We also must ensure that frivolous litigation over the Y2K problem does not consume the lion's share of the next millennium. While it is not possible for Congress to guarantee that private individuals and companies will be able to solve the Y2K problem, Congress can eliminate legal obstacles that stand in the way of private solutions. Information regarding existing software and known problems must be shared as completely and openly as possible. The current fear of litigation and liability that imposes a distinct chilling effect on information sharing must be alleviated. Resources to address the Y2K problem, particularly time, are finite. They must be focused as fully as possible on remediation, rather than on unproductive litigation. Moreover, the availability of adequate development and programming talent may hinge upon a working environment that protects good faith remediation efforts from the threat of liability for their work. Congress must prevent a fiasco where only lawyers win. I look forward to working with those that are interested as this process moves forward. I believe that this Congress cannot wait to address this problem. This issue is about time, and we have precious little left in this Congress and before the Y2K problem is upon us. I hope we can work together to free up talented individuals to address this serious problem.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reaffirm the vital role parents play in the lives of their children. My legislation, the Putting Parents First Act, will guarantee that parents have the opportunity to be involved in their children's most important decisions--whether or not to have an abortion and whether or not to receive federally-subsidized contraception. The American people have long understood the unique role the family plays in our most cherished values. As usual, President Reagan said it best. Within the American family, Reagan said, ``the seeds of personal character are planted, the roots of public value first nourished. Through love and instruction, discipline, guidance and example, we learn from our mothers and fathers the values that will shape our private lives and public citizenship.'' The Putting Parents First Act contains two distinct provisions to protect the role of parents in the important life decisions of their minor children. The first part ensures that parents are given every opportunity to be involved in a child's decision whether or not to have an abortion. Specifically, the Act prohibits any individual from performing an abortion upon a woman under the age of 18 unless that individual has secured the informed written consent of the minor and a parent or guardian. In accordance with Supreme Court decisions concerning state-passed parental consent laws, the Putting Parents First Act allows a minor to forego the parental involvement requirement where a court has issued a waiver certifying that the process of obtaining the consent of a parent or guardian is not in the best interests of the minor or that the minor is emancipated. For too long, the issue of abortion has polarized the American people. To some extent, this is the inevitable result of vastly distinct views of what an abortion is. Many, including myself, view abortion as the unconscionable taking of innocent human life. Others, including a majority of Supreme Court Justices, view abortion as a constitutionally-protected alternative for pregnant women. There are, however, a few areas of common ground where people on both sides of the abortion issue can agree. One such area of agreement is that, whenever possible, parents should be involved in helping their young daughters to make the critically important decision of whether or not to have an abortion. A recent CNN/USA Today survey conducted by the Gallup Organization found that 74 percent of Americans support parental consent before an abortion is performed on a girl under age 18. Even those who do not view an abortion as a taking of human life recognize it as a momentous and life-changing decision that a minor should not make alone. The fact that nearly 40 states have passed laws requiring doctors to notify or seek the consent of a minor's parents before performing an abortion also demonstrates the consensus in favor of parental involvement. The instruction and guidance of which President Reagan spoke are needed most when children are forced to make important life decisions. It is hard to imagine a decision more fundamental in our culture than whether or not to beget a child. Parental involvement in this crucial decision is necessary to ensure that the sanctity of human life is given appropriate consideration. There are few more issues deserving of our attention than promoting parental involvement. Only half of the 39 states with parental involvement laws on the books currently enforce them. Some states have enacted laws that have been struck down in state or federal courts while in other states the executive department has chosen not to enforce the legislature's will. As a result, just over 20 states have parental laws in effect today. In these states, parents do not have the right to be involved in their minor children's most fundamental decisions, decisions that can have severe physical and emotional health consequences for young women. Moreover, in those states where laws requiring consent are on the books and being enforced, those laws are frequently circumvented by pregnant minors who cross state lines to avoid the laws' requirements. Sadly, nowhere is this problem more apparent than in my home state of Missouri. I was proud to have successfully defended Missouri's parental consent law before the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood versus Ashcroft. Unfortunately, the law has not been as effective as I had hoped. A study last year in the American Journal of Public Health found that the odds of a minor traveling out of state for an abortion increased by over 50 percent after Missouri's parental consent law went into effect. The limited degree of enforcement and the ease with which state laws can be evaded demand a national solution. The importance of protecting life demands a national solution. It is time for Congress to act. Requiring a parent's consent before a minor can receive an abortion is one way states have chosen to protect not only the role of parents and the health and safety of young women, but also, the lives of the unborn. Congress shares with the states the authority--and duty--to protect life under the Constitution. Thus, enactment of a federal parental consent law will allow Congress to protect the guiding role of parents as it protects human life. The Putting Parents First Act is based on state statutes that already have been determined to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The legislation establishes a minimum level of parental involvement that must be honored nationwide. It does not preempt state parental involvement laws that provide additional protections to the parents of pregnant minors. The second part of the Putting Parents First Act extends the idea of parental involvement to the arena of federally-subsidized contraception. Currently, the federal government funds many different programs through the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education that can provide prescription contraceptive drugs and devices, as well as abortion referrals, to minors without parental consent. The case of the little girl from Crystal Lake, IL is just one example, but it makes clear everything that is wrong with current law in this area. In that case, the young girl was just 14 years old when her 37-year-old teacher brought her to the county health department for birth control injections. He wanted to continue having sex with her, but had grown tired of using condoms. A county health official injected the young girl with the controversial birth control drug Depo-Provera without notifying the girl's parents. The teacher knew that federal Title X rules prohibited clinics from notifying parents when issuing birth control drugs to minors. He continued to molest her for 18 months until the girl finally broke down and told her parents. The teacher was arrested and sentenced to ten years in prison. The young girl spent five days a week in therapy and is still recovering from effects of anorexia nervosa. Although the teacher's crime was unspeakable, it was the federal government's policy that allowed him to shield his crime for so long. This is an outrage. The policy of the Government of the United States should be to help parents to help their children. Providing contraceptives and abortion referrals to children without involving parents undermines, not strengthens the role of parents. Worse yet, it jeopardizes the health of children. The current law for federally-funded contraceptives puts bureaucrats in front of parents when it comes to a child's decision-making process. That is intolerable. We must put parents first when it comes to such critical decisions. The legislation I am introducing today restores common sense to government policy by requiring programs that receive federal funds to obtain a parent's consent before dispensing contraceptives or referring abortion services to the parent's minor child. In my view, Mr. President, sound and sensible public policy requires that parents be involved in critical, life-shaping decisions involving their children. A young person whose life is in crisis may be highly anxious, and may want to take a fateful step without their parents' knowledge. But it is at these times of crisis that children need their parents, not government bureaucrats or uninvolved strangers. This legislation will strengthen the family and protect human life by ensuring that parents have the primary role in helping their children when they are making decisions that will shape the rest of their lives.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reaffirm the vital role parents play in the lives of their children. My legislation, the Putting Parents First Act, will guarantee that parents have the opportunity to be involved in their children's most important decisions--whether or not to have an abortion and whether or not to receive federally-subsidized contraception. The American people have long understood the unique role the family plays in our most cherished values. As usual, President Reagan said it best. Within the American family, Reagan said, ``the seeds of personal character are planted, the roots of public value first nourished. Through love and instruction, discipline, guidance and example, we learn from our mothers and fathers the values that will shape our private lives and public citizenship.'' The Putting Parents First Act contains two distinct provisions to protect the role of parents in the important life decisions of their minor children. The first part ensures that parents are given every opportunity to be involved in a child's decision whether or not to have an abortion. Specifically, the Act prohibits any individual from performing an abortion upon a woman under the age of 18 unless that individual has secured the informed written consent of the minor and a parent or guardian. In accordance with Supreme Court decisions concerning state-passed parental consent laws, the Putting Parents First Act allows a minor to forego the parental involvement requirement where a court has issued a waiver certifying that the process of obtaining the consent of a parent or guardian is not in the best interests of the minor or that the minor is emancipated. For too long, the issue of abortion has polarized the American people. To some extent, this is the inevitable result of vastly distinct views of what an abortion is. Many, including myself, view abortion as the unconscionable taking of innocent human life. Others, including a majority of Supreme Court Justices, view abortion as a constitutionally-protected alternative for pregnant women. There are, however, a few areas of common ground where people on both sides of the abortion issue can agree. One such area of agreement is that, whenever possible, parents should be involved in helping their young daughters to make the critically important decision of whether or not to have an abortion. A recent CNN/USA Today survey conducted by the Gallup Organization found that 74 percent of Americans support parental consent before an abortion is performed on a girl under age 18. Even those who do not view an abortion as a taking of human life recognize it as a momentous and life-changing decision that a minor should not make alone. The fact that nearly 40 states have passed laws requiring doctors to notify or seek the consent of a minor's parents before performing an abortion also demonstrates the consensus in favor of parental involvement. The instruction and guidance of which President Reagan spoke are needed most when children are forced to make important life decisions. It is hard to imagine a decision more fundamental in our culture than whether or not to beget a child. Parental involvement in this crucial decision is necessary to ensure that the sanctity of human life is given appropriate consideration. There are few more issues deserving of our attention than promoting parental involvement. Only half of the 39 states with parental involvement laws on the books currently enforce them. Some states have enacted laws that have been struck down in state or federal courts while in other states the executive department has chosen not to enforce the legislature's will. As a result, just over 20 states have parental laws in effect today. In these states, parents do not have the right to be involved in their minor children's most fundamental decisions, decisions that can have severe physical and emotional health consequences for young women. Moreover, in those states where laws requiring consent are on the books and being enforced, those laws are frequently circumvented by pregnant minors who cross state lines to avoid the laws' requirements. Sadly, nowhere is this problem more apparent than in my home state of Missouri. I was proud to have successfully defended Missouri's parental consent law before the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood versus Ashcroft. Unfortunately, the law has not been as effective as I had hoped. A study last year in the American Journal of Public Health found that the odds of a minor traveling out of state for an abortion increased by over 50 percent after Missouri's parental consent law went into effect. The limited degree of enforcement and the ease with which state laws can be evaded demand a national solution. The importance of protecting life demands a national solution. It is time for Congress to act. Requiring a parent's consent before a minor can receive an abortion is one way states have chosen to protect not only the role of parents and the health and safety of young women, but also, the lives of the unborn. Congress shares with the states the authority--and duty--to protect life under the Constitution. Thus, enactment of a federal parental consent law will allow Congress to protect the guiding role of parents as it protects human life. The Putting Parents First Act is based on state statutes that already have been determined to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The legislation establishes a minimum level of parental involvement that must be honored nationwide. It does not preempt state parental involvement laws that provide additional protections to the parents of pregnant minors. The second part of the Putting Parents First Act extends the idea of parental involvement to the arena of federally-subsidized contraception. Currently, the federal government funds many different programs through the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education that can provide prescription contraceptive drugs and devices, as well as abortion referrals, to minors without parental consent. The case of the little girl from Crystal Lake, IL is just one example, but it makes clear everything that is wrong with current law in this area. In that case, the young girl was just 14 years old when her 37-year-old teacher brought her to the county health department for birth control injections. He wanted to continue having sex with her, but had grown tired of using condoms. A county health official injected the young girl with the controversial birth control drug Depo-Provera without notifying the girl's parents. The teacher knew that federal Title X rules prohibited clinics from notifying parents when issuing birth control drugs to minors. He continued to molest her for 18 months until the girl finally broke down and told her parents. The teacher was arrested and sentenced to ten years in prison. The young girl spent five days a week in therapy and is still recovering from effects of anorexia nervosa. Although the teacher's crime was unspeakable, it was the federal government's policy that allowed him to shield his crime for so long. This is an outrage. The policy of the Government of the United States should be to help parents to help their children. Providing contraceptives and abortion referrals to children without involving parents undermines, not strengthens the role of parents. Worse yet, it jeopardizes the health of children. The current law for federally-funded contraceptives puts bureaucrats in front of parents when it comes to a child's decision-making process. That is intolerable. We must put parents first when it comes to such critical decisions. The legislation I am introducing today restores common sense to government policy by requiring programs that receive federal funds to obtain a parent's consent before dispensing contraceptives or referring abortion services to the parent's minor child. In my view, Mr. President, sound and sensible public policy requires that parents be involved in critical, life-shaping decisions involving their children. A young person whose life is in crisis may be highly anxious, and may want to take a fateful step without their parents' knowledge. But it is at these times of crisis that children need their parents, not government bureaucrats or uninvolved strangers. This legislation will strengthen the family and protect human life by ensuring that parents have the primary role in helping their children when they are making decisions that will shape the rest of their lives.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that addresses a critical problem that demands immediate attention from the Congress. For many years now I have been involved with a variety of issues that affect the technology sector. As I have said before, no other sector of the economy is as vibrant and forward looking. The ingenuity, drive and vision of this industry should be a model for all of us, including those of us in the Senate. Moreover, the importance of this industry should only grow in the coming years. However, as I look to the future with the hope of seeing the next century stamped ``Made in America'' I see one large impediment--the Year 2000 bug. The 105th Congress must consider this problem and assist the country in trying to avoid a potentially disastrous crisis. We cannot wait for disaster to strike. We must act now to enable companies to avert the crisis. No individual will be left untouched if the country fails to address this problem and experiences widespread ramifications. No company will escape huge costs if they cannot successfully fix their own problems and have some assurances that their business partners and suppliers have fixed their problems. A great deal of effort has been undertaken to bring attention to this problem, including several efforts here in the U.S. Senate. However, it is now time to move beyond simply highlighting the problem. We need to roll up our sleeves and get to work on a solution. I begin today to lay out my plan for assisting individuals and businesses to walk safely through the minefield called the Y2K problem. The first part of this overall plan is the Year 2000 Enhanced Cooperation Solution. This legislation provides a very narrow exemption to the antitrust laws if and when a company is engaged in cooperative conduct to alleviate the impact of a year 2000 date failure in hardware or software. The exemption has a clear sunset and expressly ensures that the law continues to prohibit anti-competitive conduct such as boycotts or agreements to allocate markets or fix prices. This simple, straightforward proposal is critical to allowing for true cooperation in an effort to rectify the problem. No company can solve the Y2K problem alone. Even if one company devises a workable solution to their own problems they still face potential disaster from components provided by outside suppliers. What is more, when companies find workable solutions we certainly want to provide them with every incentive to disseminate those solutions as widely as possible. Cooperation is essential. But without a clear legislative directive, potential antitrust liability will stand in the way of cooperation. We must provide our industries with the appropriate incentives and tools to fix this problem without the threat of antitrust lawsuits based on the very cooperation we ought to be encouraging. I do want to be very clear on one point--as important as it is that this legislation be enacted and enacted soon, it is merely the first piece of a difficult puzzle. The Administration has presented the Congress with their view of how information sharing on the Y2K problem should be furthered. Based on my initial review, that proposal appears to be headed in the right direction but falls far short of the target destination. Most importantly, the proposed approach which purports to promote information sharing does not accomplish its objective as it leaves the problem of potential antitrust liability. In other words, it does not accomplish the task that it set out to complete. I will seek the introduction of the second piece of the solution, the Year 2000 Enhanced Information Solution, which while working within the guidelines of the Administration's language will add the teeth, make clear that good faith disclosure of information will be protected, and provide for protection of individual consumers. Together with the antitrust legislation I introduce today, this should provide sufficient protection to promote the kind of cooperation that will be essential to addressing this looming problem. The final piece of the package will be the Year 2000 Litigation Solution. Real harm from inadequate efforts to address this problem must be compensated. However, we cannot allow the prospect of frivolous litigation to block efforts to avoid such harm. We also must ensure that frivolous litigation over the Y2K problem does not consume the lion's share of the next millennium. While it is not possible for Congress to guarantee that private individuals and companies will be able to solve the Y2K problem, Congress can eliminate legal obstacles that stand in the way of private solutions. Information regarding existing software and known problems must be shared as completely and openly as possible. The current fear of litigation and liability that imposes a distinct chilling effect on information sharing must be alleviated. Resources to address the Y2K problem, particularly time, are finite. They must be focused as fully as possible on remediation, rather than on unproductive litigation. Moreover, the availability of adequate development and programming talent may hinge upon a working environment that protects good faith remediation efforts from the threat of liability for their work. Congress must prevent a fiasco where only lawyers win. I look forward to working with those that are interested as this process moves forward. I believe that this Congress cannot wait to address this problem. This issue is about time, and we have precious little left in this Congress and before the Y2K problem is upon us. I hope we can work together to free up talented individuals to address this serious problem.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to extend appreciation to Arsalan Iftikhar for his service as an intern in my office during the Spring of 1998. Arsalan set the highest standard of excellence on a project undertaken by my Operations Team. Since I was elected in 1994, my staff and I have made an oath of service, commitment, and dedication. We dedicate ourselves to quality service. America's future will be determined by the character and productivity of our people. In this respect, we seek to lead by our example. We strive to lead with humility and honesty, and to work with energy and spirit. Our standard of productivity is accuracy, courtesy, efficiency, integrity, validity, and timeliness. Arsalan has not only achieved this standard, he set a new standard on the project he was given. He exemplified a competitive level of work while maintaining a cooperative spirit. His performance truly was inspiring to my entire office. It is with much appreciation that I recognize Arsalan's contribution to me and my staff in our effort to fulfill our office pledge and to serve all people by whose consent we govern.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to extend appreciation to Heather Oellermann for her service as an intern in my office during the Spring of 1998. Heather set the highest standard of excellence on a project undertaken by my Operations Team. Since I was elected in 1994, my staff and I have made an oath of service, commitment, and dedication. We dedicate ourselves to quality service. America's future will be determined by the character and productivity of our people. In this respect, we seek to lead by our example. We strive to lead with humility and honesty, and to work with energy and spirit. Our standard of productivity is accuracy, courtesy, efficiency, integrity, validity, and timeliness. Heather has not only achieved this standard, she set a new standard on the project she was given. She exemplified a competitive level of work while maintaining a cooperative spirit. Her performance truly was inspiring to my entire office. It is with much appreciation that I recognize Heather's contribution to me and my staff in our effort to fulfill our office pledge and to serve all people by whose consent we govern.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Coats, the Chairman of the Labor Committee's Subcommittee on Children and Families, for the excellent work he has done in drafting legislation to reauthorize the Community Services Block Grant, which recently passed in the Senate. The CSBG program is intended to fight poverty and alleviate its effects on people and their communities. Through these block grants, federal money is given to the states and local communities to create programs that help low-income people secure employment, get an adequate education, make better use of their available income, obtain and maintain adequate housing, and ultimately achieve self-sufficiency. These block grants free states and local communities of federal red tape and give them the flexibility they desire to initiate programs that meet the needs of people who need help. As a former governor, I learned that state and local governments are far more effective in serving local communities than Washington's bureaucracy. Further, Community Services Block Grants provide opportunities for the government to partner with the non-governmental sector to provide a variety of services to the poor. I am grateful that Senator Coats has led a bipartisan effort to include within this reauthorization bill language that can expand the opportunities for charitable and faith- based organizations to serve their communities with CSBG funds. The provisions included will help faith-based organizations to maintain their religious character and integrity when providing social services with government funds. For years, America's charities and churches have been transforming shattered lives by addressing the deeper needs of people--by instilling hope and values which help change behavior and attitudes. As a matter of sound public policy, we in Congress need to find ways to allow these successful organizations to unleash the cultural remedy that our society so desperately needs. Senator Coats' legislation reauthorizing the Community Services Block Grant will help to further this goal. The language in this bill regarding charitable and faith-based providers is similar to my Charitable Choice provision contained in the welfare reform law which we passed two years ago, but it does contain some differences. For non-governmental organizations wishing to participate in both the Community Service Block Grant and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families programs, the differences between the two provisions may cause some confusion and lead to additional administrative burdens. This situation demonstrates the need to pass legislation that applies the same Charitable Choice language to all federally funded social service programs in which the government is authorized to use nongovernmental organizations to provide services to beneficiaries. Under my Charitable Choice Expansion Act, which I introduced in May of this year, uniform protections and guidelines would apply to faith- based entities using federal dollars to provide housing, substance abuse prevention and treatment, juvenile services, seniors services, abstinence education, and child welfare services, as well as services under the Community Development Block Grant, the Social Services Block Grant, and of course, the Community Services Block Grant. One uniform Charitable Choice provision will certainly make it easier for both the government and faith-based organizations to work together more efficiently to help our nation's needy. Again, I thank Senator Coats and all the members of the Labor Committee, as well as their staff, for their hard work on this legislation, and I commend them for their decision to include provisions that invite the greater participation of charitable and faith-based providers in the Community Services Block Grant program. I hope that we in the Senate will continue working together to pursue legislative proposals that encourage successful non-governmental organizations to expand their life-transforming programs to serve our nation's poor and needy.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. It occurs to me you said this has its most substantial incidence in young families where people are getting started, both individuals working.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in collaborating with my colleague, the Senator from Kansas, I have agreed with him that he would offer the amendment on the floor. Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Is the Senator aware that when they interview people about family problems, and when families break up, that there is a high incidence of correlation between families that are overstressed economically and those that do not make it to last as families?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I rise to speak further in support of the elimination of the marriage penalty. Some people have asked, ``Well, isn't there also a marriage bonus, or isn't there a situation in which people might do better because they are married than if they're not married?'' And there are areas of the Tax Code where some individuals do slightly better, but they are supported by very sound logic. I would like to talk for a few moments about them, those instances. I indicate that in no way do I think that the existence of this so- called ``marriage bonus'' in some places in the Tax Code--that that bonus really is any reason why we should impose a penalty in some other area of the Tax Code. As a matter of fact, there are sound reasons for us to support the concept of the marriage bonus where it exists. Currently, the standard deduction for a single person is $4,150, while the standard deduction for a married couple filing jointly is only $6,900. I did not major in mathematics, but I did one time have the privilege of serving as the State auditor. I can add $4,150 twice; that would be $8,300. And when you put the $8,300 that you would get for two single people together, and you look at the $6,900 deduction that you get for a married couple filing jointly, you clearly understand there is a $1,400 deduction that simply does not exist. The marriage penalty elimination amendment that Senator Brownback and I, and others, including the majority leader, have offered today will increase the standard deduction for a married couple to equal twice what it is for singles--that would be the $8,300 figure. Now the Government rationale for the difference in deduction for singles and married couples is to reduce the so-called marriage bonus that occurs when only one spouse works. So the idea is, why should a spouse get a full deduction if the spouse isn't actually in the workforce? I think that sort of partakes of a myth that we ought to disabuse ourselves of and that I think most people understand. The suggestion that if someone works outside the home they are working, but if someone isn't working outside the home they are not working--I don't think that is really the case. I think what we really indicate is not so much a bonus if we give a deduction for the person who is nonworking outside the home but stays home, it is a recognition of the substantial contribution that the nonemployed spouse makes to the family. We have had a pretty substantial experience with marriage in my household. There are three decades plus that my wife and I have been married. There have been times when both of us have been employed, times when only my wife was employed, times when only I was employed. I think in every one of those instances to ignore the sort of contribution that the nonemployed spouse makes to the work product, even of the employed spouse and of the household, would be a tremendous injustice. I think what we really have, instead of the so-called marriage bonus, is just a recognition of the fact that the nonemployed, in-a-formal- sense, spouse is contributing to the income that comes to that household by virtue of the capacity that is expanded to the other spouse who is employed and by virtue of the expanded well-being of the family. American families need help from the ever-increasing tax load which we are imposing on them. Men who stay at home or women who stay at home to care for the children should not be penalized by the Tax Code. I have been somewhat distressed in recent years that we have begun to extend this myth and to provide incentives for people not to stay at home, to have a prejudice against people who would stay at home. Our Government policy should work in favor of children, not against them. Sometimes when we have a massive tax prejudice in favor of both parents leaving the house, that is not in the best interests of children. I think most of the data we have seen in recent years is that children really thrive when they have the attention of parents, and, obviously, if you have one of the parents who can stay at home, it really helps children significantly. Our current Tax Code rewards the dependent child tax credit for families who put their children in child care, for example, and, therefore, provides an incentive for people to institutionalize their children rather than to care for them in the home. A mother who stays at home with her child makes the sacrifice in the total combined paycheck for the family and for her career, perhaps, or the father who does the same, should that family be penalized? I think the answer is clearly no. As a matter of fact, that person may be doing our culture a great favor by providing attention from a loving, compassionate parent in a way that no institution would be able to provide attention or training for that child. The Tax Code should acknowledge that contributions made by spouses who stay at home, be they male or female--and we have done it both ways in my household from time to time; there have been times when my wife was the earner and I was either doing something at home or running for office or the like--and either way, we should acknowledge that the contributions by the so-called nonemployed spouse are not ignored, and no marriage bonus could ever begin to compensate those individuals for their contributions to the family. Now, if Members on the other side of the aisle want to eliminate the small ``bonus'' in the Tax Code, I think that would be ill advised. I predict it would be soundly defeated, as it should be. It is antifamily, it is antimarriage, and given the fact that most of these are women in this setting, it is antiwomen to suggest a full-time homemaker provides no value that should be recognized in the Tax Code. I believe their contribution should continue to be recognized and applauded. The marriage bonus is a way to recognize some of the non- economic contributions of stay-at-home spouses. What we are really here for, I don't think there is a serious legal attempt to take away those recognitions, but there is a very serious assault on the values of American families. When we are taxing the average family that endures the marriage penalty, we are taxing them $1,400 a year more in taxes than we would if they were single. It seems to me that assault on the values of the American public is a tragic, tragic invasion of the strongest institution which we need desperately for the success and survival of our country. We should recognize that we need to eliminate that penalty on marriage. It is with that in mind that I am pleased so many Senators have agreed to cosponsor this measure. I hope we will vote to make sure that this becomes a part of the philosophy and policy of American Government. A government which is at war with the values of its people cannot long endure. No value is more cherished in America than the value of durable families. We simply have to eliminate the assault on marriage, the assault on our families, that is included in a Tax Code which undermines and curtails the value of families in our culture. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT. So if the average marriage penalty is $1,445 a year, you wonder about how many marriages might actually survive if the Government were not in there with its bureaucratic hand, extracting an extra $1,445 a year. You wonder in how many marriages the stress would be relieved enough that some of that financial friction that eventually sometimes flares into the flame which consumes the marriage, and burns down the house, could just be avoided.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment, the Brownback-Ashcroft amendment, to eliminate the marriage penalty in the Tax Code. I do so with a sense of enthusiasm. As I have had the opportunity to engage citizens in my home State of Missouri, or whether I am in some other location, I have found, and I do find on a regular basis, that people understand that the most important component of this culture is not its Government in Washington, DC. It is not even the governments that we find in the State capitals of the United States. The best and most important component of governing America is to be found in families. As a matter of fact, I had the privilege of saying on this floor several weeks ago that if moms and dads in America can do their job, governing America will be easy. But if moms and dads in America can't do their job, governing America will be impossible. I think this is an understanding that we share and is shared from Boston to Brooklyn to Bozeman. It doesn't matter what town you are in, people understand that the future, the success, the survival of this Republic in the next century is probably more related to whether or not we have successful families than any other single component of what happens in this society. Sure, it is important what we do in Congress. Sure, it is important what happens on Wall Street. But what happens on Main Street and on Elm Street and in the subdivisions of America where families exist, where families work to transmit values from one generation to the next, in an institution which has long been revered and always will be revered, an institution which shapes the character of our culture--that is what is truly important. As I rise to support this amendment that would eliminate the attack on the family that is leveled by our Tax Code, I do so with a sense that this elimination is long overdue. If we really want to be successful in the future--and I think that is the business of government, helping create an environment in which individuals can succeed and in which institutions can succeed-- there are lots of reasons to think we are here. But I think we simply want to build a setting in which we have the right conditions for people to flourish, for people to grow, for people to reach the maximum of the potential that God has placed within them. If we are going to do that, we need to do things that encourage structures like the family, instead of attack structures like the family. The marriage penalty attack is really not just on the family, but it attacks the core institution of the family. A marriage is what a family is built around. It is built on the durable, lasting, legally sanctioned, and enforced commitment of individuals to be together and to help each other as long as they live. There aren't very many things that work that way in our culture. There are a few things they claim to have lifetime guarantees on, and the like. But I don't think there are any institutions that are quite as lasting and helpful, which really strengthen our culture as effectively as families do. You can get products that say they are guaranteed for life. I was amused by the fellow who said he was running a parachute company. Somebody asked, ``Are they any good?'' He said, ``We guarantee them for life.'' I don't know if we would be particularly impressed with that. But the family is focused on and built on marriage, which is designed to be a lasting, durable relationship, sanctioned by law. I think we should do what we can to foster it, since it is most likely to be the thing that provides the basis for our success. This isn't something new, as a matter of fact, in our culture. America hasn't been great because we had great government or because we had great business; we have had greatness in America because of the hearts of the people. Alexis de Tocqueville, about 160 years ago, came here from France to try to assess what is it about this country that makes it dynamic, that makes this country something that is catching the eye of the entire world. He wrote back--and I have to paraphrase-- that he didn't find the greatness of America in the Halls of Congress, but he found it in the homes of the people. He didn't find it in politics; he found it in pulpits. He was really saying that the greatness of America is something that is resident in the values and character of America. He focused on the fact that that happens down beneath the big, overarching concerns of Government, found in the institution that is singularly identified as the most important institution in our culture--the family. So it is no wonder that people raise their eyebrows when they finally learn what is happening to the family as a result of the Tax Code. I support this effort to eliminate the penalty that the Tax Code imposes on people when they get married. I commend the Senator from Kansas for his outstanding recounting and relating the individual details of the couple from Montana and another couple from Indiana, and different people around the country, who have written to say, for goodness' sake, stop penalizing us and making it impossible for us to really make the kind of marriage that we want to have, making Government attack marriage through the Tax Code. Frankly, American policy should reflect the principles of the American people. It is time, instead of our policy attacking the principles, to reinforce the principles. One principle is that we don't want to say to people: Don't get married. We don't want to say that we will make it more expensive to get married, we will fine you or penalize you. We want to say: Look, we think marriage is a good thing, and we understand that the values that are transmitted in marriages, the character that is formed there, is the basis for societal success, not only in this but the next century. We want to encourage it. So it is time for us to get out our eraser, if you will, and to return America to a tax policy that does not discriminate against marriage. I say ``return'' America, because we haven't always had a discriminatory policy against marriage. But the marriage penalty began to creep into our tax law a couple of decades ago. Its onerous, negative impact on this most important institution is really a scar on the body politic, and it is a wound that we can ill afford to allow to deepen. We must close this wound and restore this culture to the kind of health that has made America great. Last April, a group of like-minded Senators and I, including the good Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, and others, stated our intention to oppose the Senate's budget resolution, unless meaningful tax cuts were added. We have noted that the United States of America is now charging people to live here more than we have ever charged people to live here before--the highest tax rates in history. Our Government is charging more. We are taking more of people's money for Government, leaving less of people's money for themselves and their families than ever before in the history of the country. For some, I guess, who like Government and prefer not to make their own decisions about how they live and want to have a bureaucrat buy for them what is to be purchased in the less than efficient system known as ``Government,'' that might be OK. But to me, I am shocked. Why in the world should we be paying the highest taxes in history when we are not at war? As a matter of fact, the highest taxes have not even gone to support defense. I think a number of us are a little bit alarmed about the condition of the Nation's defense. We have slashed the defense budget. We have curtailed it immeasurably to the point where I am not sure we are ready to prepare ourselves. We have skyrocketed other bureaucratic spending in Government. While we have slashed the spending of the defense establishment, we have also slashed the capacity of families to spend their own money. So we are rocking along at the highest tax rates in history, and it is peacetime. So last April, a group of us said we were not going to vote for a budget from this Senate, unless we put meaningful potentials for tax relief in that budget. We were promised that eliminating the marriage penalty would be the Senate's top priority for 1998. The leadership of the Senate promised us we would not only have an opportunity to try to reduce taxes substantially and significantly--not the $30 billion gesture over 5 years--incidentally, $30 billion over 5 years would buy about one cup of coffee per month per person, if you left a little tip. That is really not tax relief. So here we are; today is July 29 and there are only 31 legislative days left in the session. Yet, we are not any closer to giving the American people tax cuts than we were 3 months ago. I have led the mini revolt against the budget in order to get real potentials for tax relief on the table. I believe it is time for us to say we need real tax relief, and the marriage penalty would be the brightest and best opportunity to provide tax relief that not only reduces taxes, but it would begin to align the policy of the United States with the principles of the American people. Of course, that embracing principle that everybody understands is the need for strong families. Now, to add insult to injury--I don't know whether it is an insult or not--but the Congressional Budget Office came out with new numbers on the projected Government surplus. Here the Senate had agreed that we would do $30 billion, maybe, in tax cuts. The Congressional Budget Office just announced in the last 10 days that the projected surplus is over $520 billion. Wait a second--$30 billion to let the people have, which they earned, and we were going to take the other $490 billion and spend it, in spite of the fact that we were already taxing people at the highest rates in history. I wonder about that. So we have come forward today. I thank Senator Brownback and Senator Hutchison for sponsoring this kind of legislation. I am honored to be a person who is helping organize this approach to say we need substantial and significant tax relief. We are not asking that we take the entire $520 billion. We are not even asking that we take a majority. But we are asking that at least the onerous affront to the values of the American people, this attack on marriages, be taken from our Tax Code. It would cost about $151.3 billion, I think, to do this over 5 years. So, if you subtract that from the $520 billion, you could figure out that you still have about $360 billion over the next 5 years. That is an amazing sum. We are not even asking for 1 out of 3 dollars, or what would be equivalent to 1 out of 3 dollars, of the surplus to say leave it in the pockets of people who work hard to earn it. Don't sweep that money away to be spent by the bureaucracy. And, for heaven's sake, let's not send a signal to people, don't get married in this culture, don't begin to form the basis for this most important institution of America. We need to say, indeed, we want marriages; we want intact families; we want the lasting, durable--yes, legally recognized--formal commitments of marriage upon which to build our family. We stand here at the end of July on the heels of a month-long recess coming up in August. And there is a real possibility that Congress will not pass a budget reconciliation and will not deliver on the tax cut that was promised to the American people. We ought to shout at the top of our lungs, ``No, no.'' We do not want to miss this opportunity, with this substantial capacity in our system, to begin to grant relief to the people, especially to have a cease-fire on American marriages. It is time for us to declare peace instead of declaring war on the principles of the American people when it comes to tax policy. We need a tax policy that represents the people's principles. Let's declare peace in terms of our policy on marriage. Mr. President, our society has affirmed the importance of marriage and family for a long time. Most Americans would agree that persistent, durable marriages and strong families are absolutely necessary if we are to succeed as a nation in the 21st century. Yet, for 30 years-- nearly 30 years--in the last three decades politicians have idly watched as the Federal Income Tax Code has systematically penalized millions of people for having been married. In fact, this last year, 42 million married taxpayers collectively paid $29 billion--that is with a ``b,'' not with an ``m''--$29 billion more in taxes than they would have paid had they been single. I find it important for me to once in a while review what $1 billion means. We all know that $1 million is a lot of money. One billion dollars is 1,000 million dollars. So we have 29,000 billion dollars in tax penalty because people are married. When you boil that down to what it means to the average marriage penalty for a family what this tax anomaly, this tax assault, is, it turns out that is about $1,400 per family. I have to say that is about $1,400 of after-tax income. If you relieve them of that, that is actually spendable money. In order to have a spendable result of about $1,400 of more money for a family to spend, I think you have to allow in terms of a salary of about $2,000. So this would give those families about a $2,000 increase in their wages, or about $1,400 in spendable income. Or, another way, that is well over $100 a month that families could either add to their payments for better housing, they could add to their budget for better nutrition, they could add to their clothing budget so that their children could be better clothed and that they could be better clothed. This is $1,400 they could use to promote things that are beneficial to the community. Yet here we have this marriage penalty that sweeps that $1,400 right off the kitchen table at budget time merely because these individuals are married. I believe this marriage penalty is a grossly unfair assault on the bedrock of our culture and civilization. As a matter of fairness, principle, and public policy, Congress should put an end to the Tax Code discrimination against marriage. The marriage penalty exists today because Congress legislated ill-advised changes to the Tax Code in the late 1960s. Fortunately, eliminating the marriage penalty simply requires Congress to amend the code. I want to just mention that the marriage penalty tax has a pretty substantial negative impact on women. It hurts marriages when their income is equivalent to their husband's income. When their income is equivalent, it hurts them most of all. We enact policies to help women in the workplace, yet we have a Tax Code which penalizes those women once they earn income that is comparable to that of their spouse. There is significant evidence that such tax consequences have a direct impact on women's labor participation choices. People make judgments based on these taxes. We have already heard from our good friend, the Senator from Kansas. As a matter of fact, he stated that single people are living together in a way that many of them feel bad--disappointed their families, set bad examples for the communities--and they didn't want to do this. The amendment which Senator Brownback, Senator Grams, and Senator Inhofe, Senator Smith of New Hampshire, and Senator Hutchison have proposed would eliminate the marriage penalty. And, of course, I am proposing it with them by allowing husbands and wives to split incomes as equivalent and filing as if both were single. Over the next 5 years, the Federal Government is expected to collect $9.6 trillion in revenues. Eliminating the marriage penalty will reduce that total by 1.6 percent, and that is less than a third of the projected surplus. That is, the surplus is expected to be $520 billion. That is money in excess of what we expect to spend. If we continue to make plans to spend it, we ought to make plans to give it back at least to curtail the marriage penalty. There is no excuse for withholding tax relief from American families, especially tax relief that is necessary to allow them to continue to be American families. We have no reason to continue to punish Americans with a Tax Code that is designed to make it tough for them to be family. For years Washington has told taxpayers, ``You send it, we spend it.'' We ought to change that. It is time for a new message to be sent to America. It should be, ``You earned it, we returned it.'' I rise today to say that I find it unconscionable that the policy of the United States would be an assault on the principles of the American people, especially a sacred principle of American families that are built on the core institution of marriage, and that this Government, frankly, should hang its head in shame to think that it has agreed to spend the money of individuals and that it would not provide relief from this war on the principles of America called the ``marriage penalty.'' In my judgment, we have but one alternative, especially in the face of the kind of projected surplus which we have before us. That opportunity is to say that we are going to declare peace when it comes to the American family, and we are going to tell people that, ``We will not penalize you any longer because you have chosen to be married; as a matter of fact, we are going to provide a way for you to enjoy the same kind of treatment under the Tax Code that you would have if you were to have remained single.'' The end of the 105th Congress is coming quickly upon us. I call upon my colleagues to join me for the elimination of the marriage penalty once and for all. Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I wonder if the Senator from Kansas is aware of the fact that among people who are concerned about the culture, they have not only been concerned about families that are dissolved, and the divorce problem that we have, but the absence of family formation, the fact that there are lower rates of marriage than people had anticipated, than we have had in the past. I wonder, if given that situation, which individuals who have studied our culture are concerned about, I wonder if the Senator from Kansas might comment on whether or not the fact that we have a penalty on a number of people taxwise if they enter a marriage, if that might affect this challenge to our culture where we have had lower rates of individuals getting married?

Mr. ASHCROFT. It occurs to me what you are saying, because families have begun to replace welfare in a number of settings, they have done a better job and people are becoming independent; that the number of people on welfare is going down, and when the number of people on welfare goes down, the cost to government goes down. It seems to me that as these costs go down, when families begin to do their jobs and do them well, we ought to share some of the reduced costs of government with families by reducing the cost of families so that we can actually--and I wonder, if you will agree that since families are helping us reduce the cost of government by reducing the cost of welfare, if you agree that it might be appropriate for us, given the fact that families are helping us in this respect, to say to families, ``and thank you very much, and we would like to reduce your costs now that you are helping us reduce ours.''

Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent that Heather Oellermann be given floor privileges during the duration of this debate. She serves in my office.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas yield for a question?

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Kansas for his outstanding work on this issue. I believe that it is simply wrong for America to launch through the tax system an assault on one of the major principles of our culture--enduring, lasting marriages. But I concur with his judgment that this would subject this bill to what is known as a blue slip in the House and could disrupt the business that we ought to be conducting. I commend him for withdrawing the amendment. I thank him for the excellent work that he has done. I think this vote is a clear signal that this body understands this assault on the values of America, known as the marriage penalty, does not belong in the policy of this country. I thank the Senator from Kansas. I thank those who supported this particular effort and hope that we will have an opportunity to rally as public servants to eliminate this scar on the body politic whereby we wound the primary institution of stability in our culture, the family, by penalizing marriages. It is time for us to stop that. I believe we can and will, and this vote demonstrates it. I thank the Senator from Kansas. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. This is a matter that deserves our attention. It is an affront to the very institution that is most critical to the future of America. Some might say since this is not going to be included in a part of this bill because of the problems of originating such a measure in the Senate, that perhaps this was an endeavor which lacked merit. I really think it is important for us to keep the pressure on in this arena. It is important for a very simple reason, and that is that there are proposals to spend, spend, spend constantly. They are insistent. They always have the support of the bureaucracy. They would fund a bigger and bigger Government, more bloated and more bloated. It is essential that we elevate into the consciousness of this body and to the consciousness of the American public that there are very important places in which we ought to provide relief to American families, particularly as it relates to the marriage penalty, which is an attack by our Government on a central value of our culture, that value of marriage. You had but to look at this year and to see what it has contained. We started the year in January with some suggestion we were going to have additional revenues. The President came out virtually every day in January while we were preparing to come into session with what I call the ``program du jour.'' It was like going to the diner and having the special. Every day there was a new program to expand spending, to enlarge the consumption of Government, and implicitly, to contract the ability of people to spend the money that they earned as families. For those people who believe the success of America in the next generation is going to be based on Government, then that is, I think, a good strategy. But for those of us who believe the real success of America is not going to be based on Government programs, but is going to be based on whether or not we have solid families, then I think a strategy should exist to bring attention to the fact that we are penalizing, at the rate of $29 billion a year, people simply for being married. Some people think, ``We need to be spending this money in Government.'' Frankly, we ought to ask ourselves, do we think we are going to do more to foster the No. 1 institution in American culture, the family, by taking money from them and spending it in the bureaucracy, or letting those families spend the money on their own families in order to do what they need to do and to provide for a strong America. This isn't a question about whether moneys are going to be spent or not. This is a question about whether people are going to spend money on their families or the bureaucracy is going to spend money on Government. Which do we believe builds a stronger America? Frankly, the number of spending proposals that we are the recipient of continues to skyrocket. I have to say that the rules of this organization, the rules of the Senate, the rules of the Congress favor spending. It is hard to get something through to give money back to the people, and it should not be. But for so long, we have been so prejudiced toward taking money, and it has finally gotten to a point that is unacceptable. We are at the highest overall tax rate in Government in American history right now. It is time for us to say no more, especially as it relates to an assault on the American family. It is true this measure has been withdrawn because it is awkward and not in accordance with the rules as relates to this measure, but it is time for us to begin to elevate this and to say, ``Wait, we have to stop this insistent consumption by the Government that keeps us from being able to spend our own resources as families.'' I thank the Senator from Kansas for an outstanding job. I was pleased to march shoulder to shoulder with him in this effort. I, frankly, welcome people from both sides of the aisle who feel keenly about this. We do need relief for American families, I don't think there is any question about it. I am delighted that some are expressing that and will continue to do so. I have been delighted at every turn of the debate when individuals have understood that the future of America is far more likely to be guaranteed and ensured by strong families than it is by big Government. It is time for us to reflect that in our tax policy. I thank the Senator from Kansas, and I look forward to working with him toward the realization of this goal of declaring peace on America's families. For too long, we have made war with our tax policy on America's families. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join me in congratulating Ms. Millie Beem of Springfield, Missouri, who will celebrate her 80th birthday on August 2, 1998. Millie is truly a remarkable individual. She has witnessed many of the events that have shaped our Nation into the greatest the world has ever known. The longevity of Millie's life has meant much more, however, to the many relatives and friends whose lives she has touched over the last eighty years. Millie's celebration of eighty years of life is a testament to me and all Missourians. Her achievements are significant and deserve to be recognized. I would like to join Millie's many friends and relatives in wishing her health and happiness in the future.