John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in 1794 George Washington said, ``I know of no other pursuit in which more real and important services can be rendered to any country than improving its agriculture.'' These words mean as much today, over 200 years later, as they did then. Agricultural industries employ nearly 20 percent of all Americans. Today, I rise to honor a dear friend for 26 years of dedicated service to Missouri agriculture. On September 24, 1996, Lowell Mohler will gather with friends, family, and colleagues to celebrate the achievements of his distinguished career with the Missouri Farm Bureau. Lowell is a native Missourian born in Oregon, MO. Agriculture was always in his blood. Upon receiving his agriculture degree from the University of Missouri, he pursued an active career in agriculture, including assistant director of marketing for the Kansas State Board of Agriculture, marketing director of the Missouri Department of Agriculture and a vital member of the Missouri Farm Bureau. Lowell began his career with the Missouri Farm Bureau in 1970 and currently serves as the chief administrative officer and corporate secretary. For many years, Lowell has been a driving force meeting Missouri farmers' needs. Over these years, Lowell has been honored by his peers many times over. In April 1988, Gamma Sigma Delta, a national honor society recognizing individuals for scholarship and service in agriculture, honored him with the Distinguished Service to Agriculture Award for his outstanding support of the University of Missouri's College of Agriculture. In September 1990, Lowell was again honored with the Missouri University Alumni Association Distinguished Service Award for his continuing support and efforts in adding to the excellence of the university. In January 1991, he received the Missouri University Citation of Merit Award and the Presidential Citation Award for Extension. In October 1991, he received the State Friend of Extension Award in recognition of outstanding public service and support of the Missouri Cooperative Extension Service and its educational programs. In 1995, he was honored with the Ag Leader of the Year Award presented by the Missouri Ag Industries Council. Lowell's attributes are many as his honors describe. Lowell was there during the devastating Missouri flood of 1993, helping farmer after farmer cope with their great losses due to rising floodwaters. His own farm, which borders the great Missouri River, also fell victim with huge crop losses due to the floodwaters. But Missouri farmers persevered and overcame with the help of Lowell and the Missouri Farm Bureau. Lowell's generosity, integrity and foresight have continued over the years to keep Missouri agricultural interests strong for Missouri families and farmers. American farmers set the world agricultural standards by producing the highest quality products at the lowest prices. Missouri's 28 million acres of farmland and production of beef rank second in the Nation. Missouri is also among the top 15 States producing rice, soybeans, milo, hay, corn, and cotton. Agriculture is a critical force in Missouri's economy as well as the Nation's. On a personal note, my friendship with Lowell has afforded me the opportunity of his wisdom. Lowell was always happy to advise me regarding my farm in Missouri. He unselfishly assisted me in planning and complying with conservation regulations, particularly in the area of soil and water conservation, tree preservation and replanting, pasture rotation, and general farm management. During my tenure as Governor, Lowell served on the transition team in 1985 to 1986; he was also appointed to the business and education partnership commission, which was a task force to study the higher education system in Missouri. Lowell provided me countless hours of advice on agricultural policy important to Missouri farmers and ranchers, which was a result of policy established by the grassroots development process of the Missouri Farm Bureau. His whole family was involved, too. Lowell's wife, JoAnn, served as my executive secretary from 1985 to 1993 during my tenure as Governor of Missouri. Lowell and JoAnn continue to be close friends, whom I respect for advice and guidance. For these important reasons, I rise today to recognize and salute my friend for not only the 26 years of exemplary service to the Missouri Farm Bureau, but for his lifelong dedication to the Missouri agricultural industry. Lowell Mohler's service and friendship has been an inspiring testimony to me as well as all Missourians.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of till death us do part seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Jacob and Sophie Schepker of St. Louis, MO, who on August 10, 1996, celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Jacob and Sophie's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of till death do us part seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Truman and Dorothy Eken of Sedalia, MO, who on August 25, 1996 celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Truman and Dorothy's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, families are the cornerstone of America. The data are undeniable: Individuals from strong families contribute to the society. In an era when nearly half of all couples married today will see their union dissolve into divorce, I believe it is both instructive and important to honor those who have taken the commitment of till death us do part seriously, demonstrating successfully the timeless principles of love, honor, and fidelity. These characteristics make our country strong. For these important reasons, I rise today to honor Mr. Charles and Mrs. Dorothy Helbig of St. Charles, MO, who on September 21, 1996 will celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. My wife, Janet, and I look forward to the day we can celebrate a similar milestone. Charles and Dorothy's commitment to the principles and values of their marriage deserves to be saluted and recognized. I wish them and their family all the best as they celebrate this substantial marker on their journey together.

Mr. ASHCROFT

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

Mr. ASHCROFT. I asked for the yeas and nays, but I have no objection to the vote not being taken immediately. I have no objection to a pause between the yeas and nays being ordered and the vote being taken.

Mr. ASHCROFT. As I think my colleague from Illinois knows, I would like to apply this to the work force generally, but this applies to companies doing business with the U.S. Government, in a sense as a part of being consistent with the underlying amendment which sought to extend benefits, in the Daschle amendment, to those who are doing business with the Federal Government and had a relationship that provided a basis for a comparison of health care benefits.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank you for this opportunity. The Daschle amendment No. 5234 seeks to address a disparity between the insurance coverage that would inure to the benefit of Federal workers as compared to the workers in companies that do contract business with the Federal Government. There are far many more disparities than the disparities that just relate to health insurance. As a matter of fact, conditions of employment are substantially different for individuals in the Federal Government from individuals in the private sector who do business with the Federal Government. One of the most substantial areas in which there are significant differences between those who work for the Federal Government and those who are in the private sector who contract with or provide services to the Federal Government is in the area of the opportunity for employees and employers to cooperate for work schedules which are helpful to families or for employees to opt to take compensatory time instead of to take time and a half in terms of overtime pay. One of the serious tensions that exists in the workplace today is the tension between the demands of the home environment and the demands of the work environment. The Federal Government addressed this a long time ago. We began in the late forties by having compensatory time available to Federal workers, and then in the 1980's, or in the late 1970's and into the 1980's, we began experimenting with allowing cooperation between Federal workers and their employers to provide for flexible time arrangements for work, so that in the Federal Government, at the option of the worker, you can work a little more than 40 hours in 1 week in order to take some time off the next week, or vice versa. The idea is that if your daughter, for example, is getting an award at the high school sometime on a Friday afternoon, you can say to your employer, ``If I can make up the time on Monday, will that be allowable?'' And with that 80-hour work frame instead of the 40-hour work frame, that is something that can be done. It is achievable. The Daschle amendment really seeks to provide an equity between those who work in the Federal Government and those who do Federal-type responsibilities but are working in the private area. It does so in the area of health care. My second-degree amendment is to take that philosophy and extend it to other benefits, benefits that help both the worker and the employer in a special way. The GAO, for example, has studied the situation at the Federal level and found that the flex time opportunities and the compensatory time opportunities that are available to workers under the Federal system have resulted in substantial work satisfaction among Federal workers in this respect. The satisfaction was attendant by higher productivity, and the satisfaction resulted in a greater return on the resource that was devoted; on the tax dollars that were being spent, we received more for our money. If that works for Federal workers in the setting of their Federal employment, I think it should work for the private workers who are working side by side frequently with the Federal employees on jobs, doing contracts frequently in the same work setting and the same work environment. Yet, we have a different set of work rules. And if the thrust and effect of the Daschle amendment would be to extend benefits that are consistent with the Federal job site to those who are working in conjunction with the Federal job site vis-a-vis health, it seems to me it is more than reasonable to say those things that would enhance the productivity, those things that would increase the capacity of the contractor to work effectively to fulfill his or her contract with the Federal Government is important, as well. In my office recently I received a letter from a contractor who works with the Federal Government, and he complains that his employees work side by side with Federal Government employees and there is an ability on the part of the Federal employees to accumulate comp time and to use comp time instead of overtime because they want to spend time with their families rather than increase their earnings, for example, and that there are flex time opportunities for the Federal employees, but his employees who work right alongside them in the same work environment are subjected to a different set of work rules, a different set of benefits. It simply does not make sense to have this duplicity in the workplace, especially when we have had the transition in the way people accommodate work and home life. If you will look, 35 years ago when the labor relations laws of this country were created, only 18.6 percent of married women with a spouse present and children under 6 years of age were in the labor force. By 1990, nearly 60 percent of such women were in the labor force. A 1985 survey of the Federal employees participating with Federal work schedules found 72 percent said they had more flexibility to spend time with their families; 74 percent said the schedules improved their morale. It seems to me that if these are benefits to being involved in the workplace and the thrust of the amendment is to extend the benefits similar to those that would have been earned in the Federal workplace to those who are contracting with the Federal Government, we ought to extend these flexible work time benefits, these compensatory time benefits, the potential of compressed workweek benefits that have been a part of the Federal Government for years now. It is not that these are just something new to the Federal Government. In the late 1970's an experiment was begun and that experiment, or pilot project, was renewed over and over again until the mid-1980's, when it was decided that the program was simply so successful that it should be extended to Federal employees generally. So that in the mid-1980's, the Federal Government employees were accorded, on a broad scale, this benefit. Some in the executive branch were not accorded the benefit. And just 2 or 3 years ago, President Clinton, in an Executive order, extended these benefits to other Federal employees, recognizing their value to the employees in terms of the ability of employees to work effectively on their jobs and accommodate the needs of their families and recognizing the value of these rules to the Government. It occurs to me the extension of these rules to those who contract with the Government, both the executive and legislative branches, is the better part of wisdom. We have seen these rules work very effectively for the achievement of governmental objectives. And when we are talking about individuals who are licensed or contracting with the Federal Government, it seems to me, in the achievement of those objectives for the Federal Government, these work rules ought to apply. It is in that respect that I have submitted this amendment and I believe it ought to be acted upon favorably by the Senate. Favorable action here says to the work force of America: We respect the kind of tension you feel between work and home. We will help you accommodate those tensions as well as you can. And that will result in greater productivity, in more being done because the workers have higher morale and better capacity under this kind of situation. It is with that in mind I offer this second-degree amendment to the Daschle amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to the Daschle amendment numbered 5234.

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

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Kenny Harrison of Bridgeton, MO at the games of the XXVIth Olympiad. Mr. Harrison won America's fourth track and field gold medal by jumping 18.09 meters in the triple jump. This jump, in addition to winning Olympic gold, also established a new U.S. and Olympic record. The State of Missouri, and the entire Nation, takes great pride in Mr. Harrison's record setting performance.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Esther Werner of Creve Coeur, MI. Mrs. Werner celebrated her 90th birthday on August 2, 1996. I join her family and friends in celebration of this momentous occasion, and in wishing her continued health and happiness in the years to come.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I am grateful for this opportunity to rise in support of this legislation, known as the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe it is important for us to outline exactly what this bill would do and what it would not do, because in much of the discussion, it is portrayed as a measure which would overrule State laws and somehow snatch from States the capacity for defining what a marriage is within the State. The truth of the matter is, this would not change the capacity of States to define for their own purposes the nature of marriage in any State in America. It would define, for purposes of the Federal Government, what constitutes a marriage. And that is very important, because unless we have a Federal definition of what marriage is, a variety of States around the country could define marriage differently--they have not to date--and if they were to define marriage differently, people in different States would have different eligibility to receive Federal benefits, which would be inappropriate. It has been said that it is not important to do this because there have not been any States making these changes. I think it is pretty clear that it is important to do this because States are on the brink of making such changes, one State's law having been stricken by its highest court on the basis that it was unduly discriminatory. Let me just indicate that as long ago as in the 1970's, a male demanded increased educational benefits from the U.S. Government when he claimed that another male individual was his dependent spouse. The Veterans' Administration turned him down, and the Veterans' Administration was sued. The outcome turned on a Federal statute that made eligibility for the benefits contingent on his State's definition of ``spouse'' and ``marriage.'' If the definition is different in one State for Federal benefits than it is in another State, we will find that States will be able to accord benefits to citizens in a way which is irrational and inconsistent, giving citizens of one State higher benefits or different benefits than citizens of another State. It is time for the Federal Government to define what a marriage is for purposes of Federal benefits which, obviously, come at the expense of the taxpayers of this country. It is not unreasonable at all, for purposes of Federal benefits, whether it is Social Security, education benefits, or veterans benefits of one kind or another, for this Congress to say these are the conditions under which those benefits flow. They should be uniform for people no matter where they come from in this country. People in one State should not have a higher claim on Federal benefits than people in another State. For that reason, it is entirely appropriate for us, as a Congress, to say that we want a Federal benefits structure that follows a uniform definition of ``marriage,'' and for purposes of the Federal benefits program, we have this definition, and that is what this law provides. Second, this law then says that a State will not be required to recognize another State's definition of marriage if that includes individuals of the same sex. Now, every State has benefits that flow to those who are married. It comes from the fact that there are real societal and social benefits to marriages. Marriages bring children into the world. That is the next generation. Unfortunately, it is the young people who defend the country when we are assaulted from abroad. And if you don't have children who grow up to be in the work force, who pays for the retirement of those who have already retired? We have set up our society on the basis of children who come into the world, and we honor the institution that brings children into the world and gives them values, by according special standing to marriage. That is not only done at the Federal level, which we already have addressed, it is done in every State in America. A State ought to be able to say you are going to get these benefits if you are in this category, if you meet this definition of marriage. But if we use the term marriage in one State and then we allow another State to define it as something entirely different than what the first State which was developing the benefit structure intended, we have really allowed one State to define for other States what will be the qualifying characteristics for their laws and their benefits. It is clear to me that a State should have the right to say that these are the characteristics of the relationship which will result in our State according you either the deduction or the special benefit, whether it relates to taxes or education or inheritance or the like. States should have the right to do that on their own terms. So this proposal simply defines, in a uniform way for Federal benefits, the nature of what a marriage is, and it says that no State shall be able to impose its definition of marriage on other States. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, very much, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator from Kansas for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. It is an important issue, and I think her remarks earlier about the legal difficulties that are encountered whenever you have the kind of potential for punitive damages and have the kind of framework that would allow legal challenges on decisions made by business people-- those were very important points on this matter. I commend her for making those points. I also want to commend Senator Hatch for his important discussion of these issues, and Senator Nickles who raised components of consideration here which I think have yet to be raised and ought to be raised. I would like to make a few observations about what it is we do when we seek to enact legislation like this and the kind of signals we send and what the public interest is in terms of this kind of legislation. First of all, I have to say that I have no intention nor desire to inflict any kind of burden or difficulty upon individuals in our culture who are homosexuals. I have worked with homosexuals in various responsibilities. When I served as Governor of the State of Missouri I learned that several of the individuals in the administration were homosexuals and had done outstanding work. Unfortunately, several of those individuals with whom I worked and whom I respected met a very early death, in part as a result of the practice, I believe, of their lifestyle, and it is a tragedy. My sympathy has always been for them and to their families. In one case we had to transfer a worker to be more proximate to medical attention and care because of the challenges that he faced. So it is not a matter in terms of my own situation of wanting to increase the burden or otherwise make difficult the lives of individuals who have a homosexual lifestyle. As a matter of fact, that is already a real challenge. I want to point out that in everything we do in government we teach. We send signals. We say what is good and what is bad. We encourage some things. We discourage others. President Clinton has decided to send a signal about cigarette smoking. He has basically said that, because smoking cigarettes can curtail your life expectancy anywhere between 2.1 and 12.2 years, that he is going to be aggressive in communicating to this culture that you should not start smoking. It is bad for you. It will hurt you. It will shorten your lifespan. There are some of us in this Chamber who would disagree with the way in which the President is trying to send that signal. Some of us would question whether or not we ought to assign to the FDA--the Food and Drug Administration, an agency which is already overburdened and which is struggling to do minimally acceptably its current task--the substantial new task of regulating tobacco. But I think all of us agree that the right signal is that smoking is bad for you and that it is injurious to your health. Smoking is obviously a choice. But we are trying to send a signal about what we believe and that this Government does not want to encourage you to smoke. I believe when we consider enacting legislation that gives special standing to a particular category of conduct, that sends a signal that says that that conduct is to be elevated, it is to be approved, it is somehow to have special privilege, then we have to be careful about what we are doing. There is a debate about whether or not people who are homosexuals are born that way or are genetically programmed that way or that it perhaps is a conduct which they acquire or which they develop. Frankly, I cannot say for sure from a personal perspective that there is no way that there could be individuals who are genetically predisposed. I can't make that determination. I do know that there are thousands of former homosexuals, individuals who once were engaged in a homosexual lifestyle, who have changed that lifestyle and have repudiated it and find themselves to be engaged in heterosexual lifestyles. So it is clear to me that, while there may be a genetic base for the activity in some respects, it is clear that it is an activity of choice in other respects and that it is a choice which can be made and unmade. I think when we as a government are signaling an approval, or an elevation, of a lifestyle, we have to ask ourselves to what extent are we suggesting to individuals in the culture that they ought to adopt it. I am worried about youngsters in our society. I think there are times when young men are unsure about themselves when they are in transition, when they have identified perhaps more with their mothers than with their fathers, and they move from boyhood to manhood. Those are critical times when role models are very important. I think Senator Nickles was on target when he said that we have to be careful of who we have in the Boy Scouts. I commend the sponsors of this legislation for exempting the Boy Scouts. The sponsors also exempt the military, because I think they recognize the fact that there are sensitive positions where we understand that we wouldn't be confident in having this elevated standing for homosexuals in regard to positions in the military. Colin Powell made it clear when he stood by the gay ban in the military. He said, ``Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic.'' He said that to distinguish it from homosexual activity. ``Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics.'' It is a matter of conduct. Sex is not a matter of conduct. It is a matter of configuration. It is the way in which we are made. Sexual orientation, according to Colin Powell, is a matter of conduct. I think we ought to be careful of what we are supporting as a government. We should be wary of telling young people that you will have a higher standing, you will have a greater durability on the job, it will be more difficult to fire you, you are likely to have a cause of action if someone fails to hire you, you can sue someone for failing to hire you if you can allege that you are a homosexual--you will not be able to do that, if you have ordinary sexual orientation. Senator Nickles, in talking about young people, stated something which I believe; that is, in hiring schoolteachers, or camp counselors, or those who deal with young people, you never just hire a teacher. You are always hiring more than a teacher. You are hiring a role model. I cannot think of a single teacher in my past who was simply a teacher to me. Whether he or she liked it or not, that teacher was a role model. And I think those who operate organizations that have situations like that are appropriately exempted in this legislation. But this exemption should be much broader in this bill. As a matter of fact, to deprive employers of the ability to make those kinds of judgments--as this bill does--in my view, is unwise. I think this bill sends a signal that this is an elevated status. I do not think that is the right signal to send to the next generation. We all know that in practice, dismissal of individuals who are on the protected class lists in the civil rights laws is very, very difficult. I believe we ought to have a civil rights law to protect against discrimination based upon race and sex. But I remember a situation when I was Governor of Missouri in which one man operating a laundry fired a black woman from the laundry. She was one of seven black women working in the laundry. She was replaced by a black woman. But she sued alleging that she was fired because she was discriminated against on the basis of both race and sex. I remember that the operator of that particular laundry spent a substantial amount of money defending against that kind of suit. The truth of the matter is that the establishment of protected classes makes much more difficult the ability of anyone to even use good judgment in hiring and firing because there is always this threat of litigation. The threat of litigation here is not inconsequential. It is not minimal. It is not small. When you get to the place of offering the potential for punitive damages for violation of these kinds of items, you get into astronomical figures. Shell Oil Co. had a company policy that said it would only use on- the-job activities as the basis for hiring and firing. That is kind of what this law really sets up, saying, we will not allow sexual orientation to be used as the basis for that. Shell found that one of its employees was using the company copier to produce and copy a flier advertising a safe sex party for homosexual men. It said that is not what we want our company to be standing for, that is not what we want to be doing. It fired the individual. A California court fined Shell Oil $5.3 million for dismissing the executive. It provided that kind of a penalty. This is the kind of intimidation that occurs, especially when you are in the universe of the macro damages that we frequently see in litigation these days. This is not the kind of thing we want to invite into our businesses. Senator Nickles has said very clearly it is not the kind of thing we want to invite into camps for children, into the schools. This law provides a distinction, saying that if schools are religious schools or nonprofit schools, they do not have to abide by it. I think that is right. They understand that there are many legitimate objectives of schools that would be impaired substantially by this. But is the objective of a profitmaking school different than a nonprofit school? Are the children who go to the school that makes a profit providing the services any less to be protected than the children who go to a school that is nonprofit? Are the role model considerations any different if the organization makes a profit than if the organization does not make a profit? If it is my child, do I somehow feel differently because the executive director of the school is a nonprofit guy earning $100,000 a year driving a nonprofit-provided vehicle, BMW, or a fledgling profit- seeking institution where the guy is barely eking out a living for his family and he is driving a Chevy? The big distinction in the legislation is one of a profitmaking institution and one a nonprofit institution. For Heaven's sake, I do not care whether they are making a profit. What I care about is what is happening in the outcome. If it is a school that is dealing with young people, if there is a legitimate reason to say that the Boy Scouts should not have to abide by this and the nonprofits should not have to abide by this, why do we impose it on the rest of the world? If there is a legitimate reason why the U.S. military in the national interest is exempted from this, why is it that it needs to be imposed on the rest of the world? If it is a legitimate reason to protect the individuals who have the right resources and can send their kids to a nonprofit private school from this proposed law, why is it that the public schools cannot have these same kinds of opportunities to say that we want to send the right signals; we want to hire more than a teacher; we want to hire a role model, recognizing that there may be some who at a tender age would be directed by the role modeling that takes place by teachers and by leaders in scouts and informal organizations and activities. Maybe we would just like to say that even people in the public sector ought to be able to have that right, the school district ought to be able to have that right. It is not as if these things do not happen. And there are things that you wonder about. Recently, here in the northern Virginia area, there was the young boys' gym teacher who had been making the gay pornographic videos and was discovered to be leading a dual life. On the west coast he was the gay porno video star; on the east coast he was the gym teacher. That is not activity that is perhaps relevant or particularly associated with his school duties, but if my children were in the school I would want to think we would have the opportunity to look carefully at that and perhaps make a judgment that this was not the right kind of role model. In all that we do in Government, we teach. I believe when we say that something is to be preferred----

Mr. ASHCROFT. I am pleased to return to the floor to add a note to the discussion which has continued since I left the floor. There has been further debate about how the bill exempts organizations like the U.S. military, and exempts, properly so, I think, private schools, and it attempts to exempt the Boy Scouts. Since I pointed that out and said basically I thought those were good exemptions, I thought the same reasons for exempting them should exempt the rest of the culture. Why impose something that would threaten the Boy Scouts or threaten the U.S. military, or threaten private nonprofit schools? Why impose those kinds of things on the rest of the culture? After I left the floor the allegation was made that the arguments against this bill flowed from bigotry and could be characterized as cheap shots because we would exempt the entire culture. I guess I just have one question to ask: If it is bigotry to exempt the entire culture, is it small-time bigotry to exempt the Boy Scouts? Is it small-time bigotry to exempt limited portions of the culture? In my judgment, it is not. I think it is a mistake to suggest it is bigotry to oppose this bill. I think that there are real problems with the underlying principle of this bill, and that those problems are understood, and as a result we attempt to exempt organizations like the Boy Scouts. We exempt the U.S. military because we do not want to subject it to some of the problems that would attend its application. I think those of us who oppose this bill are not bigots or taking cheap shots or cheaper shots. If it is a cheap shot to exempt the entire culture, it must be something of a cheap shot to exempt part of it. We are not really saying we want to take a cheap shot. We are saying this is not the way for us to move forward. I believe the framers of the legislation were right in their attempt to avoid the imposition of onerous, counterproductive regulation on a good bit of our culture--private schools, nonprofit, Boy Scouts, the U.S. military. We can ill afford to do things that impair their mission or their capacity. I think they were right in doing so. For those of us who would have a broader exemption, who believe it would be counterproductive overall, I think we are arguing from good faith and in the best national interest. That is a point which I think deserves to be made. It can be contradicted but I do not think it will be refuted.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I just believe there are areas in this bill that recognize there are legitimate concerns and they throw out a bone here and a bone there--a bone to the Boy Scouts if the Boy Scouts are covered. I am not sure they are. A bone to the religious schools or to the not-for-profit schools but not to the other schools, a bone to the Armed Forces because I guess we do not want to impair the defense of the country but maybe we are willing to put into jeopardy the future of the country. In my view, it is clear that the signal we send in this bill is the wrong signal. It contains seeds of real instability and inappropriate activity, seeds of litigation which could grow way out of hand and send the wrong signals to young people and provide a special standing and class--not based upon existence and construction but upon conduct. Not based upon sex but upon sexual activity. I thank the Senator from Kansas for the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I do not think I need but about 2 minutes to close.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for yielding me the time. Our responsibility in acting on a failed welfare system is as profound a responsibility in responding to the people of this country as we have ever had. The fundamental role and responsibility of Government is to call people to their highest and best, not trap them at their lowest and least. In spite of the good intentions of the welfare program, which we have poured billions of dollars into, hundreds of billions of dollars, we have ended up trapping people at their lowest and least rather than calling people or prompting people to their highest and best. The real objective of our legislation here ought to be to change the character of welfare. We need to change it from a system which has provided careers and conditions that lasted a lifetime to a system that instead of providing a condition provides a transition, that moves people from poverty into opportunity, that moves people from indolence into industry, that moves people from welfare into work. No longer can we afford a system that not only provides people a condition or a career, but goes beyond trapping individuals and goes to trapping generations. One of the real problems of our welfare system is that we have children who are trapped in welfare and they become welfare careerists themselves, and their children are then trapped in welfare. The truth of the matter is that the prisoners of war in the war on poverty have been the children of America. There are more children in poverty today than there were when we started the war on poverty, and it is a clear indication that the system is a tragic failure as it relates to human beings--children who have lost their lives, children who have lost their opportunity, children who have lost their spirit, children who fall into a net which was designed to save them, but instead becomes a net to ensnare them. A good industrialist friend of mine says that your system is perfectly designed to give you what you are getting. I do not know anyone in America who believes that what we are getting is the right thing. We are getting higher rates of illegitimacy. We are getting higher rates of dependency. We are finding ourselves with individuals staying on welfare longer and longer periods of time. Is that what we want? Is what we are getting what we need? Absolutely not. The system may not have been intended to give us what we are getting, but the design of the system is what causes us to get what we are getting, and it is our responsibility, it is a sacred charge of ours given to us by the American people, and they have made it fundamentally and unmistakably clear that they want different outcomes, they want different results. They do not want more dependency, they do not want more illegitimacy, they do not want more careers and generations on welfare. They want less, because they want people to be free. They want children to have an opportunity to look toward the U.S. Senate or toward the Presidency or toward being a captain of industry or developing their own business. They do not want people trapped in an intergenerational net of ensnarement, rather than a net of safety. So it is incumbent upon us to make fundamental changes, fundamental changes in the way this system treats people. We can no longer allow Government to be the instrument of ensnarement, of entrapment. We must make Government an instrument of liberation, of opportunity, of industry and development. That is why it is so important that we end this one-size-fits-all Washington approach which says that everybody will respond the same and all the systems are to be uniform, and move welfare programs back to the States and allow them to experiment and do what works. I often laugh when I think of the one-size-fits-all term. We have almost come to believe it. Can you imagine if we were to send off for a catalog and get a catalog that said, ``One size of pajamas fits all for your family''? I know what would happen in my family. We would get five pairs of pajamas. They would be one size but they would fit none because we are pretty different. The great family of America is different. States and communities have different characteristics and attributes, and they need to be able to shape, to tailor, to fashion what they do from a block grant that gives them broad discretion and authority. Yes, they need for the block grant to be limited. They need to have the energy of limited resources to drive the creativity of solving the problem. No one ever solved a problem when the supply was infinite. No one ever works to conserve energy as long as it is free. You start to pay the heating bill and you learn to close the door, you learn to shut the windows, you learn to caulk the cracks. And when we put limits on the amount of money we are going to spend on welfare, we will start caulking the cracks and start stopping up the places where we have leakage. And it is not a leakage financially. We are talking about leakage of the great human resource of America. We are looking at the Olympics. Boy, they are inspiring. But how much chance would we have in basketball or volleyball or baseball if we did not send our full team onto the field, if we told some of them, ``You're to sit over there on the side and not to be productive. We'll call you the welfare reserves''? We would not win. And we will not win as a Nation if we do not get all of our players into the operation of being what this Nation is all about. That is being capable of helping yourselves and helping others and being so good at what you are doing that the world beats a path to your door. That is why we need these block grants where States will tailor their programs to meet the needs in their own States and do what is necessary to move people out of conditions, lifelong conditions of welfare, to signal that this is a transition, not a condition. You are to be moving out of here. And fundamental, one of the acts of genius in this bill, in addition to the block grant, is the fact that there is a 5-year limit. We say to people, it is an insurance policy, so that when you have trouble you can fall into the welfare net but you cannot live there, you cannot stay there. It is not a place for you to be forever because, once 5 years is used up, that is a lifetime limit. We really should be saying to people, do not ever be on there for more than 2 consecutive years, ever. Frankly, our welfare system should never be a place where you are not preparing for the next stage of your life. Welfare becomes a transition instead of a condition, a fundamental characteristic. The block grant is important about that. The senior Senator from Missouri, Kit Bond, is a personal friend of mine. He has a phrase, ``experience is what you get when you expected something else.'' Over the last 30 years, I think we expected something else from this so-called War on Poverty and Great Society program, but we got something different from what we expected. We got children without fathers and we got homes without discipline and we got streets without safety and we got generations locked--locked--out of opportunity, without education. We expected something different. But our experience is what we got. And our experience has not been very positive. But I want you to know that there have been a few bright lights over the last 30 years that signal to us how we could make changes, how we could actually change the behavior of people, how we could help them move from being dependent to being independent, the glorious state of liberty and freedom, what America is all about. Those bright lights have been in the nongovernmental sector primarily. They have been the Salvation Army, the Boys and Girls Clubs, the missions, and homeless shelters that have been run by the nongovernmental entities who are energized by a calling which is beyond the calling of duty that comes from government. It is a calling of humanity that God stirs in our hearts. One of the primary features of this bill is that States will be allowed to contract with organizations like the Boys and Girls Clubs and the Salvation Army and charitable organizations that specialize in hope and opportunity and who care, who care for the people trapped on welfare, not just as welfare statistics, but care for them after they leave the condition of welfare. These groups have a lifelong interest in helping people make it all the way to the top, not just over the threshold. I have to say that our experience tells us that not everyone in the welfare system has wanted to see everyone leave the system. Sometimes we have had too much interest in how many people we could have on welfare instead of how many people we could move off welfare. Significantly, the provisions of this bill would allow charitable and even faith-based operations to compete for contracts or to participate in voucher programs to help people. It does it with safeguards, so that if a person is offended by virtue of being involved with a faith-based organization, they would be free to get their assistance from some other provider. These faith-based organizations have in the past--many times the smaller ones who did not have large legal departments--have been afraid of accepting governmental funds in order to help the poor. They have been afraid of being sued. I know the Salvation Army, in one setting, was sued and had to settle for a quarter of a million dollars, a matter which absolutely undermined and eroded the capacity of the Salvation Army to help the poor. We know they do as good a job as any. I just want to say that this bill is the kind of change that America has been asking for. Is it perfect? No. At least the way I was raised, in order to get perfection you had to die and go to Heaven. I want to go to Heaven. But I had not planned on going today. And since we ought to do what we can while we are here, let us take as good as we can get and shape it and fashion it, but not assume we have all the answers in Washington. Send it back to the States, give States the opportunity to tailor it in ways that will help people simply move from dependence to independence, from careers of welfare and the condition of welfare, the intergenerational things of welfare, to a transition of welfare that moves from welfare to work. I believe that it is fundamentally important that we carry through and pass this measure. And I thank the President of the United States for his willingness to sign this measure. I believe this measure will help save the lives of children and it will help save the lives of individuals for generations to come.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. I observe the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about first principles, about fundamental truths, about a battle that helped give birth to a nation. The amendment I have sent to the desk represents an effort to restore the federal system conceived by the Framers over two centuries ago by giving the States the capacity to initiate constitutional reforms. In considering my remarks earlier this morning, I was reminded of a trip my family and I made several years ago when I was Governor of the State of Missouri. In 1989, we were extended an opportunity to visit the site where the Continental Army, led by Gen. Atemas Ward, fought to seize Bunker Hill on the Charlestown peninsula. It was a moving experience. One cannot help but recall the monument, dedicated by Daniel Webster, that stands as a tribute to the lives that were lost. I recommend the trip to both Members and the viewing audience alike. I must confess, however, that the expansive field you will find fails to fully capture the raw carnage that visited Bunker Hill in June of 1775. Close to 2,000 lives were lost in less than 2 hours. And, while General Howe's regulars were masters of the peninsula at the end of the day, the casualties they sustained were more than twice that of the American militia. Historians, Mr. President, have come to record Bunker Hill as a bloody if indecisive contest, an early salvo in a conflict which Dr. Jonathan Rossie has characterized as a ``glorious cause.'' Glorious, if warfare can be called that, because the issue that animated the colonists that day was freedom, for themselves and generations yet to come; God, courage, and posterity were their invisible allies. And as I reflect on those events, I cannot help but wonder what has become of the first principles for which our forefathers fought? What has become of the fundamental truths that compelled those great patriots up that hill, bayonets flashing, voices shouting ``push on, push on.'' For that battle outside of Boston helped give birth to a nation, a constitutional republic that was the first of its kind. A system where, as Madison suggested in ``Federalist'' No. 46, ``the federal and state governments are in fact but different agents of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes.'' Unfortunately, Mr. President, Madison's vision is being lost. Judicial activism, Federal intervention, and past constitutional reforms have led to a gradual erosion of State power. In particular, the passage of the 16th and 17th amendments have had a disastrous effect on the capacity of the States to check Federal expansion. The former, establishing the income tax, gave the central government a virtually unlimited spending power, while the latter, providing for the direct election of Senators, worked to undermine the Senate's contemplated role as the protector of State autonomy. One of the single, greatest challenges we face as a country and as a Congress, is addressing the constitutional imbalance that has arisen from the convergence of these trends. Allowing the States to initiate amendments on issues ranging from a balanced budget to congressional term limits would do just that. The operation of the proposed amendment is as simple as its intent is clear. Whenever two-thirds of the States propose an amendment, in identical terms, it is submitted to the Congress for review. If two- thirds of both Houses fail to disapprove the amendment during the session in which it is received, the proposal is then forwarded to the States for ratification by three-fourths of the legislatures thereof. If adopted, the proposed amendment would have tremendous value on several different fronts. First, it would force the cold corridors of power on the Potomac to respond to the will of the people--no more mandates, no more deficits, no more careerist in the Congress. Similarly, the amendment would allow the States to once again share the constitutional agenda of the Nation. And finally, it would provide a potential for addressing the problems of federalism in a context which could conceivably augment State power. In Gregory versus Ashcroft, Justice O'Connor opined that ``in the tension between Federal and State power lies the promise of liberty.'' And so it does. I believe reconstituting the federal system of which Madison wrote must become conservatives' new glorious cause. This amendment is a measured, moderate step toward achieving that end. For these reasons, Mr. President, I beg its adoption.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about first principles, about fundamental truths, about a battle that helped give birth to a nation. The amendment I have sent to the desk represents an effort to restore the federal system conceived by the Framers over two centuries ago by giving the States the capacity to initiate constitutional reforms. In considering my remarks earlier this morning, I was reminded of a trip my family and I made several years ago when I was Governor of the State of Missouri. In 1989, we were extended an opportunity to visit the site where the Continental Army, led by Gen. Atemas Ward, fought to seize Bunker Hill on the Charlestown peninsula. It was a moving experience. One cannot help but recall the monument, dedicated by Daniel Webster, that stands as a tribute to the lives that were lost. I recommend the trip to both Members and the viewing audience alike. I must confess, however, that the expansive field you will find fails to fully capture the raw carnage that visited Bunker Hill in June of 1775. Close to 2,000 lives were lost in less than 2 hours. And, while General Howe's regulars were masters of the peninsula at the end of the day, the casualties they sustained were more than twice that of the American militia. Historians, Mr. President, have come to record Bunker Hill as a bloody if indecisive contest, an early salvo in a conflict which Dr. Jonathan Rossie has characterized as a ``glorious cause.'' Glorious, if warfare can be called that, because the issue that animated the colonists that day was freedom, for themselves and generations yet to come; God, courage, and posterity were their invisible allies. And as I reflect on those events, I cannot help but wonder what has become of the first principles for which our forefathers fought? What has become of the fundamental truths that compelled those great patriots up that hill, bayonets flashing, voices shouting ``push on, push on.'' For that battle outside of Boston helped give birth to a nation, a constitutional republic that was the first of its kind. A system where, as Madison suggested in ``Federalist'' No. 46, ``the federal and state governments are in fact but different agents of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes.'' Unfortunately, Mr. President, Madison's vision is being lost. Judicial activism, Federal intervention, and past constitutional reforms have led to a gradual erosion of State power. In particular, the passage of the 16th and 17th amendments have had a disastrous effect on the capacity of the States to check Federal expansion. The former, establishing the income tax, gave the central government a virtually unlimited spending power, while the latter, providing for the direct election of Senators, worked to undermine the Senate's contemplated role as the protector of State autonomy. One of the single, greatest challenges we face as a country and as a Congress, is addressing the constitutional imbalance that has arisen from the convergence of these trends. Allowing the States to initiate amendments on issues ranging from a balanced budget to congressional term limits would do just that. The operation of the proposed amendment is as simple as its intent is clear. Whenever two-thirds of the States propose an amendment, in identical terms, it is submitted to the Congress for review. If two- thirds of both Houses fail to disapprove the amendment during the session in which it is received, the proposal is then forwarded to the States for ratification by three-fourths of the legislatures thereof. If adopted, the proposed amendment would have tremendous value on several different fronts. First, it would force the cold corridors of power on the Potomac to respond to the will of the people--no more mandates, no more deficits, no more careerist in the Congress. Similarly, the amendment would allow the States to once again share the constitutional agenda of the Nation. And finally, it would provide a potential for addressing the problems of federalism in a context which could conceivably augment State power. In Gregory versus Ashcroft, Justice O'Connor opined that ``in the tension between Federal and State power lies the promise of liberty.'' And so it does. I believe reconstituting the federal system of which Madison wrote must become conservatives' new glorious cause. This amendment is a measured, moderate step toward achieving that end. For these reasons, Mr. President, I beg its adoption.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the joint resolution I am introducing lays the groundwork for the progrowth economic agenda of the next millennium. Senator Abraham, Senator Craig, Senator Grams, and Senator Kyl have joined with me in offering this proposal. The method of analysis we now use to determine how much a tax cut costs the Government, or a tax hike costs the taxpayers, is hopelessly inaccurate. For example, the 1990 luxury tax increase took in $14 million less than the $31 million the Joint Tax Committee [JCT] predicted it would in fiscal year 1991. The 1986 Tax Reform Act lowered income tax rates while hiking capital gains taxes. The Congressional Budget Office at the time underestimated income tax revenues over the following 3 years by $56 billion and overestimated the 5-year take from capital gains tax revenues by $115 billion. It has also been established that the CBO grossly overestimated capital gains tax revenues by over 100 percent in most years between 1989-95. Finally, the fiscal year 1991 budget, issued before the 1990 budget summit at Andrews Air Force Base, contained a 5-year forecasting error of $1 trillion. Every Member of Congress relies on CBO's and the Joint Tax Committee's [JCT] projections in deciding how to vote on legislation. Quite simply, we cannot make good decisions if we do not have good data. These flawed calculations were made using a static economic model that assumes generally that Americans do not change their behavior, such as their spending habits and investment levels when Congress saddles them with higher taxes. The consistent level of inaccuracy in static economic analysis threatens our ability to both reduce the deficit and reduce the current unprecedented tax burden on the American public. The problem with static economic analysis is its failure to account for the impact that changes in the level of taxes, or the amount of Government spending, will have on the average citizen's behavior. Static estimates assume that the economy's overall performance is generally unaffected for the most part by changes in policy, regardless of how much individuals or businesses must pay in taxes. When we assume that Americans will not change their spending and investment patterns to avoid paying new taxes, we ignore human nature. People generally seek to maximize the value of their dollars and their paychecks. One well-known apostle of the static economic model; the current Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Laura Tyson, recently went so far to as to state that ``* * * there is no relationship between the levels of taxes a nation pays and its economic performance.'' Such an attitude is the equivalent of an ostrich hiding its head in the sand. Dynamic economic analysis is the principal tool used in private firms and most universities which make estimates and construct models for economic analysis for the private sector. One of the most successful economic models is the dynamic model used by Lawrence H. Meyers & Associates, an economic forecasting firm in St. Louis. Not only has this model received the Annual Blue Chip Economic Forecasting Award in 1993 and 1995, but Lawrence Meyers himself was recently appointed by President Clinton as a Governor to the Federal Reserve. By relying on static analyses, Congress is limited to a dangerously myopic and usually inaccurate view of how our laws and our actions affect the Nation. There is a formidable argument that static analysis has played an integral role in exploding our deficits. That is because static analysis often overestimates the Government's revenue from a tax increase and then relies on such overestimates as the basis for projecting decreases in the Federal deficits and the Nation's debt. As a result the projected revenues never materialize and annual deficits increase. This problem is compounded by the fact that static analysis also generally underestimates the actual cost to the Government of spending increases and thus contributes to even larger than expected budget deficits. Such inaccurate predictions of what programs will cost lead legislators to make bad decisions. This phenomenon helps explain why every dollar raised in higher taxes has traditionally resulted in $1.58 in new Government spending since 1947. By adding a more accurate method of analyzing fiscal proposals, Congress will have better information as it evaluates legislation. Adding dynamic scoring analysis will help us eliminate Congress' institutional bias toward higher taxes, increased spending, bigger deficits, and a ballooning national debt. Mr. President, I emphasize that this resolution does not seek to replace the current static analysis model. It merely states that dynamic estimating techniques should also be used, in addition to current techniques, in determining the fiscal impact of proposed changes in Federal revenue law. Under this resolution, the Joint Committee on Taxation [JCT] and the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] would prepare an estimate of each proposed change in Federal revenue law on the basis of assumptions that estimate the probable behavioral responses of individual and business taxpayers, and the macro-economic feedback effects of any proposed change. This requirement will only apply to changes in the law which would have an effect of $100 million or more. I want to note that this proposal is a companion measure to House Resolution 170, introduced by Representative Tom Campbell of California and to a similar proposal included in the 1997 legislative appropriations bill passed by the House. Tom Campbell has worked tirelessly to promote a pro-growth agenda. He has refused to sacrifice the standard of living of hard-working Americans on the altar of static economic analysis. Dynamic economic analyses of tax cut proposals would take into account the acknowledged growth effects of tax cuts on the American economy. In fact, these growth effects could be used in calculating the amount of spending cuts needed to offset a tax cut so that we accurately measure any reduction in revenue and do not increase the deficit. For example, using dynamic scoring for the payroll tax deduction I proposed--The Working Americans Wage Restoration Act S. 1741--the tax deduction would be budget neutral in the first year. In other words, the relief offered by the payroll tax deduction would generate enough new revenue by growing the economy, that the proposal would pay for itself. Here is how. Based on a preliminary analysis, the payroll tax deduction is projected to increase the Gross Domestic Product [GDP] by 0.5 percent annually. According to the Office of Management and Budget, a 0.5 percent rise in GDP would expand the tax base and increase Federal receipts by $30 billion per year--more than enough to pay for the payroll tax deduction in the first year. However, the Budget Act requirement that tax cuts be paid for by spending cuts would still apply. Dynamic analysis would simply allow lawmakers and the public to understand the growth effects and judge this proposal's--and other proposals'--worthiness accordingly. In calculating a tax cut's dynamic economic effects, the government would be more realistic in its view of how government economic policies affect the economy. Under the current system of static analysis, our budget forecasters produce skewed numbers causing Congress to make flawed decisions that drain the wallets of working Americans. This proposed resolution also opens up the congressional economic analysis process to much needed sunshine. Presently, we draft changes to the Federal Tax Code, submit these changes to the Joint Committee on Taxation for a revenue estimate and wait for the magic numbers to appear. It is time to bring sunshine into the black box of Federal forecasting. This resolution would do just that. Any report made by the JCT or the CBO that contains an estimate of revenue effects must be accompanied by a written statement fully disclosing the economic, technical, and behavioral assumptions that were made in producing both the static and the dynamic estimate. Last, under this joint resolution the JCT and the CBO may enter into contracts with universities or other private or public organizations to perform dynamic analysis or to develop protocols and models for making such estimates. By reforming the way we calculate the economic effects of congressional proposals, we pave the way for an overall lowering of the average American's tax burden by reducing the current forecasting method's prejudice against pro-growth policies. This resolution will simply provide more information to Members of Congress and the public so that Congress can better determine the benefits of proposed legislation. It will open up the budget forecasting process and permit more tools of measurement, so that over time we will have a clearer and more accurate understanding of the effects of the laws we pass.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the joint resolution I am introducing lays the groundwork for the progrowth economic agenda of the next millennium. Senator Abraham, Senator Craig, Senator Grams, and Senator Kyl have joined with me in offering this proposal. The method of analysis we now use to determine how much a tax cut costs the Government, or a tax hike costs the taxpayers, is hopelessly inaccurate. For example, the 1990 luxury tax increase took in $14 million less than the $31 million the Joint Tax Committee [JCT] predicted it would in fiscal year 1991. The 1986 Tax Reform Act lowered income tax rates while hiking capital gains taxes. The Congressional Budget Office at the time underestimated income tax revenues over the following 3 years by $56 billion and overestimated the 5-year take from capital gains tax revenues by $115 billion. It has also been established that the CBO grossly overestimated capital gains tax revenues by over 100 percent in most years between 1989-95. Finally, the fiscal year 1991 budget, issued before the 1990 budget summit at Andrews Air Force Base, contained a 5-year forecasting error of $1 trillion. Every Member of Congress relies on CBO's and the Joint Tax Committee's [JCT] projections in deciding how to vote on legislation. Quite simply, we cannot make good decisions if we do not have good data. These flawed calculations were made using a static economic model that assumes generally that Americans do not change their behavior, such as their spending habits and investment levels when Congress saddles them with higher taxes. The consistent level of inaccuracy in static economic analysis threatens our ability to both reduce the deficit and reduce the current unprecedented tax burden on the American public. The problem with static economic analysis is its failure to account for the impact that changes in the level of taxes, or the amount of Government spending, will have on the average citizen's behavior. Static estimates assume that the economy's overall performance is generally unaffected for the most part by changes in policy, regardless of how much individuals or businesses must pay in taxes. When we assume that Americans will not change their spending and investment patterns to avoid paying new taxes, we ignore human nature. People generally seek to maximize the value of their dollars and their paychecks. One well-known apostle of the static economic model; the current Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Laura Tyson, recently went so far to as to state that ``* * * there is no relationship between the levels of taxes a nation pays and its economic performance.'' Such an attitude is the equivalent of an ostrich hiding its head in the sand. Dynamic economic analysis is the principal tool used in private firms and most universities which make estimates and construct models for economic analysis for the private sector. One of the most successful economic models is the dynamic model used by Lawrence H. Meyers & Associates, an economic forecasting firm in St. Louis. Not only has this model received the Annual Blue Chip Economic Forecasting Award in 1993 and 1995, but Lawrence Meyers himself was recently appointed by President Clinton as a Governor to the Federal Reserve. By relying on static analyses, Congress is limited to a dangerously myopic and usually inaccurate view of how our laws and our actions affect the Nation. There is a formidable argument that static analysis has played an integral role in exploding our deficits. That is because static analysis often overestimates the Government's revenue from a tax increase and then relies on such overestimates as the basis for projecting decreases in the Federal deficits and the Nation's debt. As a result the projected revenues never materialize and annual deficits increase. This problem is compounded by the fact that static analysis also generally underestimates the actual cost to the Government of spending increases and thus contributes to even larger than expected budget deficits. Such inaccurate predictions of what programs will cost lead legislators to make bad decisions. This phenomenon helps explain why every dollar raised in higher taxes has traditionally resulted in $1.58 in new Government spending since 1947. By adding a more accurate method of analyzing fiscal proposals, Congress will have better information as it evaluates legislation. Adding dynamic scoring analysis will help us eliminate Congress' institutional bias toward higher taxes, increased spending, bigger deficits, and a ballooning national debt. Mr. President, I emphasize that this resolution does not seek to replace the current static analysis model. It merely states that dynamic estimating techniques should also be used, in addition to current techniques, in determining the fiscal impact of proposed changes in Federal revenue law. Under this resolution, the Joint Committee on Taxation [JCT] and the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] would prepare an estimate of each proposed change in Federal revenue law on the basis of assumptions that estimate the probable behavioral responses of individual and business taxpayers, and the macro-economic feedback effects of any proposed change. This requirement will only apply to changes in the law which would have an effect of $100 million or more. I want to note that this proposal is a companion measure to House Resolution 170, introduced by Representative Tom Campbell of California and to a similar proposal included in the 1997 legislative appropriations bill passed by the House. Tom Campbell has worked tirelessly to promote a pro-growth agenda. He has refused to sacrifice the standard of living of hard-working Americans on the altar of static economic analysis. Dynamic economic analyses of tax cut proposals would take into account the acknowledged growth effects of tax cuts on the American economy. In fact, these growth effects could be used in calculating the amount of spending cuts needed to offset a tax cut so that we accurately measure any reduction in revenue and do not increase the deficit. For example, using dynamic scoring for the payroll tax deduction I proposed--The Working Americans Wage Restoration Act S. 1741--the tax deduction would be budget neutral in the first year. In other words, the relief offered by the payroll tax deduction would generate enough new revenue by growing the economy, that the proposal would pay for itself. Here is how. Based on a preliminary analysis, the payroll tax deduction is projected to increase the Gross Domestic Product [GDP] by 0.5 percent annually. According to the Office of Management and Budget, a 0.5 percent rise in GDP would expand the tax base and increase Federal receipts by $30 billion per year--more than enough to pay for the payroll tax deduction in the first year. However, the Budget Act requirement that tax cuts be paid for by spending cuts would still apply. Dynamic analysis would simply allow lawmakers and the public to understand the growth effects and judge this proposal's--and other proposals'--worthiness accordingly. In calculating a tax cut's dynamic economic effects, the government would be more realistic in its view of how government economic policies affect the economy. Under the current system of static analysis, our budget forecasters produce skewed numbers causing Congress to make flawed decisions that drain the wallets of working Americans. This proposed resolution also opens up the congressional economic analysis process to much needed sunshine. Presently, we draft changes to the Federal Tax Code, submit these changes to the Joint Committee on Taxation for a revenue estimate and wait for the magic numbers to appear. It is time to bring sunshine into the black box of Federal forecasting. This resolution would do just that. Any report made by the JCT or the CBO that contains an estimate of revenue effects must be accompanied by a written statement fully disclosing the economic, technical, and behavioral assumptions that were made in producing both the static and the dynamic estimate. Last, under this joint resolution the JCT and the CBO may enter into contracts with universities or other private or public organizations to perform dynamic analysis or to develop protocols and models for making such estimates. By reforming the way we calculate the economic effects of congressional proposals, we pave the way for an overall lowering of the average American's tax burden by reducing the current forecasting method's prejudice against pro-growth policies. This resolution will simply provide more information to Members of Congress and the public so that Congress can better determine the benefits of proposed legislation. It will open up the budget forecasting process and permit more tools of measurement, so that over time we will have a clearer and more accurate understanding of the effects of the laws we pass.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am happy to have the time reduced to 4 minutes on the amendment. But I think it is important that we have the votes.