[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 112 (Friday, July 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8991-S8993]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 1996. A bill to amend the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994 to allow certain grant funds to be used to 
provide parent education; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                    The Healthy Families Act of 1996

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to offer a bill that I believe 
represents an important step forward in the fight against child abuse 
and crime.
  This legislation will make healthy families programs eligible for 
funding under the local crime prevention block grant, in the 1994 crime 
law. Essentially, this bill would add the healthy families program to 
the list of prevention programs eligible for funding under the block 
grant.
  The link between child abuse and later involvement in violence and 
crime is becoming ever more clear. According to a 1992 Justice 
Department report, 68 percent of youths arrested had a prior history of 
abuse and neglect, and abused girls were 77 percent more likely than 
nonabused girls to be arrested as juveniles.
  The healthy families initiative has proven to be very successful in 
combating this cycle of violence. The program was pioneered in Hawaii 
in the 1980's. According to the Hawaii Department of Health, 2,254 at-
risk families received healthy families services over a 5-year period. 
Out of that total, abuse was reported in only 16 families. This success 
shows that the program was able to prevent abuse in 99.3 percent of at-
risk families in Hawaii.
  The success of this program is based on the voluntary, comprehensive, 
and culturally appropriate home visitor systems. These systems provide 
parenting education that focuses on parenting skills, child 
development, child health, and support services for new parents, in 
order to prevent or decrease the risk of child abuse.
  As a result of this success, the program has now spread to other 
communities throughout the United States. The money which would be 
provided under the block grant, would help other communities create 
these greatly needed healthy families programs.
  Spending money on child-abuse prevention is a sound investment. Not 
only will it create future savings in the judiciary system and other 
social services, but even more importantly it's an investment in the 
lives of our children.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
legislation I am introducing today appear in the Record.
  The being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1996

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PARENT EDUCATION SYSTEM.

       Section 30201(a)(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(O) Voluntary, comprehensive, and culturally-appropriate 
     home visitor systems that provide parenting education that 
     focuses on parenting skills, child development, child health, 
     and support services for new parents to prevent or decrease 
     the risk of child abuse. To avoid duplication of services, a 
     system developed pursuant to this paragraph shall be 
     coordinated with other organizations that provide services to 
     children, particularly infants.''.
      By Mr. SIMON:

  S. 1997. A bill to clarify certain matters relating to Presidential 
succession; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.


             the Presidential Succession Clarification Act

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, today I introduce the Presidential 
Succession Clarification Act.
  Much has been said and written about the laws of succession following 
the death of a sitting President. In general, these laws clearly and 
precisely provide for the transfer of Presidential power.
  The laws of succession, however, do not adequately address the 
possibility that a Presidential candidate might die during the voting 
period itself--by that I mean during the period beginning roughly with 
the popular election in mid-November and ending with the formal naming 
of the President-elect in early January.
  A candidate's death during this 2-month period could seriously 
disrupt the voting process and raise doubts about the election results. 
The seriousness of these problems would depend on the precise point in 
time at which the death occurred. A hearing that was held in the 103d 
Congress on this subject highlighted the various scenarios in which 
legal ambiguities could lead to electoral crises.
  Broadly speaking, the act, which I introduced in the last Congress, 
addresses three distinct situations:
  First, let us suppose that a Presidential candidate dies after the 
electoral delegates have cast their votes but before those votes are 
counted. If the deceased would have won the election, who is now 
President elect? Scholars disagree on the answer.
  Second, suppose that a major party candidate dies immediately before 
the popular election, or immediately prior to the time that the 
electoral college delegates vote. Would it not make sense to give the 
voters a couple of weeks to adjust to this unsettled situation?
  Third, suppose that no candidate wins a majority of the electoral 
votes, and that the election is thrown into the House of 
Representatives as a result. If one of the candidates should die at 
this point, is the House permitted to consider an alternative 
candidate?
  The act provides answers for each of these, admittedly complex, 
questions. None of these scenarios, of course, is likely to occur 
during any election cycle. But any one of them could lead to confusion 
and uncertainty at a time when clarity and stability would be vital. 
Prudence dictates that we should act now, while we have the time for 
calm reflection, rather than wait for a possible crisis to catch us 
unprepared.
       By Mr. ASHCROFT:

  S.J. Res. 57. A joint resolution requiring the Congressional Budget 
Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation to use dynamic economic 
modeling in addition to static economic modeling in the preparation of 
budgetary estimates of proposed changes in Federal revenue law.


                Growth Economic Agenda Joint Resolution

  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.

[[Page S8992]]

  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

[[Page S8993]]

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.

                          ____________________