A bill to require 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.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of new legislation to help an essential part of our health care safety net--our Nation's health centers--serve the uninsured and medically- underserved.

The Building Better Health Centers Act will promote health centers' mission of providing care to anyone who needs it by getting rid of an artificial distinction existing in current law. Right now, federal grant dollars to health centers can be used for most things a health center needs to do--including salaries, supplies, and basic upkeep. But federal grants to health centers cannot be used for one of the most critical and expensive needs a health center, or any business or nonprofit organizations, will ever face--capital improvements.

Unless we correct this silly distinction, many of our health centers are destined to be shackled to slowly deteriorating facilities. Over time, this will sap their ability to provide care. If we are serious about maximizing health centers' ability to deal with our health care access needs, we must allow Federal grant dollars to be used to meet our health centers' capital needs.

I've been down here on the Senate floor many times to talk about health centers, but let me cover the basics once again. Health centers--which include community health centers, migrant health centers, homeless health centers, and public housing health centers-- address the health care access problem by providing primary care service in thousands of rural and urban medically-underserved communities throughout the United States.

And as we all know, the health care access problem remains a serious issue in our country. Many health care experts believe that Americans' lack of access to basic health services is our single most pressing health care problem. Nearly 50 million Americans do not have access to a primary care provider, whether they are insured or not. In addition, over 41 million Americans lack health insurance and have difficulty accessing care due to the inability to pay.

Health centers help fill part of this void. More than 3,400 health center clinics nationwide provide basic health care services to more than 12 million Americans, almost 8 million minorities, nearly 850,000 farmworkers, and almost 750,000 homeless individuals each year. The care they provide has been repeatedly shown by studies to be high- quality and cost-effective. In fact, health centers are one of the best health care bargains around--the average yearly cost for a health center patient is just over one dollar per day.

I believe that one of the most effective ways to address our health care access problem is by dramatically expanding access to health centers. And I am pleased to report a strong consensus is developing to do exactly that. The Senate has voted in support of a proposal I have made with Sen. Hollings to double access to health centers by doubling funding over a five-year period. In addition, President Bush has proposed that we double the number of people that health centers care in the years ahead.

But over the next few years, as we hopefully see additional resources flow to health centers, we will increasingly encounter problems that stem from an artificial distinction we see in current law. As I mentioned, Federal health center grants are currently allowed to be used for most purposes--including salaries for health professionals and administrators, medical supplies, basic upkeep of clinic facilities, even lease payments if the health center rents. But they simply cannot be used for capital improvements.

This means that unless health centers can find some other way to finance their capital needs--and I will talk in a moment about the significant barriers they face in doing this--major projects that could provide substantial benefit to patients will never happen.

It means that an urban community health center that has been slowly expanding staff and services over many years until it's bursting at the seams of its modest two-story building will have to continue to find ways to cope, even if that prevents additionally-needed expansion or even if upkeep costs on the old building begin to spiral out-of- control.

It means that a rural community health center in an area desperately in need of dental services may not be able to expand the facility and purchase dental chairs, X-ray machines and other major dental equipment needed for the desired expansion into dental services.

It means that even if Federal Government is willing to commit grant funds to open a new health center in one of the hundreds of underserved communities nationwide which lacks any health care professionals for miles around, the new center may never come to be due to lack of funding for a facility in which to house it.

This is more than theory--the evidence shows that many existing health centers operate in facilities that desperately need renovation or modernization. Approximately one of every three health centers reside in a building more than 30 years old, and one of every eight operate out of a facility more than half a century old.

Moreover, a recent survey of health centers in 12 states showed that more than two-thirds of health centers had a specifically-identified need to renovate, expand, or replace their current facility. The average cost of a needed capital project was $1.8 million, and the needs ranged from ``small'' projects of $400,000 to major $5 million efforts. The survey demonstrates that there may be as much as $1.2 billion in unmet capital needs in our nation's health centers.

And that is just for existing health centers. As I mentioned, hundreds of

medically-underserved areas lack--and could desperately use--the services of a health center. This further shows the need for new facilities--and more capital--as we expand access to new communities.

So what about possible sources of capital? There are plenty of ways-- in theory--that health centers might be able to get money for capital improvements. Businesses--large and small--do it all the time. So do other nonprofit organizations like universities and hospitals. They use built-up equity. They take out loans. They float bonds. They raise money through private donations as part of a capital campaign.

But unfortunately, health centers just aren't quite like most other businesses or nonprofits, and many times these options are unrealistic as a way to provide the entire cost of a major project.

Health centers simply don't have loads of cash in the bank. The revenue these clinics are able to cobble together from federal grants, low-income patients, Medicaid, private donations, and other health insurers is typically all put back into to patient care.

Health centers already work hard to maximize the money they can raise through private donations and non-Federal grant sources. In fact, an average of 9 percent of health center revenue comes from these sources. Most of this private and public funding is used to meet operating expenses, and it is difficult to go back to the same sources to request further donations for capital needs. In fundraising, health centers also face a huge disadvantage compared to nonprofit organizations like universities and hospitals because health centers lack a natural middle- and upper-class donor base. And raising private funds is particularly hard in isolated rural areas that are often quite poor and which can have the most dire health care access problems.

Finally, health centers have difficulties obtaining private loans for capital needs for a variety of reasons. The high number of uninsured patients health centers treat and the poor reimbursement rates received from most Medicaid programs mean health centers rarely have significant operating margins. Without these margins, banks are leery about loans because they don't feel assured that a health center will have sufficient cash flow to successfully manage loan payments. Banks are made even more nervous by the high proportion of health center revenue that comes from sometimes-unreliable government sources--such as the health centers' grant funding and Medicine and Medicaid reimbursements.

So what should we do? This isn't exactly rocket science. We have a need--many health centers require significant help to build or maintain adequate facilities because they can't raise the money or obtain the loans themselves. And we have an existing law that prevents the federal government from using health center funding to do exactly that.

We simply need to get rid of the artificial distinction we have right now and allow our health center grant dollars to go to further the health center mission in the best way possible--and that is going to mean at times that we should support some new construction or major renovation projects. If a crumbling building is constantly in need of repair, is soaking up money, and is reducing the number of patients a health center can reach out to, the Federal Government should help with the major renovation or the new construction needed.

The Building Better Health Centers Act authorizes the Federal Government to make grants to health centers for facility construction, modernization, replacement, and major equipment purchases. If our goal is to help health centers provide high-quality care to as many uninsured and medically-underserved people as possible, we need to get rid of barriers to doing that, including capital barriers.

Behond just the possibility of grant funding, the bill goes further and permits the Federal Government to guarantee loans made by a bank or another private lender to a health center to construct, replace, modernize, or expand a health center facility. This loan guarantee is an additional tool that will help allay the fears of banks and other private lenders by limiting their exposure if a health center defaults on a loan. An additional advantage of loan guarantees is that you can stretch funds farther. When guaranteeing a $1 million loan, the Federal Government need only set aside a much smaller amount of appropriated money--perhaps only a twelfth to a tenth of the loan total--to insure against that loan's possible default. This multiplier factor means that for every dollar appropriated for this purpose, many dollars worth of loans can be guaranteed.

There is actually tremendous potential for these two new options--the facility grants and the facility loan guarantees--to work together. Sharing in up-front costs through grant funding, and helping further by guaranteeing a loan that covers the remainder of a project's cost may well be the best approach. This will balance the need to make sure specific projects get enough grant funding to make them realistic and the need to spread capital assistance among as many projects as possible.

Let my try to respond in advance to a few potential criticism of this legislation. First, to those who simply think on principle that the government should stay out of private-sector bricks and mortar projects, I would say we're already at least halfway pregnant. In just about every appropriations bill, we have dozens if not hundreds of specific projects earmarked for major building or renovation projects.

Some might worry that the potential large costs of construction projects could get out of hand and squeeze out funding actually used for patient care. But let me point out that we limit capital assistance to five percent of all health center funding. Based on this year's funding level, this would mean up to $75 million for facility grants and loan guarantees. Because the loan guarantee program would allow some of this money to be stretched, this level of support could easily mean help for more than $200 million in health center capital projects. But the main point is that capital projects are absolutely limited to five-percent of health center funding, which prevents any possible runaway spending.

Finally, we should ask ourselves whether or not Federal assistance is going to give a free pass to communities, which really should be expected to help out with public-minded projects like the construction or renovation of a health center. In my bill, local communities are expected to help. No more than 90 percent of the total costs of a major project can come from Federal sources--and this is the absolute upper limit. Much more likely are evenly-shared costs or situations in which federal support represents a minority of the capital investment. This bill does not give local areas a free ride.

The quick rationale for this bill is simple. Many health centers are hampered in their efforts to provide health care to the medically- underserved by inadequate facilities. It doesn't make sense to help these vital community clinics only with day-to-day expenses if their building is literally crumbling around them.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to aggressively help our nation's health centers meet their dire capital needs by making this bill law.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Testing Act of 2003. This legislation is the continuation of work I did while in the House of Representatives to rein in the undeserved privileges that are currently given to Federal prisoners.

Today's criminal justice system is failing, partly because of what happens, or more specifically, doesn't happen, once convicted criminals arrive in prison. What prisoners are doing is watching cable television, getting high on drugs, lifting weights, and learning to be better criminals. What they are not doing is working and paying back their victims. That's not justice.

The purpose of the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Testing Act is to help establish a Federal prison system that provides discipline and rehabilitation for our Nation's prisoners and requires that they make restitution to their victims.

First, this legislation requires that all Federal prison inmates have a 50-hour work week. Job training, educational and life skills preparation study will also be mandated under this provision. Current federal law does not mandate a minimum work week for the 100,000 inmates in the Federal prison system. Sadly, the average workday for a prisoner in the United States is 6.8 hours. This is absolutely unacceptable. American taxpayers should not have to work full-time to provide rest and relaxation for our nation's prisoners.

Federal prisoners would be paid for the work they do, but their pay would be divided and dispersed in the following manner: 25 percent would offset the cost of prisoner incarceration, 25 percent would go to victim restitution, 25 percent would be made available to the inmate for necessary costs of incarceration, 10 percent would be placed in a non-interest bearing account to be paid to the inmate upon release, and the remaining 15 percent would go to states and local jurisdictions that operate correctional facilities which have similar programs.

Second, this legislation requires the Bureau of Prisons to establish a zero-tolerance policy for the use or possession of illegal contraband. A drug-free environment is essential to any hopes of rehabilitation for our federal prison inmates. Under these provisions, inmates would be subject to random searches and inspections for drugs not less than 12 times each year. Federal prisons would be required to offer residential drug treatment for all inmates. And finally, any employee hired to work in a federal prison would undergo a mandatory drug test, and all employees would be subject to random testing at least twice each year.

I understand that many State and local prisons would also be interested in starting programs to get a drug-free prison, and for that reason have included a new grant program. Any State or unit of local government may apply for grants if they meet the same drug-testing requirements that are mandated for federal prisons under this legislation.

Third, the Mandatory Prisoner Work and Drug Treatment Act includes a requirement that all inmates in the Federal prison system participate in a boot camp for not less than four weeks. This boot camp program would include strict discipline, physical training, and hard labor to deter crime and promote successful integration or reintegration of the offender into the prison community. Those prisoners that choose not to participate or are physically unable to participate are required to be confined to their cells for not less than 23 hours per day during the duration that they would otherwise be spending in this program and be allowed only those privileges that are granted under Federal law.

These boot camps work. In fact, the Federal Bureau of Prisons already supports two such programs, one for men and one for women. These programs place inmates in highly structured, spartan environments where they undergo physical training and labor-intensive work assignments, coupled

with education and vocational training, substance abuse treatment, and life skills programs. They focus on promoting positive changes in inmates' behavior, including responsible decision-making, self- direction and positive self-image. In fact, boot camps have worked so well that over 30 states now have them in place.

Finally, this legislation will further restrict inmates' activities and possessions. Under this legislation inmates would not be allowed to possess or smoke tobacco, view or read pornographic or sexually explicit material, or view cable television that is not educational in nature. Inmates would not be allowed to possess microwave ovens, hot plates, toaster ovens, televisions, or VCRs. They would not be allowed to listen to music that contains lyrics that are violent, vulgar, sexually explicit, glamorize gang membership or activities, demean women, or disrespect law enforcement. We have to remember that these individuals are in Federal prison to be punished for a crime they committed. There is no reason for inmates to be given the same, or better, privileges than law-abiding citizens have. No one can tell me that an inmate has to have cable television when many law-abiding, taxpaying families cannot afford such a perk.

We need to work to ensure that our nation's criminals understand the gravity of the crimes they committed. I understand that many of our nation's jails and prisons use activities like weight lifting as rewards for their inmates. My legislation does not restrict that kind of activity. This legislation simply states that it is no longer acceptable for our nation's inmates to leisurely go about their day instead of working to pay for the crimes they committed. It is time that our government send a clear message to the victims of these crimes that these criminals will pay, and that restitution, to the maximum extent possible, will be made.

Quite simply, we need to stop the revolving doors of our prison system. A study released in June, 2002, by the U.S. Department of Justice found that among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5 percent were rearrested within three years. It is my hope that if Federal prisoners were required to work and given drug treatment, instead of perks like cable television and weight training time, these individuals would be deterred from committing another crime and returning to prison.

I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation and help me in getting it passed this year.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to instruct the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office to employ dynamic scoring models, alongside static scoring when estimating the fiscal effect of tax policy changes.

For too long, Congress has debated tax changes without considering how those changes might affect the economy.

The current method, static scoring, assumes tax cuts or tax hikes have no effect on how taxpayers work, save and invest their money. Not surprisingly, experience shows this assumption is completely off-base. The idea that tax relief and investment incentives strengthen our economy is not new to the 21st Century.

On April 15, 1986, President Reagan talked about the positive effect of tax relief on economic growth. He stated:

Whatever you want to call it, supply side economics or

incentive economics . . . it's launching the American economy

into a new era of growth and opportunity . . . Our basic

ingredients for a tax package have not changed: tax rate

reductions, thresholds high enough so hard-working Americans

aren't pushed relentlessly into higher brackets, some long-

overdue tax relief for America's families, and investment

incentives for business. . .

What President Reagan stated so eloquently in 1986 holds true today. Economic growth is more easily achieved in an atmosphere where more Americans are able to save and invest their money. Tax relief provides economic growth, and when we draft legislation, we should understand not just the cost of tax relief to the Federal budget, but also the benefits that tax relief provides to the economy and the long-term increase in revenues to the federal government that tax relief can provide.

The current static estimates that we use imply that tax policy changes have no effect on our economy, never produce higher or lower revenues and never cause resources to shift within our federal budget. This is simply incorrect. Tax policy changes can have a huge impact on our economy.

The belief that tax policy changes directly impact our economy is not just a Republican ideal.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy remarked:

It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in

power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an

economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce

enough jobs or enough profits.

Tax relief provides jobs and profits, no matter who is in the White House and no matter who holds the majority in Congress. It is time that Congress looks at the real world implications of our tax policy before we decide the overall cost and how much relief we can afford to give to American families.

The debate on dynamic versus static scoring may sound like an inside- the-Beltway squabble, but as I have said today, the decision on how to estimate revenues does have important real world implications.

For example, better revenue estimating methods would make it easier to implement tax rate reductions. This would put more money into the pockets of taxpayers, which would have a very real positive affect on our economy.

Another example, shifting to a more simple, fair tax code would be less difficult if revenue estimators were allowed to consider the positive impact of tax reform on economic performance. Clearly a simplified tax code would affect each and every tax paying American.

American families face the challenge of paying their tax burden; providing food, clothing and shelter for their children; and must work even harder to have money leftover so they can afford to pay their medical bills, enjoy a family vacation, save for education costs, or put money away for retirement.

We know that when government takes money away from working families, it stifles growth. We also know that when the government gives money back to the working families that earned it, we encourage growth.

I should clarify that this legislation does not negate the Congress' use of the currently used static scoring model. This bill simply directs OMB and the Joint Tax Committee to use both static and dynamic scoring.

This will create a system that will allow Congress a slide-by-slide analysis of both scoring methods. In a Washington Post editorial on January 31, it was suggested that dynamic scoring could be useful as a way to present tax or spending policies as an additional alternative scenario. The editorial states that it would do no harm to the traditional way that CBO goes about its job to set up a dual scoring method. This is not, as some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested, ``fantasyland scoring.''

By using both static and dynamic scoring methods, Mr. President, through time we will all understand which approach is more realistic, and only then, I believe, can we then confidently do away with the antiquated, unrealistic static model we use today.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the COPS program through 2009.

Since September 11, our local police have been asked to do more for their communities than ever before. Walk the beat. Be on guard against terrorists. Secure critical infrastructures. And gather intelligence on future terrorist acts when possible. Washington has a role in securing the homeland, but the burdens fall heaviest on our local communities.

There are more than 700,000 police officers and sheriffs in the country, compared with nearly 11,000 FBI agents. It is our local police chiefs and sheriffs who are called upon more and more to protect us against the new threats from abroad. We had a sobering reminder this week. As President Bush braced the Nation for war in Iraq, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge ratcheted our alert level back up to orange and called all 50 governors to request that they provide an increased police presence at airports.

Our mayors and police chiefs are hurting. Local budgets are incredibly tight--some communities have been forced to lay officers off, or to consider freeing criminals before their sentences are up, to cut costs. Even before 9/11, it was clear that the crime drop of the nineties was coming to a close. Last winter, the FBI reported that crime jumped for the second straight year. The FBI has had to necessarily refocus its resources. Recently, the Washington Post reported that the FBI has plans to ``mobilize as many as 5,000 agents to guard against terrorist attacks'' during hostilities with Iraq. The FBI's criminal surveillance operations ``would be temporarily suspended.'' Local police will be called upon to pick up the slack once the FBI is forced to pull almost half of its agents out of traditional crime-fighting work.

The fight to secure our streets does not end with preventing terrorism. Crime is up again. The newest figures tell us the historic crime drop the nation experienced during the 1990s is over. Property crimes--offenses that tend to jump in a week economy--are rising particularly fast. The FBI recently reported a 4 percent hike in burglaries and motor vehicle thefts last year alone. Where fighting violent crime and bank robberies used to be among the FBI's highest priorities, the FBI is now focused on counter- terrorism efforts. Increasingly, local police departments, statewide crimefighting task forces and drug-fighting projects are being told by the Bush administration that they are on their own when it comes to fighting crime.

What's worse, all of this is happening during a time of unprecedented economic hardship in our cities and States. States are facing dramatic budgetary shortfalls. A new report finds that budget gaps for State governments soared by nearly 50 percent in the past three months and state legislatures face a minimum $68.5 billion budget shortfall for the coming fiscal year. Mayors nationwide report that cities spent $2.6 billion through the end of last year on new security costs.

The response of the administration to these concerns has been disappointing. This year, for the second budget cycle in a row, the President proposes to eliminate the COPS hiring program. COPS is the only initiative in the entire Federal Government that targets its resources directly towards police. There is no middleman. There is very little red tape. Police chiefs report they have never worked with such a responsive, effective Federal program. And yet the administration wants to shut it down.

Since we created COPS as part of the 1994 Crime Bill, the program has awarded grants to hire and redeploy 117,000 police officers to the streets. 87,300 are on the beat. In the most recent year of hiring grants, 2002, 4,400 officers were hired or redeployed.

The President's budget gives several justifications for shutting down COPS. First, the administration claims the program doesn't work, that it hasn't cut crime. That is a curious assertion. Crime dropped for seven straight years after COPS resources began to be put to use in cities and towns. There was a 28 percent drop in crime from 1994 to 2000.

Two studies support the assertion that COPS grants help cut crime. One, released just this past November by the American Society of Criminology, found that COPS hiring grants have ``resulted in significant reductions in local crime rates.'' In 2000, the urban Institute concluded that COPS has had a ``broad national impact'' on the levels and styles of policing, and that it provided ``significant support for the adoption of community policing around the country.''

It's not just criminologists and think tanks who agree with me that COPS works. Leading law enforcement officials share the view. Last year, our friend and former colleague Attorney General Ashcroft called COPS a ``miraculous sort of success.'' He said, ``it's one of those things that Congress hopes will happen when it sets up a program.'' At a conference last July, the Attorney General endorsed the theory that COPS cuts crime. ``Since law enforcement agencies began partnering with citizens through community policing, we've seen significant drops in crime rates,'' he noted.

The administration offers a second reason for wanting to eliminate COPS: The disparity between ``officers hired'' and ``officers funded''. Because COPS has funded 117,000 cops, but only 87,000 are on the street, the President argues, the program is not accountable. That assertion overlooks the operations of the Office of community Policing Services. Few Federal programs operate with as much oversight and internal review as does COPS. The disparity that seems to so concern the Administration is simple to explain: It takes time to hire a new cop. Once COPS awards a hiring grant, it can take anywhere from six to eighteen months to find, hire, train and deploy the new officer. There is no accounting problem. It is good public policy for police departments to take the appropriate amount of time to find suitable candidates for new community policing positions, and this discrepancy between officers funded and officers hired is the result.

Post 9/11, COPS is about much more than fighting crime. It's about homeland security. The Attorney General again said it best last July when he noted that ``COPS provides resources that reflect our national priority of terrorism prevention.'' The new assistant director at the FBI in charge of coordinating with local law enforcement agreed: ``The FBI fully understands that our success in the fight against terrorism is directly related to the strength of our relationship with our State and local partners.'' These aren't my words. They're the words of the top cops.

COPS does not just hire new officers. It requires these officers to practice community policing. Community policing is a philosophy that gives more power to line officers. They get assigned to fixed geographic areas. This decision-making power and neighborhood familiarity can be invaluable in a crisis, when relationships with community residents and the ability to make quick decisions is critical. Community relationships that come from COPS can also help unearth intelligence about potential terrorist actions.

By taking cops out of their cars and having them walk the streets, police

officers get to know the residents of the neighborhood where they're assigned. This has proven extremely effective at building trust and partnership between local police and the residents they protect. Community residents consistently sing the praises of community policing. It pays dividends by creating a climate in which neighborhood residents partner with police, not only providing police with valuable information about criminal activity in their neighborhood, but restoring overall confidence in the criminal justice system.

We need to continue the COPS program. The Justice Department reports that for the past several grant-making cycles, demand for new police hiring grants has outstripped available funds by a factor of almost three to one. To meet this need, the legislation I introduce today authorizes $600 million per year over the next 6 years, enough to hire up to 50,000 more officers. We have made this portion of the program more flexible: up to half of these hiring dollars can be used to help police departments retain those community police officers currently on payroll. In another change from current law, a portion of these funds can be used for officer training and education.

We make a key change to the current COPS program in the bill I introduce today. In response to the needs of first responders across the country, the bill authorizes a new, permanent COPS Overtime Program. This initiative, funded at up to $150 million per year for 6 years, will help ease the homeland security burdens faced by police departments across the country by reimbursing local police departments for the homeland security overtime expenses they incur. I was pleased that the Appropriations Committee included a 1-year, $60 million version of this program in the recently-passed omnibus appropriations bill. The permanent COPS Overtime Program in this bill builds on that appropriations provision.

The legislation also provides funding for new technologies, so law enforcement can have access to the latest high-tech crime fighting equipment to keep pace with today's sophisticated criminals. Also included are funds to help local district attorneys hire more community prosecutors. These prosecutors will expand the community justice concept and engage the entire community in preventing and fighting crime. The statistics we have on community prosecutions are quite promising, and we should increase the funds available to local prosecutors, a piece of our criminal justice puzzle that has too often gone overlooked.

I would like to thank the men and women of law enforcement for their service and heroism during these difficult times. They are up to the challenge, but we should support them any way we can. The bill I introduced today gives local police the support they deserve. I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue the COPS program.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to clarify and enhance the charitable contribution tax deduction for donations of excess book inventory for educational purposes. This proposal would simplify a complex area of the current law and eliminate significant roadblocks that now stand in the way of businesses with excess book inventory to donating those books to schools, libraries, and literacy programs, where they are much needed.

Unfortunately, our current tax law contains a major flaw when it comes to the donation of books that are excess inventory for publishers or booksellers. The tax benefits for donating such books to schools or libraries are often no greater than those of sending the books to the landfill. And, since it is generally cheaper and faster for a company to simply send the books to the dump, rather than go through the trouble and cost of finding donees, and of packing, storing, and shipping the books, it often ends up being more cost effective and easier for companies to truck the books to a landfill or recycling center.

While there are provisions in the current law where a larger deduction is available for the donation of excess books, many companies have found that the complexity and uncertainty of dealing with the requirements, regulations, and possible Internal Revenue Service challenges of the higher deduction serve as a real disincentive to making a contribution.

This is a sad situation, when one considers that many, if not most, of these books would be warmly welcomed by schools, libraries, and literacy programs.

The heart of the problem is that under the current law, the higher deduction requires that the donated books be used only for the care of the needy, the sick, or infants. This requirement makes it difficult for schools to qualify as donees and also frequently prohibits libraries and adult literacy programs from receiving such deductions. This is because these schools, libraries, and literacy programs often serve those who are not needy or are over the age of 18. Further complicating the issue, the valuation of donated book inventory has been the subject of ongoing disputes between taxpayers and the IRS. The tax code should not contain obstacles that provide disincentives to charitable donations of books that can enhance learning.

The bill I am introducing today addresses the obstacles of donating excess book inventory by providing a simple and clear rule whereby any donation of book inventory to a qualified school, library, or literacy program is eligible for the enhanced deduction. This means that booksellers and publishers would receive a higher tax benefit for donating the books rather than throwing them away and would thus be encouraged to go to the extra trouble and expense of seeking out qualified donees and making the contributions.

My home State of Utah, like the rest of the Nation, has a problem with illiteracy. According to the National Institute for Literacy, between 21 and 23 percent of the adult population of the United States, about 44 million people, are only at Level 1 literacy, meaning they can read a little but not well enough to fill out an application, read a food label, or read a simple story to a child. Another 25 to 28 percent of the adult population, or between 45 and 50 million people, are estimated to be at Level 2 literacy, meaning they can usually can perform more complex tasks such as comparing, contrasting, or integrating pieces of information but usually not higher level reading and problem-solving skills. Literacy experts tell us that adults with skills at Levels 1 and 2 lack a sufficient foundation of basic skills to function successfully in our society.

While this bill is not a cure-all for the tragedy of illiteracy, it will increase access to books, both for adults and for children. Our tax code should not encourage the destruction of perfectly good books while schools, libraries, and literacy programs go begging for them.

The Senate is already on record in unanimous support of this bill. During the floor debate on the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, I offered this proposal as an amendment, which was accepted without opposition. Unfortunately, the provision was dropped in the conference with the House. Moreover, the Finance Committee has also approved this provision, having included it in S. 476, the CARE Act, which is currently pending on the Senate calendar.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this provision would decrease revenues to the Treasury by $283 million over a ten-year period. This estimate helps demonstrate the extent of the value of the books that are currently being discarded that could be utilized to help America's adults and children.

I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this bill. It is wrong for our tax code to encourage book publishers to send books to the landfill instead of to the library. Let's correct this problem.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to instruct the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office to employ dynamic scoring models, alongside static scoring when estimating the fiscal effect of tax policy changes.

For too long, Congress has debated tax changes without considering how those changes might affect the economy.

The current method, static scoring, assumes tax cuts or tax hikes have no effect on how taxpayers work, save and invest their money. Not surprisingly, experience shows this assumption is completely off-base. The idea that tax relief and investment incentives strengthen our economy is not new to the 21st Century.

On April 15, 1986, President Reagan talked about the positive effect of tax relief on economic growth. He stated:

Whatever you want to call it, supply side economics or

incentive economics . . . it's launching the American economy

into a new era of growth and opportunity . . . Our basic

ingredients for a tax package have not changed: tax rate

reductions, thresholds high enough so hard-working Americans

aren't pushed relentlessly into higher brackets, some long-

overdue tax relief for America's families, and investment

incentives for business. . .

What President Reagan stated so eloquently in 1986 holds true today. Economic growth is more easily achieved in an atmosphere where more Americans are able to save and invest their money. Tax relief provides economic growth, and when we draft legislation, we should understand not just the cost of tax relief to the Federal budget, but also the benefits that tax relief provides to the economy and the long-term increase in revenues to the federal government that tax relief can provide.

The current static estimates that we use imply that tax policy changes have no effect on our economy, never produce higher or lower revenues and never cause resources to shift within our federal budget. This is simply incorrect. Tax policy changes can have a huge impact on our economy.

The belief that tax policy changes directly impact our economy is not just a Republican ideal.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy remarked:

It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in

power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an

economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce

enough jobs or enough profits.

Tax relief provides jobs and profits, no matter who is in the White House and no matter who holds the majority in Congress. It is time that Congress looks at the real world implications of our tax policy before we decide the overall cost and how much relief we can afford to give to American families.

The debate on dynamic versus static scoring may sound like an inside- the-Beltway squabble, but as I have said today, the decision on how to estimate revenues does have important real world implications.

For example, better revenue estimating methods would make it easier to implement tax rate reductions. This would put more money into the pockets of taxpayers, which would have a very real positive affect on our economy.

Another example, shifting to a more simple, fair tax code would be less difficult if revenue estimators were allowed to consider the positive impact of tax reform on economic performance. Clearly a simplified tax code would affect each and every tax paying American.

American families face the challenge of paying their tax burden; providing food, clothing and shelter for their children; and must work even harder to have money leftover so they can afford to pay their medical bills, enjoy a family vacation, save for education costs, or put money away for retirement.

We know that when government takes money away from working families, it stifles growth. We also know that when the government gives money back to the working families that earned it, we encourage growth.

I should clarify that this legislation does not negate the Congress' use of the currently used static scoring model. This bill simply directs OMB and the Joint Tax Committee to use both static and dynamic scoring.

This will create a system that will allow Congress a slide-by-slide analysis of both scoring methods. In a Washington Post editorial on January 31, it was suggested that dynamic scoring could be useful as a way to present tax or spending policies as an additional alternative scenario. The editorial states that it would do no harm to the traditional way that CBO goes about its job to set up a dual scoring method. This is not, as some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested, ``fantasyland scoring.''

By using both static and dynamic scoring methods, Mr. President, through time we will all understand which approach is more realistic, and only then, I believe, can we then confidently do away with the antiquated, unrealistic static model we use today.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.