Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. There is nothing wrong with politics that a few good people working with their constituents cannot fix. And honest to goodness, we have changed the debate in this country, and I am committed now more than ever to reforming the government. I believe it is possible now more than ever, because we have changed the whole debate of what is going on in Washington within a 6-month period. To follow will be substantive changes in the law, but things do not happen overnight. We are well on our way. The number one comment I get in my district in South Carolina is, ``Do not turn back. Do not give up.''

Mr. GRAHAM. The Democrat Party spent as much as I did in PAC money, but the Democrat candidates have traditionally outspent Republican candidates 5 and 6 to one. I am and I was competitive. I want to change the rules of my game, but I am not going to take my helmet off when I play football until everybody in the circumstances takes their helmet off. I believe our class is willing to put the measures forward to vote on this floor and that we will win, but do not be too hard on us because we are unwilling to play by a different set of rules when the people who have run this place for 40 years will not.

Mr. GRAHAM. And no more gifts, I think people will respond in a positive fashion and accept the other changes we are asking them to do in their daily lives. There is nothing wrong with politics that cannot be fixed. The only way we are going to win this war is for the people to stay involved and insist on change. And watch what we do when we vote, not just what we say up here talking; follow our voting records, follow what bills we sponsor. I take PAC money right now because I am the first Republican in 120 years to get elected from my district.

Mr. GRAHAM. The question is what makes us different. Rhetoric abounds in politics, but the public is not going to be satisfied until they see substantive changes. We have talked about concepts that are long overdue for change, but one thing we have to prove to the American people is that we are willing to change the way we serve, the length of time, and the benefits that we are getting from serving. If we are willing to do that, if we are willing to change our pension plans, if we are willing to change the way we get our elections financed, if we are willing to change the career nature of being in politics----

Mr. GRAHAM. This is the upstate version. Mark is from the coastal area of South Carolina, and I am from upstate.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with him on this effort. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. amendment offered by mr. Ewing

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Porter in a colloquy with regard to increasing funds for the Vocational Education Basic State Grant Program to the postrescission level. As you know the Economic and Education Opportunities Committee recently reported a bill which consolidates over 35 education and job training program into one Youth Development and career preparation block grant and reduced the funds for this program by 20 percent. The bill we are considering today further cuts the Vocational Education Basic State Grant Program from that reduction. My colleague, Congressman Sam Johnson's amendment adds $100 million to that program and I had an amendment to increase that amount by $15 million which almost reaches the post-rescission level for this program. I do not plan to offer this amendment because I understand the gentleman will work to restore the Vocational Education Basic State Grant Program to the post-rescission level in conference. Is that your understanding?

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I think the committee has struck a good balance with what we are trying to accomplish in this Congress, and what we are trying to accomplish in this Congress, in my opinion, is to fulfill the mandate of the November election. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues apparently believe that caring is equated and shown by how much commitment you have to fund bureaucracies in Washington, DC. I would like to tell them the best I can that people in this country understand we can care without spending billions and billions of dollars on Federal bureaucracy. I care about safety in the workplace, but what I have been elected to do is reform government so we have a government that is efficient, that meets the needs of the people, and I think our OSHA structure does not meet the needs of the American businessman nor the American worker. When 8 out of 10 violations are paperwork violations, you can have a safe workplace but it may not be OSHA safe. For every dollar that you take away from a small business or a large business, that is a dollar you take out of the pocket of an employee who works for that business. Mr. Chairman, reality has finally come home to Congress. The reality is that we are broke up here. We are looking at ways to save money, but we want to do it in an efficient way without hurting people. We can care about the American worker without funding OSHA at the extent that people up here want it funded. There is not enough money in the printing press to satisfy the needs of some of the people that serve in this body to fund Washington, DC. Mr. Chairman, I had a city councilman come up to me and talk about the EPA reforms that we are engaging in. He says, Congressman, what are you going to do if I dump raw sewage in the river? I said, well, the EPA is going to get you, because we have not changed that. That is still a bad thing to do. However, one thing you forget, Mr. City Councilman, is your citizens are going to throw you out of office. People care in our community. One way to regulate what happens in the community is to have people involved without bureaucrats in Washington, DC always being involved. What we have done in this bill is we have reduced the enforcement gotcha provisions and we have replaced it with money to help people comply. If you want to make your workplace safe, we are going to reinvent government so that you can come and talk with us and we will sit down and talk with you about how to make the workplace safe, rather than sending in a bunch of inspectors and take money out of your pocket because the paperwork does not add up. That is the new Congress, that is what I got elected to do. One way to make sure nobody ever gets hurt is to do away with the ability to have a job in America. If we do not control our spending and the way we regulate in Washington, DC, we are not going to have any workplace injuries because nobody is going to have a job. That is what this Congress is about, trying to reinvent government with some reality in the way it is run in Washington, DC. The working stiff, I heard that mentioned 20-something times in my committee. I serve on the Workplace Protection Subcommittee with Secretary Reich. Well, let me tell him this, that in my district the average income is $13,200. I am the first Republican to get elected in 120 years. I am the first person in my family to graduate college because my parents worked hard. Let me tell you, the working stiff has broke the code. Caring and funding Federal bureaucracies do not necessarily go together.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo what my good friend from Mississippi has just said. I would like to encourage Members to support this rule. I know that many of the colleagues in this body are concerned about adopting this rule and approving the amendment, that it will harm the Bill of Rights and the right to free speech. I do not question their patriotism. One cannot be in this body without being an American patriot. We all disagree at times on many issues. So I understand the right to disagree. I certainly respect that. But let me say that the Bill of Rights and free speech issues and desecrating the flag in my opinion are not related. I would like to encourage every one in this Nation, conservative, liberal, and moderate, to speak out loudly if they feel the Government is wronging them or that we are off track. Speak loudly, speak boldly. Do it in constructive form, write, call, protest, take to the streets, tell everybody how you feel and in a manner that will encourage them to listen. Burning the flag, in my opinion, does not legitimize one's position or allow anybody to listen to you. If you feel the need to burn something, burn your Congressman in effigy, burn me, do not burn the flag. If you cannot yell fire in the movie for public safety concerns, you should not be able to burn the flag because of national concerns.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, this is probably one of the most important debates that I have followed in Congress, because I am from South Carolina, and the men and women of the Savannah River site have for the last 40 to 50 years produced tritium by reactor in my district to help win the cold war. We want to continue to do it for the country, not because I am from South Carolina, but because we have the infrastructure, we have the community commitment, we have the will to do it, and I want to do it in the most fiscally sound and conservative manner. I will tell you when this administration and DOE will prefer a reactor to do anything. That is when hell freezes [[Page H5996]] over. It will not be 2011. If you want to produce tritium to maintain a national defense structure, you need to start now. Not 2011 when START II is implemented. What I am asking my colleagues who are fiscally conservative to do is look at the numbers. This is not about millions, it is about billions. The Clinton DOE will never prefer a reactor that we know will work, that will save the construction costs. The energy costs alone are $10 billion over the life of the reactor. This is about politics and spending billions of dollars on technology that is pie in the sky and not going to something we know that works that can make plutonium that works and create energy and is privately financed. It is about politics. The men and women of my district understand tritium. We understand politics and I hope my colleagues will call the National Taxpayers Union and talk to Mr. Paul Hewitt. I have. They have information about millions. That does not consider the billions. They will consider the billions. This is politics at its worst. Let's get on with defending America. 2011 is here today. How long does it take to get any technology going? Never, with an accelerator, because it never produced tritium. The reactor has produced tritium in this country. We need to start now because it takes a long time, because we want to be safe and we should be safe. But we need to start now to give our children a secure future financially by saving billions of dollars with technology that works. And a secure future with the threat of Iran and Iraq is not looking at will they follow our lead, but will we have the resources to implement American policy? And not ask them to follow our lead, but we will be the biggest guy with the biggest stick on the block all the time. That is what this debate is about.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of talk. We have gone from George Washington I have heard mentioned, World War II, we fought it again, very eloquently, I thought, and the gentleman who just spoke I think made very, very good comments. I am not going to stand up here and predict the future, but I am certain about certain things about the future. When the 21st century gets here there will be a war, and American troops will be involved. When that does happen, and I know it will happen, I want to make sure that, as the gentleman who just spoke, that we have the best technology available to fight that war. If you do not compete technologically in business, you lose your profit or market share. If you are not technologically advanced in war, you lost your life. There are a lot of Captain O'Grady's out there who will fly whatever we tell them to fly. I want them to fly the best technologically available, to have the least risk possible, but there will always be risk, no matter what technology we choose. But let it be said that the 21st century has to be planned for today. Here are some facts. In the year 2002, I want a balanced budget, and I will vote for a balanced budget, for the Neumann bill that balances the budget quicker than Kasich. I want a deterrent force of bombers that will protect this country. Not only do I want a balanced budget for our children, I want a free and safe America for our children. The facts are this: In the year 2002, the B-52, which has been a great aircraft, will be over 40 years of age. The B-1 is a 1980's-vintage aircraft without Stealth technology. If we start today and plan today and spend some money, not only will we save lives in the future, we will have a bomber that will deter war and will give our children a secure future. That is why I am going to vote for the B-2. Does it cost a lot? Yes, it does. Will it save a lot of lives? Yes, it will because we will be in a war and what we do in the 21st century in war is determined by what we do here in 1995. I am going to vote proudly for this bill, all of its components, the B-2 included, because I want to make sure in the 21st century that we have not only a balanced budget by setting our priorities today but that we have a military that can fight and win on two fronts. And to my gentleman friend from California, 20 aircraft is one squadron. I want two squadrons to fight wherever we need to fight.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 367, I was with a constituent and inadvertently missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann]. This initiative is really supported in full measure by the freshman class. We are new to politics but we bring a lot of understanding to Congress with us. We understand if you pay the mortgage off home. It should make sense up here. The real problem I have of waiting any longer is that if a family did what we did every day up here, spend beyond their means, they would wake up one day and they would lose who they are as people. That is what is at risk here. If we continue to be everything to everybody, we are going to lose the character of our people. I think you have seen a decline in character over the last 30 years directly proportional to spending. Do not wait any longer. If you did to children what we did to this country, giving them everything they want and never say no, you would have a child different than what you would hope to have. We have a country different than what I would hope to have. Let us not wait 2 more years.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently detained and missed rollcall No. 311, adoption of the Rule for H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act amendments of 1995. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I picked a good time to come, did I not? I will try to get us out of this ditch here. I was on the Science Committee reluctantly, it is not one of my choices, but I am glad I am on it. I have really enjoyed it. The spirited debate here today has been fun. But hydrogen research is something I knew zero about when I came to Congress. I am excited about it too. And I understand the concerns of the gentleman from California about the cap and present funding, but we have to make some suggestions that are good for the country. And I am also against corporate welfare. There are some programs when analyzed over time I do not think have too good a report card grade about how we sent money to corporate America to develop energy sources of the future, but I think by capping the money we are making priority decisions, and that is what we need to do in the budget. We are putting $100 million over 3 years on hydrogen research, which means something else has to go. That is a political decision we have made up here, a bipartisan political decision that hydrogen is important. In about 18 months we are going to get a report card back and we will be graded about our judgment. I am willing to stand up here today and I say it is a good expenditure of the money, a good priority too, and overall I think it will help our country. One thing we cannot forget is we built airplanes and we built cars without any Government grants. Let us not get too far away from the idea in America that our best resource of the future is entrepreneurs in the private sector, but the Government does play a role. It should be a partner, but should not be the dominant partner. This is not about corporate welfare in my opinion. But in 18 months we will see the success of this program. I am optimistic, but if we are wrong, I will be the first one to say we were wrong and we made a mistake. But given the knowledge I have now, I think it is a good bill and I think we should press forward.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, this is the only place in America that I know of where there is really a whole lot of doubt about this issue. There is a fog around this place like I have never seen before. I said something this morning that I believe more this evening. I ran on term limits personally saying I would only serve 12 years. I regret that the 6-year amendment did not pass. I am about to change my mind. This place up here is amazing. We spend money like they are not going to make it anymore, and I wonder why the government is the way it is. I say, ``You need to come up here and visit for a while. People are so detached from reality that it really is amazing.'' The amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] in my opinion is a good compromise. It reforms Congress, which we desperately need to do, and it allows the States to chart their own course. Two things I ran on: reforming this institution and allow the States to chart their own course. I say to my colleagues, please vote for this amendment if you want to change America.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, rather than to try to make a speech, I just have a few minutes of reflection on what I think happened tonight and what is going to happen in the future. It is a historic night. The Contract With America said we would allow votes on term limits, and we did. Now it is up to the public to see who voted and how they voted on all the votes. If you really want term limits, you are going to have to act on what the body did tonight. If you think there is some correcting that needs to be done, it is up to you to do it. I can assure you this, after having been here almost 100 days, that this body is not going to give in to the will of the people easily. There is plenty of blame to go around, and the numbers speak for themselves. Eighty percent of the Democratic Party voted against final passage on this bill. Eighty percent of the Republican Party voted for final passage. Those are pretty compelling numbers. However, to be honest, Mr. Speaker, there is shared blame here. The Republican Party needs to push term limits harder, from the bottom and the top. My class, 73 Republican freshmen, about 90, 95 percent of us believe in term limits and believe in it deeply. I admire people who disagree with me who have equally strong beliefs, and they do exist, but what we have to do as a party is to get more focused and make sure the bill does not get messed up in committee and have to explain our positions here and get off track. I think we will learn something from tonight, that we will be more focused next year, and when the vote comes in the first part of the 105th Congress, that we will be more focused as a party and we will really, really push for term limits. The good news is that people have voted, they are sort of out in the public's eye now, and you can determine who is with you and who is against you. The bad news is that the people who are not members of a term limits organization, and I do feel sorry for those people who are Members of term limits organizations that have worked so hard to get their message across, that it fell short, but the average, everyday citizen who is not a member of anything, other than maybe their church, who is trying to raise their kids, trying to make it through life, we let them down. That is what really bothers me the most. in my humble opinion, is to pass some form of term limits. I ran on four issues. I am the first Republican to be elected in 120 years in my district. I ran not so much on Republican-Democrat differences, and they are great, and I am very proud to be a Republican, but I ran on the idea of let us change Congress for the good of our country. Let us have a balanced budget amendment and make sure both parties, regardless of who is in control, spend within their limits. Let us give the President of the United States, regardless of party, the line-item veto so he or she can strike from our budget pork barrel projects to get us reelected, which both parties can succumb to. Let us make every law in the land apply to every Member of Congress, so we will understand what it is like to live in America, not just in Washington, DC, in a protected class. The fourth institutional reform I ran on was term limits. After being up here 100 days, that is the cornerstone of reform. We need to have people come to this body with a different motivation, with a different mind-set. People should come here wanting to make the world where they came from better, not the world in Washington better for themselves. The game should not be ``How can I become a committee chairman or subcommittee chairman?'' The game should be ``How can I make my community better, how can I make my Nation better, and go home?'' There are so many people in America who have been denied the opportunity to serve in this body because when you are an incumbent, the money is great. I agree with the gentleman about lobbying reform and finance reform. I came from a State, South Carolina, where 18 people went to jail, who served in the General Assembly, for taking bribes. We have the strongest ethics law in the country. You can operate government and have reform, lobbying reform, campaign finance reform. I am for that. However, the gentleman who just spoke misses the point for the needs of term limits. It works hand-in-hand. Money is a problem, but motivation is the real problem. People come up here and get trapped in the world which they become a part of, Washington, DC. It is unlike any world I have ever been in in my life. People spend money up here like you are not going to make it anymore. It is the most detached place I have ever been. It is so different from the world that I know. The only way you are going to change our country, in my opinion, is to make sure that people come up here for a limited period of time and that they are working on improving the world from which they came. Term limits, unfortunately, in many ways, is the only vehicle I know to bring that about. I am optimistic in 1996 that the votes of the American public will reflect the votes tonight, and that there will be a correlation between the people who defied the will of the American people in this body and those who get reelected on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I think the problem that my colleagues have is they know that you do not mean it and it bothers them for you to play a game. I think it bothers the American public. I am willing to play the game with you. Maybe I am not quite up to their level.

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts. I am one of these Republicans who really believe this stuff. I am going to vote for your amendment even though you do not believe it. When I get through voting for your amendment, I am going to vote for the other three that come after it. You have had 40 years as a party to do something about career politics. To say that we do not care and the Republican Party is a sham is an absolute insult to the voters in 1994. I am going to vote for your amendment. Will you vote for the three that come after yours?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. During the campaign I ran on four reform issues. I am the first Republican to get elected in 120 years in my district, and there are four things I talked about. I want a balanced budget amendment so no party can spend beyond their limits. I do not trust Democrats or Republicans enough to come up here and spend responsibly. I want a line item veto to be able to strike out pork barrel projects from what we do here and make sure we do not spend each month getting reelected. I ran on the concept every law in America should apply to Members of this body, Republican or Democrat, so you know what it is like to live in America, not just Washington, DC. And the fourth thing, I ran on term limits to make sure you come up here with a different motivation and your whole purpose of being here is not to get reelected and see how far you can go. I support the Peterson-Dingell legislation for 12 years. I have been here almost 100 days and I find myself wanting to go vote for the 6- year version. I am going to vote for the Frank amendment. I may not believe in it, but I do if it takes retroactive term limits to get this place cleaned up. I am going to vote for it. I am going to vote for all four versions. If we want to change America we need to send people up here with a different motivation for serving and it is not going to happen until we have term limits on this body. I think I know why 80 percent of the American public wants term limits. I do not believe 80 percent of the people in here really understand that.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the other participants who are going to let me go at this point in time. You have heard a lot of good intellectual arguments why we need term limits. I am sure there will be some made tonight and tomorrow why term limits is a bad idea. All I know is this, that of the 73 Republican freshmen that serve in this body, probably 90-95 percent of us support term limits. I think we are very close to the people in terms of the last election. I think the sophomore class above us has a high percentage of people supporting term limits, because we understand why 80 percent of the American public wants this body to impose term limits on itself. Having said that, one thing that I think I need to say is that term limits is not going to cure every problem in America, and it should not be billed that way. It is not going to make us overnight more efficient. It is not going to balance the budget. But it will fundamentally change why people come to Washington, DC, and why they seek office. What it will do in my opinion is you stop playing the game to become a subcommittee chairman, a committee chairman, and see how far you can go. You try to make the world better that you are going back to rather than try to make the world better that you are in up here. I think the fundamental reason we need term limits in this country, Mr. to Washington, DC. I think spending will get better. I think a lot of things will get better up here. They will be less interested in trying to find a pork-barrel project to get us reelected and more interested in trying to make the world better where we are going to go back to, and that is home. There are going to be four versions to be voted on tomorrow. I think we are going to fall short on all four of them. I am sorry. There is a lot of blame to go around. I tell you, the Republican Party has some share in that blame, and certainly the Democrat Party does, too. We are probably going to deliver 80 to 85 percent of the Republican Conference on term limits. We need help from the Democratic Party. If you had every Republican voting for term limits, you would still need 60 Democrats. We are going to fall short for a variety of reasons, and I think the blame needs to be bipartisan. We have got four versions to vote on. One version is by my roommate here, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary]. He has a version that says 12 years, and if there is an existing State law more restrictive, it stands. I like that version. That is why I came to Washington, DC, was to improve Congress, not to overshadow the States. That is the best, I think, of the four. I am going to vote for all four. Because I do not want it to be said the reason it failed was because of Lindsey Graham. I am going to vote for the Democratic version that says 12 years retroactively applied which simply means this, if you have been here 12 years or longer and the amendment is passed and it is ratified by the States, you lose your job. That is not the best way to implement term limits. I would rather have that than nothing. I challenge my Democratic colleagues to deliver enough votes to make on version get out of the House. This is probably the most important thing that we will do in the 104th Congress. It is probably the most important vote we will take in my political life, because if you want to change politics, you need to change the reasons people seek the office. That is exactly what term limits does. I implore my colleagues on the Republican side to deliver the votes to get an amendment out. If the Democrats play a game of chicken, loading up the votes for a retroactive term limits bill, let us meet them. Let us have term limits in some form rather than no form. I am going to vote for term limits in any fashion, because I believe it fundamentally will change the way we govern in Washington, DC. That is why I think I got elected is to come up here and fundamentally change our government. I believe that is why 80 percent of the American public from Maine to California, from the Deep South to the Far West, support term limits, because they feel their Government does not serve them. It serves the institution, and if you really are serious about reforming government, it needs to start in this body. This is the only vote we will take with the Contract With America that applies to us as individuals. It is going to be a gut-check for people in this body.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things we are divided on in this House, as you can tell from listening, if you have been listening out there on C-Span. But one thing most Americans feel strongly about is that we need to reform welfare. We are divided about abortions and issues such as a pro-life amendment or pro-life vote, but most of us believe if we do not do something to stem the tide of illegitimacy in this country we are going to ruin the fabric of our society. I do not think any culture can sustain itself when you have an illegitimacy rate at the levels we do now. Having said that, the question always becomes: What about the children? I am a pro-life candidate, I am a Republican, I want to reform things I think for the good of my country. But what about the children? To me this accommodation is a realistic, real world accommodation that meets the needs of the children. Nobody wants to subsidize immoral or illegitimacies in the country, nobody wants taxpayers' money spent for having one baby after another out of wedlock. But the same people as myself want to make sure those children have a start in life, and I then do not want to foster abortions trying to reform welfare. This amendment allows the money and products to go to the child's needs, and it is not a blank check by the Federal Government to say go do what you want to, have another one if you want to. This addresses the needs of children, it is a directed amendment that I think accommodates a lot of competing interests, and I am very proud to support it because I care about the children.