Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, have enjoyed the committee. We are dealing with tough issues, but I think in a responsible fashion. The frustrating thing is to be on that committee at 2 o'clock in the morning sometimes to deal with this legislation and get up and read the paper the next day and wonder, ``Is that the committee that I was on?'' It has been very difficult back home to get the truth out. So I had a news conference at the statehouse with my Governor and superintendent of education where we got together and kind of held hands and said we can handle this at the local level if you give us a chance, and I think our new Governor, Governor Beasley, and the superintendent of education, Mrs. Nelson, we can handle it if we give them a chance. The thing that struck me the most about this debate, there have been a lot of charts put up. There are, I guess, two or three sides to every story. I am willing to concede something. I am willing to concede the people on the other side of the aisle care about children. I think people on our committee care about children. I think people on our committee care about children, the Democrats. They just have a different view of how government should interact in taking care of real problems. It is OK to differ. That is what makes this country great. I just wish certain people on the other side of the aisle would admit that Lindsey Graham cares about children, because I do, and that David Beasley, my Governor, cares about children. When it comes time to figure out how to change things, I would like people to think of concepts. Block-granting is a concept that is not that hard to understand. If you believe in a basic principle that everybody cares about children, that the people in South Carolina maybe care more about the children in South Carolina than the people in the Department of Agriculture, and I am willing to concede the bureaucrats in the Department of Agriculture care about people in South Carolina, but when you come up to Washington, drive by the Department of Agriculture building and ask yourself this, do the people in that building know more about the children in my district than I do? Do they care more about the children in my district than I do? Do they care more about the children in my State than my Governor? I think if you are honest with yourself that the answer would be no. I live in an area that in the recent past in my lifetime, we have had abusive policies toward our fellow citizens. There has been discrimination in my State and other States in the South and throughout this country just not based on region where people did not get a fair break because of the color of their skin. That was wrong. I have experienced change, and change is good. States' rights is something we talk about a lot. We have got to remember in the past the States have been irresponsible at times in treating their citizens fairly. I can tell you this, that Lindsey Graham is not one of those politicians. My Governor is not one of those politicians. We have matured as a society. The biggest fear and threat I think minority citizens have today is a Federal Government that does not allow them to get off welfare and get a job. The whole idea about caring has been talked about a lot tonight. I just wish people would admit that I care about the people in my district as much as anybody in Washington, DC, that my Governor cares about the children more than anybody in Washington, DC, in South Carolina, and block granting has a basic premise that that is the truth. If you believe that, you support block granting. Cost, we talked a lot about cost. Right now, 25 percent of the money in the WIC Program goes to administer the program. We are trying to reduce the administration of these programs to get more money into the hands of the State people with less cost to feed and take care of more children and more new mothers, and one way you can do that is cut out the Federal middleman. Every business in America works on that concept of trying to reduce costs by streamlining the efficiency of delivery. That is all we are doing here. And one thing I would like people at home to realize, why would Bill Clinton propose a 3.1 percent growth in this program, get on television, have his picture made in a school lunch setting, and accuse the Republicans of cutting the program when we have added more to the program than he has? I think the answer is pretty obvious. He has no agenda. He has abandoned welfare. The Clinton welfare reform proposal is nothing. We are doing something, and the only way he can get out of this box is to criticize others who are taking an active role. Al Gore's Reinventing Government, in my opinion, is a joke. Nobody has come to my office and said, ``Congressman Graham, Al Gore is going too Gore's Reinventing Government. I have had everybody and their brother in Washington complain about what we are trying to do to reform welfare, and to me it is working because the right people are complaining. If you want to change something, somebody is going to complain and the people that are complaining are the right people. That is the bureaucrats in this town. The people in my district, when they are told the truth, are not complaining. They do not want somebody making $100,000 a year to get a subsidized school lunch program. They do not want someone going to day care getting a subsidized school lunch program if they can afford to pay for it because we are broke up here. The reason I am optimistic, Mr. Chairman, that we are on the right track is because the right people are complaining, those people that believe in big government, those people that care about children, but believe the only way you can care is spend from Washington, DC. I believe you can care and allow people to take care of their own at home and save money at the same time. I believe that very deeply and that is why I am supporting what you are doing and I will compliment you on that very reasonable approach to a real serious problem.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. [Mr. GRAHAM addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, of all the things that I have had a chance to vote on, I am more excited in voting on this amendment than just about anything we have done here, because to me the November 8 election said something pretty strong, that we feel distant from our government. The gentleman from Michigan talked about groups that were extreme in nature being able to talk to their government. I think one of the reasons we had such an extreme change in the way the country is being run is because people felt very alienated from this country, they felt alien from regulatory bodies that could pass on huge costs of doing business in private and public life, and nobody could ask commonsense questions. Of all the things that I voted on in this Congress, I am very proud to support the opportunity for average citizens, not crackpots, not nuts, to be able to come and talk to their government in a meaningful fashion, something that has been lost in this country. There are triggers in this bill. It has to have a $25 million effect in the aggregate before you can petition your government. Twenty-five million dollars is still a lot of money in South Carolina, and still a lot of burden to bear in this country. And when $25 million gets to be nothing, then we really do have a problem here. The exciting thing to me, Mr. Chairman, about this amendment is it allows average, everyday citizens, people trying to make a living, trying to pay the bills, to come to their government and ask them to give answers to commonsense questions, making the government accountable, having to explain why they regulate the way they do, having to explain the benefit and, yes, the cost. That is something that is missing in government in 1995, and, yes, this amendment will bring government back to the people more than anything I can think of. I would ask every Member of this body who believes that the U.S. Government has gotten distant from its people to vote for this amendment which allows you to petition your government to answer your questions. What a novel concept in democracy. I move very urgently that we pass it.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the kind of amendment that embodies the idea of government, a very simple idea but an important idea. Almost every municipality or county government in my district is affected by an unfunded regulatory mandate. What we are trying to do now is for the regulatory agency to tell us where the authority exists to regulate, to begin with. A big problem in this country is that agencies get off and running with these statutes and we are trying to rein them in. I come from a town of 2,000 people. Let me tell you what happened to a town of 2,000 in central South Carolina because of a regulatory mandate situation. The water bill went up 80 percent, we spent $16,000 to test the water through a government mandate that could have been done for about $2,000 from a private firm. We had to pay $5 million to upgrade their water system, to test for contaminants not native to South Carolina. It is about time we started doing something about it, and this is a good step.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. If the gentleman would yield further, would you agree that it is probably the best thing that could happen for the future of this country, not just in the 104th Congress, but for the 21st century, for two parties with different opinions coming together under one roof, based on the principle that if we continue to spend this way we will bankrupt the American character, and this would really be a way to fulfill what President Clinton said in his State of the Union that we can work together to make this country better? And we have a historic opportunity and all we need is 60 Democrats who will help us fulfill our mandate. Do you agree with that statement?

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the gentleman yield further for another question?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues not feel like we are at a telethon tonight and we are not asking you to give anything, we are trying to give you money? Let us really explain what we are talking about here in real terms. Does the gentleman agree with this statement, that if every Republican voted for the Barton amendment we could not get there by ourselves? Does the gentleman agree with that statement?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you.

Mr. GRAHAM. Does the gentleman believe that there are 60 Members in the Democratic Party, which in many ways has a great tradition in this country, who believe that the time has come to limit government, to turn over fiscal responsibility back to the States, and that there are 60 Members in that great party that will step up and help us fill the mandate of November 8? Does the gentleman believe there are 65 Members over there that could do that? I think with the encouragement of the American people that there are certainly 60 of our distinguished colleagues on the Democrat side that would come join us.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, last November the people of the 3rd District of South Carolina sent me to Washington in hopes of changing the direction of the country. My constituents expect me to display courage in making tough decisions. I will not let them down. I will vote for the balanced budget amendment, the Barton version, with a tax limitation provision. Now I am going to put my speech up. There has been a lot of talk tonight about what the consequences of a balanced budget would mean to different groups in this country. There is one thing I think we have in common, whether you are young or old, black or white, rich or poor. If we don't do it, it is a bad deal for everybody. The thing that I think has been overlooked that I would like to comment on for a minute or two is what does it mean when you are $4.5 trillion-plus in debt? The honest answer is I cannot even imagine that money in real terms. The real serious consequences of spending that much money more than you have is that over time you ruin the character of your people. Over time, everybody in the country begins to look to the Federal Government to solve every problem they have. I am 39 years of age, and I would say that my generation always looks outward instead of inward; that there is somebody to blame, there is some Federal program, some State program, to make it right. When you can be everything to everybody, in my opinion, eventually you will ruin everybody. The only way I know to change things, after a lot of thought and a lot of debate and a lot of reasoning, is to change the Constitution. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, I do not trust you enough to come sit in this body and spend money without a bad check law. And that is called the constitutional balanced budget amendment. Whether you are a Republican or Democrat, I don't trust you enough to come into this body and balance the budget without raising taxes to do it. That is way I will vote for the three-fifths provision requiring a supermajority not to raise taxes. There is a lot at stake in this debate, and to me the real issue is: Are we going to try to be everything to everybody and ruin the next generation not yet born? Everybody talks about putting them in debt, but are we requesting to create a society where they look always outward and never inward? There is a lot at stake, and I can't tell you exactly how we are going to balance the budget. I don't have a plan that, as some people from the Democrat Party will point out, that tells you exactly how we are going to get there. I just know we must. I know there are a lot of people in this building working on those plans, and I want to give them a shot. The consequences of not doing it is to continue to have a debt that goes beyond imagination. I hope we will have the courage to say no to ourselves by a constitutional balanced budget amendment, and I hope we have the courage to cut spending and say no to a lot of people who have never been said no to by the Federal Government. If we don't start now, when will we start? We are about to go into the 21st century, and I think the character of the American people has changed in the last 20 or 30 years, in many ways for the worse. And if you want to look at the reasons why, I think you can start here at the Federal Government. We have taken every function of our lives and centralized it in Washington, DC. If you want to change this country, change the way you spend money in this country. Anybody have any questions? I can't think of anything more important to talk about, and I am tired of talking about it. I have been here about 10 days now. I am a freshman in this body. I know why I got elected. I feel very frustrated not being able to get on with it. I know Members on the other side and within my party have differences, and I respect their differences. I want them to have a chance to say what is on their mind and to advocate their side, but more than anything else, I want us to start voting in this body. President Clinton made a speech last night, some of its sounded really good. I have heard a lot of great speeches in my small term of politics. Maybe I made a few that sounded pretty good. I am tired of you having to rely on what Lindsey Graham says, or Bill Clinton or anybody else in this body. I want us to vote and I want us to take tough votes. The only hope we have of, in my opinion, changing this country is to take the balanced budget amendment that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] has proposed with the tax limitation bill provision in it, get it out of the Committee of the Whole and make us take tough votes and see who really is serious about changing the course of this country. I will never disagree or take issue with somebody who is voting their conscience. I just expect you to do that. I expect no less of myself.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Would the gentleman agree with that tendency in place, the ability to spend far more than we make and it is escalating at monumental proportions, that if there ever was a time to have a three- fifths majority vote it is now, and could you comment on the likelihood of balancing the budget with tax increases if we don't have the three- fifths majority?

Mr. GRAHAM. I believe the gentleman stated further that during that period of time the national defense sector spending has increased by 1300 percent.

Mr. GRAHAM. The essence of this debate I think comes down to this point: During your dissertation a while ago you made some very important points that I didn't realize, that I believe you said for the first time 30 years ago, in 1964 and 1965 era, that the entire Federal budget was less than $200 billion. Is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. I was very intrigued by the gentleman from California's comments there. I think they are right on point, especially the comment from the constituent or the lay person that said if we ran our affairs like you do up here, we would be bankrupt. Would the gentleman agree that if the American public ran their affairs like we do up here, that they would go to jail?

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I too rise to speak on an important topic to everybody in this Nation; that is, the balanced budget amendment. I will comment on what my colleague across the aisle said. If you want to blame people, that is fine, there is plenty of blame to go around. The only thing the balanced budget threatens is politicians' ability to spend money beyond their means. We simply cannot write bad checks up here and get away with it. If you want to stop that at home, let people know that you want a bad check from the Congress, and that would be the only one I know who is against a balanced budget amendment. When we do that, and I hope we do, we have to make some hard choices. The National Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS, and the National Endowment for the Arts are things that mean a lot to me personally. But when it comes time to balance the budget, we are going to have to say ``no'' to groups of people we have never said ``no'' to before. That is what you do every day at home, you have to do things that you have to do within your budget constraints; you have to say ``no'' to yourself. That is a new and novel idea up here, to say ``no.'' But let the great debate begin, once the balanced budget amendment passes, I hope we will have the courage to say ``no,'' even to worthwhile projects.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I came from South Carolina, a State that a few years ago sent about 18 people to jail because they took shirts, they took shoes, they took golf trips, and they sold their vote. If Members want to reform me, I challenge them to do so. But everything in its time. For 40 years Democrats have had control of this body to do that. What the American people need to know, and what I want constituents to know at home is what we are talking about doing the first day is to change the way this institution operates. Newt Gingrich, the new Speaker of the House, has done something that no Speaker of the House has ever done in this body, Republican or Democrat. He has instituted a measure to limit his own term as Speaker. I congratulate him for doing that. Leadership and reform begins at the top, and that is what he has demonstrated, and on behalf of the freshman class we thank him for doing something other than talk. Also in this rule is a provision that would limit committee chairmen to great place to start, and that is what we are talking about today, changing this institution to breathe new life into it. Mr. Speaker, ideas do matter, and they are going to have a new day.