Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments during this very important debate over the line-item veto to remind my colleagues here in the Senate of the revolution that is taking place next door. In the House Chamber, our colleagues are making history. They are throwing out 40 years of bloated, irresponsible government and replacing it with new American people. They have passed the balanced budget amendment in the House. They have passed regulatory relief and legal reform. They have voted to strengthen our national defense, to crack down on crime, and to rein in Government spending. In fact, so far, they have passed every piece of legislation they promised to pass in the Contract With America. At the breakneck pace the House is keeping, our colleagues there will meet their self-imposed 100-day deadline and still have a week to spare. People back home ask me what it is like to be part of this revolution. I say, ``I don't know, because I am in the Senate.'' The House is passing history, and too often all we seem to be passing is time. We would like to tell ourselves we are the more deliberative body, that here in the Senate, passion is tempered by prudence. Nobody is going to ride roughshod over the Senate, we boast. But not meeting our responsibilities is not a new definition of being deliberative. Maybe what we are doing is exactly what our Founding Fathers intended Congress to do. But maybe, though, some just did not hear the message in November, when Americans took the promises of the Contract With America with them to the polls, and there they cast their ballots for change. ``But I did not sign any contracts. I haven't even read it,'' I heard some of my Senate colleagues protest. Maybe not. But he might just as well have, Mr. President, because when the American people think about the U.S. Congress, there is no thick, black curtain separating the House from the Senate. They just see Congress, and it is Congress as a whole--not just the House of Representatives, not just House Republicans--that will be held to the promises in the contract. Of course, if the American people seem a little suspicious when it comes to our promises, well, maybe they have a right to be. We have already let them down once this year. The first plank in the contract, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, calls for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The House passed it, but the Senate voted it down. Even though 85 percent of the American people said they wanted it, and said our financial future may depend on it, we voted it down. The voters have a right to be furious. They thought we had promised a balanced budget amendment. Now, how can we possibly explain that it was really the House, not the Senate, without sounding a lot like political trickery? Try to explain that Congress as a whole does not have to balance its budget, that somehow Congress is special, or it can act irresponsibly and it does not affect the taxpayers of this country. The Fiscal Responsibility Act now also calls for a line-item veto. Again, a vast majority of Americans, 64 percent of them, consider the passage of a line-item veto as a high or a top priority. It is one of the bold print provisions of the Contract With America--a nonretractable promise--and it, too, has already passed in the House. But like the balanced budget amendment, it may also face trouble here in the Senate. Now, Mr. President, whether they like it or not, Senate Republicans are tied to the legislative coattails of the Contract With America right alongside our House colleagues, because it is what Americans want Congress to do. Senate Democrats will be held accountable as well, because for the most part, the American people do not care whether a certain piece of legislation is a Republican bill or whether it is a Democratic bill. They care about legislation that is going to help their families and protect the future for their children and their grandchildren. Now, the line-item veto is one of those bills, a bill that is not about politics, a bill that is simply about doing the right thing. If we do our job right, young people will someday hear stories about how the revolution of November 8, 1994, transformed the Nation. Old timers will look back to this Congress and wonder at the courage that it took to effect such a tremendous change. Or maybe the 104th Congress will go down in history as one-termers who promised change but failed to deliver. If the line-item veto and the $500 per child tax credit go the way of the balanced budget amendment, you can guess what the history books will be saying about us. Mr. President, this is your contract, this is my contract, this is America's contract, and whether my Senate colleagues signed it or not, this is their contract, too. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation that will create a fundamental change in the way we do business in Washington. I want to lend my voice to the McCain line-item veto legislation. It is legislation Republicans are calling for. It is legislation Democrats are calling for. It is legislation that Americans called for--loudly--when they voted at the polls in November. The Framers of the Constitution could never have imagined the need for a line-item veto, but neither could they have imagined the garbage bills coming out of Congress that have made the line-item veto a Presidential necessity. The garbage bill is Washington's version of packsack stew--a place to dump leftover bills that could never have been swallowed by themselves, but become more palatable when they are stirred safely inside a massive spending bill. Too often, these extra morsels are million-dollar pieces of pork, dumped into the stew pot by a Member of Congress eager to please a special interest group back home. But that favor for a few comes at the expense of everyone else. Last year's package of disaster assistance following the California earthquake quickly became a garbage bill of the very worst kind. By the time the legislation passed, it included not only $10 billion in actual emergency relief, but an extra $10 million to design a new Amtrak station in New York City, $20 million to hire employees for the FBI's fingerprint laboratory in West Virginia, $1.4 million to fight a potato fungus in Maine, and $1 million for sugar cane growers in Hawaii. As stand-alone legislation, particularly when compared against the rest of the monstrous Federal budget, individual pork projects may not appear so ominous. Collectively, however, they account for billions of dollars in Federal spending every year. And by putting the legislative priorities of a few ahead of the fiscal priorities of an entire Nation, they set a dangerous precedent. Passage of the line-item veto would help stop the fiscal recklessness that has dragged this country $4.8 trillion into debt. Wielding a line-item veto, and without having to reject the entire bill, the President could comb through spending legislation line by line and eliminate the wasteful, pork-barrel projects when Congress does not have the courage. When Congress just can not say no, the line-item veto would let the President do it for them. It would also have a powerful impact on keeping wasteful spending out of appropriations bills in the first place. My colleagues might think twice about sponsoring some pork for back home, knowing they could be forced to argue its merits individually on the floor of the Senate if it were vetoed by the President. The American people have asked Congress to pass the line-item veto-- 64 percent of them, in fact, consider it a high or top priority. The House overwhelmingly passed its line-item veto legislation on February 6 as a birthday tribute to Ronald Reagan, the President known as the bill's greatest champion. Governors in 43 States have line-item veto authority, and why should they not? It works. In my home State of Minnesota, Gov. Arne Carlson used the line-item veto 29 times during his first term to cut the fat out of State legislation--saving Minnesota taxpayers $164 million in wasteful government spending. In neighboring Wisconsin, Gov. Tommy Thompson has put his line-item veto to work 1,500 times during his 8 years in office. If the line-item veto existed on the Federal level, the Government Accounting Office says the President could have cut more than $70 billion in Federal spending between 1984 and 1989. Last year, President Clinton could have saved the taxpayers millions by blue-penciling frivolous pork projects such as screwworm research, $35 million; honeybee research, $5 million; and chiropractic demonstrations in Iowa, $1 million. But unlike his counterparts on the State level, the President does not have the power of the line-item veto, or the power to rein in Federal spending that comes with it. Like every modern Chief Executive, however, President Clinton has supported Congress' efforts to grant him that tool of the line-item veto. ``For years, Congress concealed in the budget scores of pet spending projects,'' said President Clinton in his most recent State of the Union Address. Last year was no different. There was a million dollars to study stress in plants and $12 million for a tick removal program that didn't work. If you'll give me the line-item veto, I'll remove some of that unnecessary spending. This year, Congress appears ready to deliver, and I, along with others, encourage President Clinton to demonstrate his commitment to this legislation by being an aggressive supporter. This is no time to sit on the sidelines. Even with the backing of President Clinton, however, the bill may face trouble here in the Senate. Opponents say it gives too much authority to the President; that is shifts the constitutional balance of powers. Others claim it could lead to influence trading, with Presidents trying to sway legislators by threatening to veto their pet projects. But those colleagues of mine who are the most outspoken opponents of the of why we need it. Congress itself has not been able to stop the big spenders. But a line-item veto could. If the Senate can pass the line-item veto, Democrat Bill Clinton will be the first President to use it, and it will be thanks to a Republican Congress. But this effort is not about politics, and the line-item veto is certainly not Republican legislation. It is simply the right thing to do. We need a line-item veto. If it can work in Minnesota, if it can work in Wisconsin where it has repeatedly protected taxpayer dollars, it can work here in Washington for the benefit of all taxpayers as well. Again, Mr. President, I lend my voice today in strong support of legislation for a line-item veto. I yield the floor. Thank you. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, these charts show strong support from every age and income group across the country, their support for a tax cut, and also for some information, how much it would mean to each. I say to the good Senator from Texas who just spoke, for families in Texas alone, it would be over $1.8 billion a year in tax relief. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senators from Indiana and Idaho, who I thank for their early and continued leadership on this most important issue. I thank my distinguished colleague from Indiana, and I am proud to be a coauthor of this important legislation to put families first. Mr. President, today we begin a debate that has been too long in coming. The American people are in desperate need of relief from their own Government--a Government that thinks it can spend our money better than we can, and has spent the last four decades trying to prove it. In 1947, Americans paid just 22 percent of their personal income in the form of taxes. Today, 40 years and hundreds of tax increases later, nearly 50 cents of every dollar earned by middle-class Americans goes to the Government, to feed the Government's priorities. ``We'll solve all your problems,'' says Washington, ``if you'll just send us more money.'' So we do; year after year. We've now reached the point where most families pay more tax dollars to the Federal Government than they spend for food, clothing, transportation, insurance, and recreation combined. The 1993 Clinton tax bill didn't help, either. As the largest tax increase in American history, it hit middle-class Americans right where it hurt the most--their wallets. Mr. President, taxes are too high. The tax burden falls too heavily on the middle class. And, Mr. President, the result is that more and more Americans are being forced out of the working class and into the welfare class. But with their ballots in November, Americans called for tax relief. With finally in a position to deliver. Mr. President, we are taking the first step today with the introduction of the families first act--legislation calling for a $500 per-child tax credit. The $500 per-child tax credit is relief for middle-class America. As this chart clearly shows, our plan would return $25 billion every year to families nationwide, from $418 million in Alabama to $61 million in Wyoming. $500 million would be dedicated to families in my home State of Minnesota. Fully 90 percent of the tax relief goes to working Americans making annual salaries of $60,000 or less. Most importantly, our $500 per-child tax credit would let 53 million working families keep more of their own hard-earned tax dollars. And $500 per child adds up to a lot more than just pocket change. For middle-income taxpayers, it may mean health insurance for their families, where there wasn't any before, or a better education for their children, when before there were no options. For lower income Americans, it may mean not having to pay any taxes at all. Mr. President, there is widespread support for the $500 per-child tax credit among Americans in every income range and every age bracket-- among those with children and those without. These are the people who feel the pain every April 15 when they pay their taxes and who think it's time for the government to feel a little of the pain instead. But how can a government grappling with a $4.8 trillion national debt afford tax relief of any kind? The families first bill, which became the centerpiece of the budget plans offered last year by both Senate and House Republicans, pays for the tax credit by cutting government spending. Every single dollar in tax relief is offset by another dollar in spending cuts. And by putting the Federal Government on a strict diet by capping the growth of Federal spending at 2 percent, we'll balance the budget by the year 2002. Our bill proves that we can afford tax relief at the same time we're restoring fiscal sanity in Washington. During the debate ahead, we'll hear calls to water down the $500 per- child tax credit. We'll be asked to means test it or lower the dollar amount. Some will want to limit the ages of the children eligible or duck out on real relief by substituting an increase in the personal deduction. Some may oppose tax relief completely. That's not what Americans were promised last year, or what the voters mandated in November. If we backtrack now, we'll have to face an American public that is tired of being led on by politicians who promise one thing and never deliver. We have to hold firm on behalf of every American taxpayer and deliver the tax relief we promised. I want to commend our colleagues on the House Ways and Means Committee, who this week kept the covenant they made with the voters in the Contract With America and passed the $500 per-child tax credit. This was a victory for the taxpayers and a clear signal to the American people that they have not been forgotten by this Congress. Mr. President, I'm proud that Senator Coats and our Senate colleagues--what we call the 500 Club--will be following up on the House's good work and fighting for the promises made in November: the promises of lower taxes, smaller government, stronger families. Those are the principles embodied by the $500 tax credit, the principles that will once again put families first. I would like to close by saying how important I feel about tax cuts for Americans, and American families specifically. We promised, we campaigned, we talked about tax relief for American families across the country during the 1994 elections, and the Americans spoke loud and clear at the polls in November that they agreed, because they know how hard it hits them in the wallet every year. My good friend from Wisconsin, the Senator from Wisconsin, is among those leading the charge on the Senate floor every day, talking about how we do not need tax cuts, how Government in Washington should continue to expect to receive these tax dollars, and that these Chambers can better make the decision on how to spend your money than you can spend it yourself. In Wisconsin, that means about $590 million a year in tax relief, something the Senator from Wisconsin does not think is important to the residents of Wisconsin. I ask him to call some of his residents to see how important they feel any form of tax relief would be in 1995 for them. I just wanted to wrap up again by thanking the Senator from Indiana and the other Senators who have spoken this morning on behalf of American taxpayers. I hope that we can rely on their support and the public support in making their calls and rallying behind this very, very, important issue of tax cuts and tax relief. We are to a point now where we assume that every dollar that Americans make belongs to Government in some form and that we will decide through tax cuts or tax credits or tax breaks how much they are going to keep and how much Washington is going to get. I think, as the Senator from Indiana pointed out very succinctly, it is their money and this will allow them to keep more of their hard-earned tax money in their pockets. So I wanted to thank the other Senators for helping this morning. I yield back my time.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record copies of the tables we have presented here.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senators from Indiana and Idaho this morning, and a number of the other Senators who will be joining us later this morning, to talk about this very important issue--tax cuts--and to help continue the leadership on this most important issue. I am proud to be a coauthor of this very important legislation, families first. Mr. President, today we begin a debate that has been too long in coming. The American people are in desperate need of relief from their own Government, a Government that thinks it can spend our money better than we can spend our money. It has spent the last four decades just trying to prove that point. In 1947, Americans paid just 22 percent of their personal income in the form of taxes--all taxes--to Federal, State, and local governments, including property taxes and the like. Today, 40 years and hundreds of tax increases later, nearly 50 cents of every dollar earned by middle-class Americans goes to the Government to feed Government priorities. ``We will solve all of our problems,'' says Washington, ``if you will just send us more of your money.'' So we do, year after year. We have reached the point now where most families pay more tax dollars to the Federal Government than they spend for food, clothing, transportation, insurance, and recreation combined. The 1993 Clinton tax bill did not help, either. As the largest tax increase in American history, it hit middle-class Americans right where it hurts the most--in their wallets. Mr. President, the bottom line is taxes are just too high. The tax burden falls too heavily on the middle class. And, Mr. President, the result is that more and more Americans are being forced out of the working class and being forced into the welfare class. But with their ballots last November, Americans called for tax relief. With the change in leadership in Washington, Congress is now finally in a position to deliver on that request. Mr. President, we are taking the first step today with the introduction of the families first act--legislation calling for a $500 per child tax credit. The $500 per child tax credit is relief for middle-class America. And I would just like to show one of the few charts that we have out here this morning and talk about what this means. In my home State of Minnesota, families first, if enacted, would provide nearly $500 million every year in tax relief to families across the State of Minnesota--$500 million into the pockets of families and individuals who will decide best on how to spend on those important needs such as food, clothing, shelter, education, or health care. They will make those decisions rather than some bureaucrat 1,100 miles away from Minnesota in Washington. If you look at the home State of Senator Dan Coats in Indiana and what this would mean, it would mean for Indiana residents over $550 million a year in tax relief--$550 million every year. You add this total, and for all States it would be a $25 billion-a-year tax cut that would go into the pockets of families to decide how to spend. It would take that decisionmaking process out of Washington and put it down where it really belongs, and that is with the individuals who know best how to handle the problems that their families are facing. As this chart clearly shows, our plan would return, as I said, $25 billion every year to families nationwide. And that includes from $418 million in Alabama every year to $61 million for the State of Wyoming residents. Again, $500 million a year would be dedicated to families in my home State of Minnesota. Fully more than 90 percent of the tax relief would go to working Americans making annual salaries of $60,000 or less. So this is a plan that is targeted. More than 90 percent of the tax relief goes right to the individuals that have felt the burden the most over the last 30 years, and that is families making $60,000 or less. Most importantly, our $500 per child tax credit would let 53 million working families keep more of their own hard-earned tax dollars. And $500 per child adds up to a lot more than just some pocket change. I think, if you pick up the phone and ask many of the constituents in your districts if $500 or $1,000 for two children or $1,500 for three children would not make a big difference in their finances every year, for middle-income taxpayers, it may mean health insurance for their families where there was not any before, or maybe a better education for their children when before there were no other options. To lower income Americans, it may mean not having to pay any taxes at all. Mr. President, there is widespread support also for the $500 per child tax credit among Americans in every income range, in every age bracket, among those with children and those without. These are the people who feel the pain every April 15 when they pay their taxes and who think it is time for the Government to feel a little bit of that pain instead. But how can a government grappling with a $4.8 trillion national debt afford tax relief of any kind? Well, the families first bill, which became the centerpiece of the budget plans offered last year by both Senate and House Republicans, pays for the tax credit by cutting Government spending. Every single dollar in tax relief is offset by another dollar in spending cuts. I just want to refer again to the charts for the support that we have nationwide for a tax cut proposal. If you look at this one chart and you look at the different age groups, 18 to 25, 76 percent would approve of a tax cut. In the age group 26 to 40, 77 percent said, yes, let us have a tax cut. From 41 to 55, over 56 percent, and so on; 62 percent for 55 to 65; and, 65 and older, 58 percent said, yes, they would favor tax relief. And if you look at income levels, people below $20,000, said, yes, they would like to have some more tax relief. And in all income groups it is either in the 60 or 70 percent range that say yes. So this is overwhelming support nationwide by every age group, every income group that really believes we are being taxed too much. And by putting the Federal Government on a strict diet by capping the growth of Federal spending at 2 percent, we can balance the budget by the year 2002, including the tax cuts. Our bill proves that we can afford tax relief at the same time that we begin to restore some fiscal sanity to Washington. During the debate ahead, we will hear calls to water down the $500 per child tax credit. We will be asked to means test it or to even lower the dollar amount. Some will want to limit the ages of the children eligible, or duck out on real relief by substituting an increase in the personal deduction. Some may oppose tax relief completely. But that is not what the Americans were promised last year, or what the voters mandated in November. If we backtrack now, we will have to face an American public that is tired of being led on by politicians who promise one thing and then never deliver. We have to hold firm on behalf of every American taxpayer and deliver the tax relief that we promised. I want to commend our colleagues on the House Ways and Means Committee, who this week kept the covenant they made with the voters in the Contract With America and passed the $500 per-child tax credit. This was a victory for the taxpayers and a clear signal to the American people that they have not been forgotten by this Congress. Mr. President, I am proud that Senator Coats and our Senate colleagues-- House's good work and fighting for the promises made in November: the promises of lower taxes, smaller government, stronger families. Those are the principles embodied by the $500 tax credit--the principles that will once again put families first. I would like to now yield some time to my good friend and colleague from Arizona.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the unfunded mandates conference report. By forcing Congress to know the costs of any legislation it passes down to our States, counties, cities, and townships, by forcing Congress to vote--openly in the light of day--to specifically impose those costs if it does not come up with the dollars itself, this legislation is a good first step toward loosening the noose of costly Federal requirements. And it is also a good first step toward a return to States rights, and an end to what has too often amounted to taxation without representation by the Federal Government. In Redwood Falls, MN, former Mayor Gary Revier echoes what I have heard time and time again since debate began in Washington on unfunded mandates. He said to me recently: How can cities like Redwood Falls meet their own needs when our scarce dollars are continually going to meet Washington's needs? How do we tell our residents that we may need to reduce services or raise local taxes because a bureaucrat 2,000 miles away thinks he knows best how to spend our dollars? I agree with Mr. Revier. In fact, I have asked him to chair my unfunded mandates task force, where he will play a key role in formulating a strategy to reduce the Federal Government's reach into Minnesota pockets. Even with the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act in place, we must be vigilant of the unintended costs our actions here in Congress may represent on the local level. Future legislation needs to be carefully scrutinized so that we avoid new and unwelcome financial pressures on the local level. Other regulatory relief measures we consider this year will further enable local governments to get back to doing local business, and away from having to do the Federal Government's bidding. We could learn a lot from Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles, who wants to repeal at least half of his State's nearly 29,000 regulations and replace them with loose guidelines, guidelines that promote accountability. While trading archaic rules for common sense may not make sense to the Washington bureaucrats, it makes a lot of sense back home, and it is an approach we ought to encourage on the Federal level. For all the good accomplished by the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act, it leaves untouched most of the 200 previously enacted unfunded mandates passed by this institution--and passed on to local governments--over the last two decades. Implementing the requirements of the 10 costliest mandates--contained in bills like OSHA, the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, and the Endangered Species Act--cost cities an estimated $6.5 billion in 1993. By the year 2000, the price tag for those mandates will rise to nearly $54 billion. It may be too late to change things with this bill, but it is not too late to change things with the next. In the House, Speaker Gingrich will begin monthly Corrections Days, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to follow suit. We will pull out the most inefficient Federal laws and regulations and bring them up for a vote. We will begin stripping away the layers of Federal bureaucracy that, like bad varnish over good wood, have obscured for too long the role of the Government envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Maybe, with the help of the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act and 2 years of Corrections Days, we will be able to say by the end of the 104th Congress that we have truly made a difference to the people back home who sent us here to change Washington. I reiterate, this change begins with passage of the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act. With that, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to remind my colleagues of the words of Benjamin Franklin, when he urged, ``Never leave that till tomorrow which you can do today.'' Good advice. But when is this Congress going to listen? For too long, Congress has used the word ``tomorrow'' to repeatedly avoid the responsibilities and obligations of today. We will stop spending more than we take in--tomorrow. We will safeguard our children's future by paying our own bills-- tomorrow. We will make the tough choices to get our fiscal house in order-- tomorrow. We will balance the budget--tomorrow. The problem with tomorrow, of course, is that it never, ever gets here--there is always another one waiting in the wings. Responsibilities are never met. Obligations are never fulfilled. And yesterday's vote on the balanced budget amendment demonstrates once again that--despite all the talk on Capitol Hill about change-- Congress still operates under the notion that you should never do today what you can put off until tomorrow. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that this body put politics ahead of promises in rejecting the balanced budget amendment. Passage hinged on the votes of six Democrats who, just 1 year ago-- March 1, 1994--voted for the balanced budget amendment. Yesterday, those same six Senators voted ``no'' on a bill that was virtually identical to the one they supported last year. The balanced budget amendment is a beautifully simple piece of legislation that makes so much sense to the voters do we go back home and tell them this weekend--sorry? Try again tomorrow? No. Beginning today, with or without a balanced budget amendment, we need to start laying out the glidepath that will lead us to a balanced budget by the year 2002. To my colleagues who said we can straigthen out the fiscal mess in Washington without meddling with the Constitution, it is time to stop making promises and start delivering on them. The only way we will ever clean up the Federal books is to start today, not tomorrow, not next month, not next year, but today. We have said again and again that balancing the budget will not be easy. But those who elected us do not care if we have a tough job. They expect us to do that job. Unlike the ancient plunderers who would pillage a town, then set it afire as they headed off toward their next conquest, we are not going to slash and burn the budget and leave it in shambles behind us. The needs of this country will continue to be met. But if we are serious about bringing the budget into balance, the wants of this country will have to be closely scrutinized. Some will have to be put on hold. We need a balanced budget for another reason as well, Mr. President-- so that we can begin to pay back our massive national debt. We didn't accumulate this $4.8 trillion burden overnight, and we will not pay it off overnight, either. But whether it takes 20 years or 40 years, we have to start now. The debt we are piling up and passing along to the next generation of Americans is not just fiscally wrong--it is morally wrong. George Washington could not have known the problems we would face in 1995, but he cautioned us--198 years ago--about amassing a national debt. It was expected, he wrote in his Farewell Address, that in times of crisis, the Federal Government would occasionally be required to spend beyond its means. But in times of peace and prosperity the Government must repay its debt, and not push its burdens onto the next generation. We have been at peace and enjoying prosperity for 40 years. With the recklessness of the past behind us, the burden that Congress bears today is ensuring the strength of this Nation tomorrow. In conclusion, a balanced budget can be achieved by the year 2002 if we begin laying out the path today. We will have to do it without a balanced budget amendment, but make no mistake--this Congress must do it.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, whether by fax or phone or during our conversations together in town halls, Minnesotans, just like the rest of America, are demanding action on this balanced budget amendment. If this Senate is going to do the will of the people as we were elected to do, then this balanced budget amendment will pass and the final vote would be 100-0. Mr. President, let us make February 28, 1995, the day we finally take responsibility for the uncontrolled spending of Congress in the 1980's. Let us make February 28, 1995, the day that we, the Congress, keep our promise to the American taxpayers and deliver a balanced budget amendment.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, at the State capital building in St. Paul, MN, lawmakers presented Gov. Arne Carlson with this petition yesterday. It says: We, the undersigned officials, duly elected by the citizens of the great State of Minnesota, commit our support to congressional passage of the balanced budget amendment and its ratification by the Minnesota State Legislature. Our petition is signed by 81 representatives on the Federal and State level, Republicans and Democrats, who are concerned that this debt that we are heaping onto the backs of our children is not just wrong, it is criminal. I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed into the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, for the information for my colleagues, this morning the time for the two leaders has been reserved and there will now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business until the hour of 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following Senators to speak for up to these designated times: Senator Daschle for 20 minutes; Senator Simpson, 20 minutes; Senator Lautenberg, 10 minutes; Senator Burns, 15 minutes. At the hour of 11 a.m., the Senate will resume consideration of House Joint Resolution 1, the constitutional balanced budget amendment. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, Senators will have until 3 o'clock today in order to offer their amendments to the resolution. There will be no rollcall votes during today's session of the Senate. Senators should be on notice that any rollcall votes ordered on amendments today will be ordered to occur stacked in the sequence of votes beginning at 2:15 on Tuesday, February 28. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. For that reason, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment requiring a three-fifths supermajority vote to increase taxes as separate legislation shortly in the Senate. I hope that the distinguished Senator from Utah will support this measure and also help us get it to the floor for a vote.

Mr. GRAMS. Because of the sentiments expressed by the Senator from Utah and by thousands of Minnesotans that I have met over the last 2 years, I introduced Senate Joint Resolution 22, a balanced budget amendment which requires a three-fifths supermajority vote to increase taxes. Because I believe that Congress must pass the balanced budget amendment this month and because I do not want the taxpayer protection clause to be used as a cynical device to derail passage of the balanced budget amendment, I have decided not to offer this legislation as a substitute to the legislation currently pending on the floor. But as the Speaker of the House of Representatives has scheduled a vote for a taxpayer protection amendment to the Constitution on April 15 of next year, I believe that the Senate should take a similar step in scheduling a similar vote for next year. Would the Senator from Utah agree with that?

Mr. GRAMS. Is the Senator from Utah aware that in the country there are nine States that have a supermajority vote in order for their legislators to raise taxes? In those States, a portion of personal income has decreased on average by about 2-percent. So it does have the effect of not being able to raise--or reduce--the amount of taxes. Across the country, if you applied that 2 percent formula, you would save about $30 billion a year in taxes for hard-working Americans. That sounds like a good scenario.

Mr. GRAMS. I also believe it should be more difficult for Congress to be able to raise taxes or take tax dollars from hard-working Americans and to dollars. I also believe that the Federal Government has a budget deficit because spending is too high, not that taxes are too low. Does the Senator from Utah agree with me on that?

Mr. GRAMS. When we are talking about the balanced budget amendment, I think the goal that we have is to make sure that the Government lives within its own means, or not being able to spend more dollars than it can take in. So I would like to believe that the balanced budget amendment is an attempt to reduce really the growth or irresponsible spending of the Federal Government rather than as a device or an excuse sometime in the future to raise taxes to cover these debts.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Senator for his assurance that we will have a hearing and also a markup on my legislation to protect taxpayers from higher taxes. I thank him for his efforts on behalf of all taxpayers, our children and grandchildren, to bring the balanced budget amendment to the floor of the Senate for a vote. I urge my colleagues to pass this measure without further delay. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS. I ask the chairman of the Judiciary Committee if he would be willing to hold hearings of this legislation yet later this year.

Mr. GRAMS. First, I would like to extend my thanks to the distinguished colleague from Utah for bringing the balanced budget amendment to the floor for a full debate and vote because I believe, more than any other legislation, passage of the balanced budget amendment means keeping the promises that we made to the American people last November. I also want to congratulate the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his efforts to bring this legislation to the floor. I also want to thank the American voters for sending a clear message that they expect and that they also deserve fiscal responsibility from Congress, and that they expect it now. It is my understanding, however, that, like me, the distinguished Senator from Utah also supports the three-fifths vote, or the supermajority, amending the Constitution to make it a little more responsible in rating taxes. Is that correct?

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the 75th anniversary of the League of Women Voters. For many of us, America in the early 1900's is recalled mostly through the grainy, black and white images of newsreel footage. We are too young to remember American life back then, but the old films are portholes on the past. We laugh at the clothes, marvel at the cars, and wonder about the celebrities of the times whose names have long since been forgotten. We've seen newsreels of the suffragists, too, marching and protesting for the right to vote. Yet it is easy to forget that these are more than distant, cellulose images--that these are real people, with deep-felt passions about the precious right to vote. But the League of Women Voters has not forgotten. The league, in fact, grew out of the suffrage movement and the fight to ratify the 19th amendment to the Constitution. In my home State of Minnesota, the Legislature ratified the 19th amendment on September 8, 1919. The following month, on October 29, 1919, the Minnesota League of Women Voters was formed. For the three-quarters of a century since its founding, the Minnesota league--like its national partners--has balanced a dual mission of voter education and advocacy. Even in its earliest years, the Minnesota League of Women Voters took a leading role in nonpartisan voter education services. A 1922 booklet of Minnesota election laws--``State Election Laws Clearly Stated for the First Time!''--was an early league project, and such outreach continues today with annual Voter Guides and Election Information Hotlines. The League's election-year televised debates have become a critical source of candidate information for hundreds of thousands of Minnesota voters. I enjoy the unique perspective of having seen the League of Women Voters at work from both sides of the political fence--as a journalist asking questions on the panel of a League debate, and as a candidate answering questions during my 1994 U.S. Senate campaign. I remain impressed by the league's ability to reach out to Minnesotans on all levels, as evidenced by its 2,500 local members in more than 100 Minnesota communities. The League of Women Voters has earned my respect and gratitude for its 75 years of urging Americans to get involved, to vote, to take a stand on issues. A great deal has changed in this country since the newsreel days, but the league's dedication to encouraging citizen participation in their government has not. I join my Senate colleagues in saluting the League of Women Voters and its membership on their anniversary of service.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the St. Olaf Choir, from St. Olaf College in Northfield, MN, and welcome its members to Washington, DC. For more than three-quarters of a century--since 1912--the St. Olaf Choir has been Minnesota's musical ambassador, performing concerts in the United States, Europe, and Asia that have earned it a reputation for artistic excellence and have brought these talented young people international acclaim. During its 83-year history, the St. Olaf Choir has garnered a considerable list of achievements. In 1970 and 1972, it became the only college choral group ever invited to perform at the world-renowned Strasbourg International Music Festival in France; it was one of only five choirs to sing at the 1986 Olympic Arts Festival in Seoul, South Korea; and the St. Olaf Choir celebrated its 75th anniversary season with a month-long tour of Japan, Taiwan, and the People's Republic of China. Under the direction of Anton E. Armstrong, the St. Olaf Choir is performing this week at Washington's Kennedy Center. I welcome them to our Nation's Capital, and I thank the St. Olaf College Choir, its students, and instructors for serving as Minnesota's musical voice to the world.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. Madam President, the distinguished minority leader today introduced what he is calling a right-to-know amendment to the balanced budget amendment legislation. Well, the Senator's amendment has at least one thing right: its title, because the American people certainly do have a right to know. They have a right to know why Congress has spent this country $4.5 trillion into debt, and why it still keeps spending. They have the right to know how much their taxes will go up if the balanced budget amendment does not pass. And, Madam President, they have the right to know what these higher taxes will mean to the kind of life they are trying to provide for their children and for their families if the balanced budget amendment does not become law. That is what Americans have a right to know. The question is not ``what happens if the balanced budget amendment passes?'' The question really is, ``What happens if it does not pass?'' The question is not, ``What will get whacked?'' The question is, ``What will get taxed?'' Madam President, without this amendment, taxes will go up. That has been the pattern over the past 30 years. Congress decides it needs another ornament for its Christmas tree of social programs, another rich chocolate concoction on its dessert tray, and it passes along the bill to the folks who can least afford to pay it, and that is the taxpayers. There is no reason to think that Congress has changed its ways. But do we really need an amendment to the Constitution to protect the taxpayers? My colleagues in this body who say we should not need a balanced budget amendment are right, because Congress should have the backbone to limit its spending and to set priorities, just as every Main Street American family does. The good Senator from Maryland has been talking about borrowing. If a family in St. Paul, MN, wants to buy a house, it works out a mortgage and a payment schedule that fits the family budget. But eventually, that debt is repaid. It is not passed on to the next generation. That is what the vast majority of Americans do when they make a major purchase. That is not how the Federal Government works. It borrows the money without any kind of payment schedule. The debt continues to build, the payments keep being deferred, and the debt is passed down to our children. Now, if that family in St. Paul decides it needs to tighten its belt, it does. But Congress simply goes out and buys a bigger belt. Congress does not have the backbone to restrain itself. It never has. Maybe it never will. We will now look at the facts. Congress has spent more than it has taken in for 55 of the last 63 years. We have not had a balanced Federal budget since 1969 and deficit spending is now responsible for about 90 percent of the national debt. For my colleagues who sometimes get lost in all the statistics, here is the reality of what the national debt means to average Americans. Every family of four owes $3,500 on just the interest alone on the national debt, and that means $3,500 less to care for our kids, $3,500 less to keep our families fed and clothed. Those numbers are scary, but what is that interest based on? It is based on the debt, $4.5 trillion, a debt that equals nearly $20,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country today. Now, I have four children: Michelle, Tammy, Rhiannon, and Morgan. And I have four grandchildren: Wesley, Wyatt, Chelsea, and the latest, born just this morning, less than 12 hours old, and already his share of the national debt is nearly $20,000. All he has consumed is some air--free air that we take for granted. But he already owes more than $20,000 to our national debt. We need the balanced budget amendment to force Congress to do what it should have done already. The American people agree. A large majority of them support the balanced budget amendment. A large majority say that they are willing to sacrifice some Government services in order to get this burdensome Federal deficit under control. Madam President, I remind my colleagues who speak against the amendment that we would not be having this debate were it not for 30 years of irresponsible spending by this body, abuses that led to bloated committee staffs and expenses, and duplicative programs. A lot of what passed for Government spending in the last several decades was simply window dressing, window dressing for a very expensive shop in which the American people were sold a phony bill of goods on their own credit card. Now, opponents have accused Members of being mean spirited and cold during these debates. But those are simple scare tactics tossed around by those who like the comfortable cushion of Government that they have been resting on for 30 years, but which has become a bed of nails for the American taxpayers. What is truly mean spirited and cold would be saddling the next generation with more deficit, more debt, and more uncertainty. So, Madam President, the right-to-know amendment is a clever bit of propaganda, but it is dangerous legislation. We cannot strap the hands of future Congresses by carving in stone exactly how a balanced budget must be achieved. Three Congresses will come and go during the 7 years over which the budget will be balanced. Things change, needs will change, conditions will change. Each Congress needs the leeway to make its own budget decisions. Now, if the Senate breaks the promise it made to the American voters last November and ultimately votes this legislation down, we, the majority party, must be prepared to take the next step. We have to show that we can submit a balanced budget. We have to show that we can live under a balanced budget. Many of my colleagues are committed to a balanced budget, but without this amendment. In working together, we must be prepared to prove we sincerely are interested in restoring fiscal sanity into the Federal Government. My friend and colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, has taken such a strong leadership role in this issue. It reminded me of a quote I would like to share: The question of whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, morally bound to pay them ourselves. yet the questions he raised during the founding years of this Republic are just as relevant today. And now it is time to answer the questions--not for me, not for my colleagues, but for our children and our grandchildren and, again, the newest member of my family, just 12 hours old, Blake, and the debt we are passing on to him. They have a right to know. They have a right to know we did everything within our power to help secure their future. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Last November, the American people sent a message loud and clear to Washington. I know first-hand, having heard this message in cafes and town hall meetings all across the State of Minnesota. It is a simple message, with all the wisdom and common sense of the people who sent it. And yet, it is a message that Congress has failed to heed until this year. It is time to change the way Congress taxes and spends the people's money. This message is the same, whether I hear from parents worried about the economic future of their children, workers who fear the impact of the deficit on their jobs, or families who manage each year to balance their own books. Cut spending, balance the Federal budget, and start getting this country out of debt. Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment is the first step on the long journey toward restoring fiscal sanity to Washington. Mr. President, the statistics are clear: Our Nation currently faces a $4\1/2\ trillion debt. That means every child born in America is immediately saddled with nearly $20,000 in debt. And at the rate we are going, these numbers increase every year, taking with them the future of our children. If America were a business, it would have been forced into bankruptcy years ago, with each Member of Congress liable for breach of duty. In previous centuries, there was a place for those who made a habit of spending more than they brought in: it was called debtor's prison. Today, it is called Congress. Now, some in this body would argue that there is no need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. And they might have a case if we were talking about anyone else but Congress. After all, there are laws all over the books to prevent the accumulation of unmanageable debt. But what happens when those who break the laws are those who make the laws? Simple. They ignore them. Only the Constitution and the moral authority it represents will force Congress to do what it is supposed to do, what we were elected to do. And only by passing a balanced budget amendment can we hope to show the American people that we will do our job and carry out the mandate they delivered last November. Minnesotans have joined me in calling for a balanced budget amendment. It is not a new concept in our State. In fact, the first balanced budget amendment to the Constitution was sponsored in the 1930's by--not surprisingly--a Minnesotan, Congressman Harold Knutson. But like so many balanced budget amendments after it, it was left to die in committee. Well today, more than 50 years later, we have the opportunity to complete Representative Knutson's work. And his idea that was good in the 1930's is still good today, and it ought to become part of the Constitution. In following the balanced budget amendment, however, we must be careful that our efforts to balance the budget come through cuts in spending and not tax increases. Taxpayers did not cause the budget deficit, Congress did, and it would be unfair, unjust and unwise to cover up the irresponsible behavior of Congress by punishing taxpayers, through new taxes or higher taxes. For that reason, I introduced my own version of the balanced budget amendment which requires that any legislation to increase taxes be approved by a three-fifths supermajority vote. It is based on the idea--unheard of in Washington--that it should be more difficult to tax away the people's hard-earned dollars then to spend them. By requiring a supermajority vote, my legislation would protect taxpayers and put the burden on Congress to come up with the cuts. While I prefer this version of the balanced budget amendment, I do not believe the perfect should be the enemy of the good. We can have a constitutional limitation on tax increases, and I plan to work with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to pass one. But that can come at a later date. The House has scheduled a vote on such an amendment for April 15 of next year. I will urge the Senate to follow suit. Believe me, we will pass a taxpayer protection clause to the Constitution. But let us pass the balanced budget amendment first. And to those who might try to derail the balanced budget amendment, through killer amendments or parliamentary tactics, I ask you to think twice. I ask you to think about the impact that continued deficit spending will have on our economy, on the people's faith in their Government, and most importantly, on our children. Because it's their future we're mortgaging away with every new governmental program, with every additional dollar of debt we rack up. When I decided to run for Congress, I did so because I was frustrated with the way our Government was being run. Growing up on a dairy farm in Minnesota--where we did not have a lot of money, where we worked hard and cleaned our plates--taught me a lot of lessons about life. Most importantly, it taught me the fundamental principle that you should not spend what you do not have. What kind of lessons are we teaching our children when Congress spends this country $4\1/2\ trillion in debt and what will their future be like when they are forced to pay off our bills? I do not want my kids or grandkids to grow up wondering why we left them holding the bag. We have to do something now. And the balanced budget amendment is the first step. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to pass the balanced budget amendment without delay. Because every second we push this vote off is another dollar we take away from our kids. And our kids deserve better, our country deserves better. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, for 2 long weeks, the Senate has been debating legislation to correct the problem of unfunded mandates--those costly Federal regulations handed down to the State and local levels, without the necessary dollars to carry them out. Because of these unfunded mandates, State and local governments are often forced to raise taxes, change their priorities, or even reduce services to comply with regulations that may or may not benefit their constituents. Taxpayers, as usual get stuck with the bill. And mayors and State officials who don't obey risk being sued by the Federal Government. In his State of the Union Address Tuesday night, President Clinton acknowledged this serious problem and called on Congress to legislate some relief. ``It's time for Congress to stop passing on to the States the cost of decisions we make here in Washington,'' he insisted. Under the legislation we're considering, Senators will be more informed as to the cost of these mandates. Under this legislation, we won't be so quick to pass one-size-fits-all mandates. We'll know the financial burden we're placing on the country, and our State, local, and tribal officials. This is a great start, and I applaud Mr. Kempthorne and Mr. Glenn for their leadership on this issue. But as of this morning, the debate over the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act of 1995 has droned on for weeks. Mr. President, what is the delay? President Clinton supports this bill. Nearly two-thirds of my colleagues in the Senate support this bill. The House passed its own version long ago. Our version will pass, too, and the vote won't even be close. So if there's little opposition to the bill and the principles behind it, what do I tell my constituents when they ask why we're not moving forward. * * * why we're not moving past unfunded mandates and on to the other crucial issues piling up ahead of us? Mr. President, how can I explain this delay to Mayor Don Chmiel of Chanhassen, MN, who tells me that his city desperately needs relief from costly stormwater mandates triggered last October? Mr. President, what excuse for the holdup can I give Mike Opat, a member of the board of commissioners in Hennepin County, MN? He tells me that if relief from unfunded mandates doesn't come soon, the most populated county in my State will not be able to provide needed services such as education, jails, health care, and social services for children and the elderly. Mr. President, what do I tell Jim Kordiak, a commissioner in my home county of Anoka? He wrote to tell me, quote: While each of us can think of hundreds of new programs that we feel might be of benefit to the community, I believe it is imperative that we restrain ourselves from the mandatory implementation of such services and, instead, return as much control as possible to local jurisdictions. Mayor Norm Coleman of St. Paul sent me 10 pages of notes on the mandates his city is compelled to carry out--so many mandates, in fact, that the city can't put a pricetag on the costs to its residents. How do I explain our delay to Mayor Coleman? Finally, Mr. President, what would you have me tell Martin Kirsch, the mayor of Richfield, MN, who wrote asking for my help in turning the unfunded mandates bill into reality? My colleagues and I are ready to do just that--we've pledged our unconditional support to this bill and the people back home who want desperately to see it passed. But we've been hogtied by the opposition of a few Senators who are doing everything in their power to delay the inevitable and keep this bill from a swift vote. The Washington Post says that some of my colleagues are manipulating the rules to slow this legislation down. But let me suggest, Mr. President, that the American people are being manipulated along with the rules. They sent us here to change Government. They sent us here to pass good legislation like the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act. And they'll be furious when they find out we've been passing little else but time. Senators do have the right to assert their positions on the floor. I'm not opposed to that. Having come from a body that restricted the rights of the minority and individual members for 40 years, I understand the need for free and open debate. What I oppose is the cynical attitude of those who would use the rules of the Senate to derail good bills. Congress is a great institution, but in the minds of the American people, it is growing smaller in stature and larger in contempt every day. We have an opportunity and a responsibility to correct this image and provide a Government of which every American can be proud. Mr. President, I'd like to be able to go back home to Minnesota this weekend and tell Don Chmiel, Mike Opat, Jim Kordiak, Norm Coleman, and Martin Kirsch that the Senate heard their pleas for relief and passed the unfunded mandates bill. Let's stop these needless delays. Let's work together. Let's put this debate behind us, and start moving forward.