Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as a strong proponent of sunset legislation, it is with some irony that I stand today in opposition to this amendment. But there is a clear distinction between sunset amendments that promote fiscal responsibility and those that promote political gamesmanship. And I submit that this amendment is the latter. Because I believe firmly that Congress must act as gatekeeper when it comes to spending the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, I authored the Budget Accountability Act as a Member of the House of Representatives. This is sunset legislation that helps ensure greater accountability of Federal programs and Federal tax collections. For far too long, Congress has conveniently opted out of its oversight responsibilities. Without sunset legislation, Congress allows programs to live on in perpetuity, unchecked, often far beyond any intended usefulness. And without better oversight of our revenue code, we end up with excessive layering of taxes. Under sunset legislation, revenue, and spending bills are reined in, no longer automatically renewed without regard to their viability or impact on the deficit. I successfully attached sunset amendments to nearly two dozen bills during my 2 years in the House. But I cannot support my colleague's sunset amendment today. Mr. President, sunsetting the Unfunded Mandate Relief Act has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. I fact, this amendment runs counter to the principles of fiscal responsibility. S. 1 is about relief--relief from Government waste, relief from an overreaching Federal Government that can't seem to get its hands out of our pockets. Sunsetting a bill which finally provides this desperately needed relief doesn't make any sense, and distorts the original intent of sunset provisions. Instead of sunsetting good legislation like the Unfunded Mandate Relief Act, we should be sunsetting the burdensome and inflexible mandates from which S. 1 is designed to protect us. Mr. President, as everyone in my home State of Minnesota knows, you won't stop a dog from barking by cutting off its tail. If we truly are serious about eliminating wasteful spending and providing tax relief, then I invite the gentleman from Michigan to join me in introducing real sunset legislation. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to reject an amendment which is strong on politics, weak on policy, and runs counterproductive to the very agenda the American people sent us here to carry out.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation calling for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I am pleased to be joined by the distingshed majority whip, Senator Lott, and my colleagues, Senate Inhofe, and Thomas. This legislation is what the American people are calling for. It balances the budget, but ensures that it is not balanced on the backs of the American taxpayers. There is no question that Congress must pass a balanced budget amendment and send it to the States for ratification. For years, Washington has been racking up deficits. In the process, we've racked up $4\1/2\ trillion national debt. And sadly, we've got very little to show for it. Without the balanced budget amendment, Congress will continue it deficit-digging, debt-building ways. That's bad news for the taxpayers and worse news for our children. If you look at every so-called deficit reduction package Congress has passed in the last decade, you'll find that each one follows a consistent formula. Raise taxes now. Cut spending later. Tragically, however, once Congress raised in taxes, it always forgot about the spending cuts. So, year after year, taxes would go up, spending would go up, and the deficit would go up, too. It's time to put an end to this madness. That's why I am today introducing a taxpayer protection balanced budget amendment in the Senate. My amendment would require a three- fifths super majority vote in both houses of Congress to raise taxes. A supermajority requirement is the best way to show the American taxpayers that Congress is serious about balancing the budget through spending cuts, and not through higher taxes. That's what I promised the taxpayers of Minnesota during my campaign for the U.S. Senate. That's what they elected me to do. That's what my bill delivers. Is there enough support in Congress to pass it? If we listen to the folks back home there sure ought to be. A poll released today by the American Conservative Union that shows that the American people overwhelmingly support the supermajority requirement. In fact, two thirds of those who already support a balanced budget amendment say that without a supermajority provision, the bill would be a sham. The people have spoken. A balanced budget must be achieved through cuts in Government spending. Americans are willing to do that, but they aren't willing to be patsies for a big-spending The supermajority requirement is simply good government, and Americans support it just as they support the $500 per-child tax credit. They're tired of watching their paychecks grow smaller while Washington grows bigger. They voted for change last November, and it's our job to see that they get it. That's what's best for the taxpayers, that's what's best for our children, that's what's best for Minnesota, that's what's best for America.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, yesterday I testified before the House Ways and Means Committee on an issue of great importance to me: The Minnesotans, whom I represent in the U.S. Senate, and every overburdened American taxpayer. The issue is middle- class tax relief. Two years ago while serving in the House, I introduced the idea of a $500 per child tax credit in my families-first legislation, coauthored by Congressman Tim Hutchinson, of Arkansas. Our arguments then were simple: Taxes were too high; the burden of tax increases fell disproportionately on the middle class; and big government was forcing more workers out of the working class and into the welfare class. Consider the facts: Most middle-class American families pay more in Federal taxes than they spend for food, clothing, transportation, insurance, and recreation combined. Since World War II, Federal income and payroll taxes have increased from 2 to 24 percent of the median income of a family of four. Despite this, while Congressman Hutchinson and I were making the case for tax relief, Congress was in the midst of passing the 1993 Clinton tax proposal--the largest tax increase in American history. Far from providing tax relief for the middle class, the Clinton proposal actually increased their tax burden, making it more difficult for the middle class to care for themselves and for their children. The message from Washington was clear: Give us your money and we will solve all your problems. But the American voters said ``no'' to this message in November and delivered one of their own. And that was ``let us keep our money.'' Today, the arguments for tax relief have not changed. Taxes are still too high, the tax burden still falls too heavily on the middle class. The big difference, however, is that this year--with this Congress--we can do something about it. We promised tax relief, and now we have to deliver. And as I said in my testimony yesterday, we have to do it for what country western singer Garth Brooks calls the ``hard hat, six-pack, achin'-back, flag- wavin', fun-lovin' crowd,'' because these are the people who work hard every day, care for their children, pay their bills and finance the growth of big government with their hard-earned tax dollars. For years, they have watched their paychecks grow smaller while Washington grows bigger. And last November they spoke out loud and clear. They voted for change in the way things were done in Washington. They voted for less government and lower taxes. They voted for a balanced budget. And, yes, they voted for a $500 per child tax credit. But even now, the old barons of Washington and the long-time defenders of big government still do not get it. They do not understand that every dollar Washington spends is one less dollar that taxpayers can spend. And worst of all, they do not understand that it is not the Government's money to begin with. They just do not get it. But the people do, and that is what counts. And so what are we going to do about it? Well, the answer is simple: Let the taxpayers keep their money. And the way to begin this process is to pass the families first $500-per-child tax credit. The families first tax credit means $25 billion annually to taxpayers across America--$500 million to Minnesota alone. And 90 percent of the benefits of the tax relief goes to families making annual incomes of $60,000 or less. It is the largest, fairest, most progressive way of providing tax relief for families, and it lives up to our Government and our commitment of reducing the size of the Federal Government. By cutting Government spending to pay for middle-class tax relief, families first is the strongest response that we can send to the American people that we heard their message, that we accept their mandate, and we will deliver on our promises. Mr. President, what we do in this Congress will be judged by the middle-class Americans who voted for us last November. And, Mr. President, what we do in this Congress, in this Chamber, will determine the makeup of the next Congress. Republicans made a commitment to the taxpayers, and I urge my colleagues to uphold that commitment as we continue to fight for the middle class and as we fight for fairness. I yield back the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for Senate bill 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, and to commend my colleague from Idaho for bringing this legislation to the floor. I am honored to cosponsor S. 1 in the 104th Congress, and I am honored to make my first statement as a U.S. Senator on behalf of this critically important legislation. To illustrate the severe problems caused by unfunded Federal mandates, I would like you to imagine you have a distant cousin. He used to be pretty well off; he made a decent living for himself. But your cousin liked to spend money--a lot--and after years of living high on the hog, his extravagant lifestyle finally caught up with him. So he turned to his credit cards. ``Play now, pay later'' became his motto. And so it did not take too long before your cousin was up to his eyeballs in credit, and soon his plastic cards were not good anywhere. That is when he decided to buy a new car. He bought top of the line, with every bell and whistle the dealer had to offer. Of course, his credit was no good and a new car was hardly in the budget. But that did not stop him--he bought the car anyway, signed your name to the purchase agreement, mailed the bill directly to you, and worst of all, said it was for your own good. What would you do? You would be furious, of course. You have bills of your own. Maybe you cannot afford to send your kid to college this year, much less buy your distant cousin a new car. But what if it turns out that your cousin had every legal right to do what he had done? What if you refused to pay, and found yourself showered with fines and threatened with criminal prosecution? What would you do then? That is the dilemma faced every day by America's Governors, mayors, county commissioners, school administrators, and business leaders. For them, tie irresponsible cousin is the Federal Government. And the IOU's being signed in their names are piles and piles of unfunded Federal mandates. Each year, the Federal Government takes in billions and billions of dollars. Each year, it spends every dime and borrows hundreds of billions more. And when the Government has exhausted its revenues but not its appetite for spending, it passes expensive new laws, and mandates that somebody else carry out its priorities. The 10th amendment to the Constitution is supposed to protect the States from such Federal meddling, but unfunded Federal mandates have become the modern-day equivalent of taxation without representation, turning federalism on its ear and the entire concept of States' rights into a farce. Over the past two decades, nearly 200 unfunded mandates have been enacted by this institution, most of them during the 1970's and 1980's, when Congress was running out of money, but certainly not the desire to impose new regulations. And the costs for Main Street America are tremendous. A recent survey found that the 10 most burdensome unfunded mandates cost cities an estimated $6.5 billion in 1993. The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that, over the next 5 years, the price tag for these mandates will balloon to nearly $54 billion. prepared this list: 27 pages of unfunded Federal mandates that cost Minnesota taxpayers tens of millions of dollars each and every year, and intrude into nearly every walk of life--from our schools to our prisons, from our highways to our workplaces. Many of these unfunded Federal mandates are simply bad policy. Rarely do they take individual needs and situations into account, rarely do they contain any sort of cost-benefit analysis, and none of them are paid for. I want to share this example from Minnesota. With the passage of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act, States are required to pave their highways with an asphalt mix containing 20 percent rubber from waste tires. It is a mandate which will cost Minnesota $10 million in 1997. Yet Minnesota does not have a problem with surplus waste tires--in my State, they are sold for fuel to paper mills and powerplants. The Minnesota Department of Transportation estimates that incorporating waste rubber into the asphalt mix at least doubles its cost, and the additional expenditure in 1997 will result in 100 fewer miles of road resurfacing per year. To compound the problem, our transportation officials are concerned that using waste rubber will shorten the life of the pavement, adversely affect its performance, and prevent the pavement from being recycled once its service life has expired. Finally, the Federal Government does not recognize that, in Minnesota, there may be more cost-effective and beneficial uses of shredded tires, such as using them as a lightweight fill material on road construction projects. All of this to fix a problem that never existed in the first place. Of source, no one wants to simply repeal the ISTEA law. But my example clearly demonstrates the problem with mandates: Good legislation, coupled with a one-size-fits-all mandate, is bad policy. And every State has similar horror stories. Often, mandates are utterly unnecessary. They duplicate regulations and requirements that are already at work on the State and local level. And too often, mandates from the Federal Government are entirely arbitrary. While the goals are very often admirable and universal--for example, we all agree on the need for clean air and clean water--the truth is that a solution to a problem in Minnesota may not be the answer in Montana or New Jersey. Yet when the Federal Government enacts a mandate, it does not consult with the folks back home who will have to implement it. Too often, there is no flexibility for regional and local conditions when the standards are set nationally. Most tragically, unfunded Federal mandates divert critical resources away from local needs. Instead of putting Minnesota dollars to work for Minnesota priorities, unfunded Federal mandates put our scarce tax dollars to work on Washington priorities. That is not good for Minnesota. That is not good for America. When the Federal Government comes calling with yet another unfunded mandate, State and local governments are left with no choice but to either reduce services or raise taxes. And old mandates never die, nor do they fade away. In all its years of passing bills and passing along the costs, Congress has never-- ever--rescinded a mandate to make room for a new one. They simply continue to pile up. But the people back home who keep getting stuck with the bills have had enough. Last year, organizations representing America's State governments, cities, mayors, Governors, counties, State legislatures, and school boards passed resolutions calling on Congress to enact no- money, no-mandate legislation. Mr. President, Senate bill 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, does exactly that. S. 1 tackles the problem of unfunded Federal mandates by--first and foremost--forcing Congress to know the costs of any mandates being proposed, through estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. Once Congress knows how much its legislation will cost, it will have to find the money or the taxes to pay for it. This will be radical change for a Congress that spends other people's money with such reckless abandon, but if every American who has ever had to balance a checkbook can do it--if States like Minnesota can do it--then Congress can do it, too. Legislation that does not meet these tests is ruled out of order, and there will be no further action unless a majority of the Senate votes to continue debate. This is such a commonsense idea that it should hardly take an act of Congress to ensure that it happens. But an irresponsible cousin-- equipped with somebody else's credit card--can cause a lot of damage without some firm guidance. Passage of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act will start Congress down the road of fiscal responsibility, out of an era of stifling overregulation, and back toward the Federal-State relationship envisioned in the Constitution. It is the right bill, at the right time, and I urge my colleagues to give this measure their full stock. I yield the floor. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.