Rod Grams: “when Congress and the President reached agreement on the broad outlines of plan to balance the Federal budget, I had…”

“when Congress and the President reached agreement on the broad outlines of plan to balance the Federal budget, I had hoped that I could stand before the Senate during debate on the reconciliation legislation and proudly announce my full support. It is with deep regret, Mr. President, that I cannot. After careful examination of S. 947, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, I have come to the conclusion that this legislation is good for Washington but bad for the taxpayers, and because it is not in the best interests of the working Americans we represent, I must reluctantly oppose it. Here are the major grounds on which I base my decision. As I have said in previous statements before this Chamber, I have made the pursuit of a balanced budget my top priority in Congress, and have always said that I would support a budget plan that meets three specific criteria: First, it must shrink the size and scope of Government and return money--and the power those dollars represent--to the taxpayers; second, it must balance the budget by the year 2002 with steadily declining deficits each year without the use of rosy economic scenarios; and third, it must provide meaningful, broad-based tax relief to working families. Tax relief, of course, will be dealt with in the other half of the reconciliation package. While there are many good provisions included in the bill, this so-call spending reduction legislation still fails to meet those pro-taxpayer standards.”