[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E805-E806]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           THE FIRST 100 DAYS

                                 ______


                         HON. MARTIN OLAV SABO

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, April 5, 1995
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my deep misgivings on 
the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, the first 100 days of 
Republican Party control, and the most grim 100 days I have served as a 
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
  On September 27, 1994, the national Republican leadership, led by 
Congressman Newt Gingrich, proposed a Contract With America. They 
pitched it as a magic formula for everything that ails us. Eliminate 
crime. Reduce the deficit. Increase defense spending. Cut taxes on the 
rich. On April 7, 1995, the Republicans led by the new Speaker, Newt 
Gingrich, will celebrate their accomplishments.
  But what are the true accomplishments of the Republican leadership? 
And who are the primary beneficiaries? The answer to these questions 
might surprise the average taxpayer.
  The Republican Contract With America was advertised with great 
sounding slogans including: The ``Fiscal Responsibility Act,'' the 
``Taking Back Our Streets Act,'' the ``Personal Responsibility Act,'' 
the ``Family Reinforcement Act,'' the ``American Dream Restoration 
Act,'' the ``National Security Revitalization Act,'' the ``Senior 
Citizens Fairness Act,'' the ``Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act,'' 
the ``Common Sense Legal Reform Act,'' and the ``Citizen Legislature 
Act.''
  As I reflect on these bill titles, it is hard to imagine how anyone 
could be against such straightforward proposals. However, hidden behind 
these clever and appealing names are very dangerous efforts to 
systematically employ a reverse-Robin-Hood scheme--to take from the 
most vulnerable in our society and give to the most affluent.


  ``job creation and wage enhancement'' or cutting taxes for the rich?

  The Republican tax cut proposal, or the crown jewel of the contract, 
benefits mostly those at the upper end of the income scale. The capital 
gains tax cut is a boon to wealthy investors--with more than three-
quarters of this tax cut going to people with incomes of more than 
$100,000. The child tax credit will be given to families with incomes 
of up to $250,000 a year. When taken together, these tax cuts are 
clearly skewed to the privileged few who already have the most wealth.
  For example, consider two average families that decide to spend their 
tax savings on education. The family earning less than $75,000 a year 
would be able to pay for about three-quarters of the cost of books. 
Their tax break would be $432 a year. But the family earing more than 
$200,000 would be able to pay for all tuition and fees, books and 
supplies, room and board, transportation, and every other cost of a 
public college. Their tax break would be $11,266 a year.
  On the whole, the wealthiest 10 percent of families get 47 percent of 
the benefits. The wealthiest 1 percent get 20 percent of the benefits 
of the tax cuts. That is simply not fair.
  Even if you look only at the child tax credit, the trend is the same. 
The Republicans were careful to make the credit nonrefundable. This 
means that lower income families could not receive the full $500 per 
child tax credit because their tax burden is not high enough, but those 
earning up to $200,000 would get a full tax credit. A full 35 percent 
of American children will receive no benefit from the children's tax 
credit: Thirty-four percent because their family's income is too low 
and only 1 percent because their family income is too high. Further, by 
the year 2005 the so called childrens' tax credit will account for less 
than a quarter of the overall tax cuts.
  At the same time, the Republican leadership has proclaimed that they 
would not bring up a tax bill until they could pay for it, but that is 
not what is happening here. They do eliminate and slash some very 
important Federal programs, but they still do not cut enough to pay for 
their extremely expensive tax cuts. In fact, the combined effect of 
their tax and spending cuts will increase the deficit by $12 billion in 
the year 2000.
  Besides being misdirected and extremely expensive what are some of 
the offsets? Not surprisingly, they take money from programs designed 
to assist those with the least income.


  ``Personal Responsibility'' or Turning Backs on Those Most in Need?

  Recent action on welfare reform provides a particularly vivid display 
of the Republicans' attitude toward disadvantaged Americans. The new 
majority voted in favor of a rash attempt to reform welfare by 
dismantling the safety net that protects children and their families.
  Virtually every American agrees that the current welfare system must 
be reformed. Most of us also have a clear vision of what a successful 
welfare system would accomplish: It would put people to work. Yet, the 
Republican plan overlooks this goal. Instead, it cuts finding for child 
care and weakens Federal support for job training programs. The 
Republican plan would actually make it more difficult for people to get 
jobs than it is under current law.
  Unfortunately, the damage does not stop there. This legislation seeks 
to slash spending on programs that provides school lunches to hungry 
children and protect children from child abuse and neglect.
  If we are to measure the success of welfare reform by its 
effectiveness in putting people to work and its capacity to protect 
children from the dangers of poverty, the Contact With America clearly 
fails.
     ``taking back our streets'' or taking police off the streets?

  The Republican crime bills take funds Congress designated last year 
for an additional 100,000 police on America's streets and crime 
prevention programs and reallocates it to build more prisons. If we can 
keep more cops on our streets and more kids out of trouble, we won't 
have to keep building more jails. It is naive to believe that we will 
solve America's crime problem by warehousing the criminal element in 
our society. We must reach out to the inner cities and other high crime 
areas with policies that help stop criminal activities before they 
begin. The Republican approach of building more prisons at the expense 
of police and prevention programs will never attack the true root of 
America's crime problems.


   ``common sense legal reforms'' or limiting justice for the common 
                                person?

  Without a doubt, certain aspects of our Nation's legal system need to 
be changed. Too many lawsuits are being filed in America's courts. 
Unfortunately, many of the provisions found in the commonsense legal 
reform package don't make much sense. The contract tort reform 
legislation is an assault on the safety of the American people. If 
enacted, this legislation would result in more unsafe products, more 
injuries, and less compensation for those who are hurt because of 
corporate misconduct.
  The bill's cap on punitive damages at three times the claimant's 
award for monetary losses--such as wages and medical bills--or 
$250,000, whichever is greater, removes the incentives corporations 
currently have to avoid developing and marketing unsafe products. While 
$250,000 may be enough to stop small mom and pop businesses from making 
unsafe products, Fortune 500 companies could simply incorporate the 
fine as a cost of doing business and sell dangerous goods. With such 
changes, would unsafe products such as the exploding Pinto become more 
common?
  Not surprisingly, this legislation also discriminates against the 
most vulnerable members of our society. Under these same caps, a 
corporate CEO might be able to recover $1 million in punitive damages 
while an elderly couple living on Social Security would have their 
damages limited to $250,000. If this is commonsense legal reform, we 
need to redefine common sense.


    ``national security restoration'' or the great defense buildup 
                               continued?

  The Republicans' defense build-up bill, passed by the House in 
February is a startlingly simple-minded measure that calls for 
restoring defense spending to the historic highs of the 1980's. In this 
post-cold-war era, we must be smarter than ever in spending our defense 
dollars. We cannot afford to be so foolish as to resurrect the old star 
wars missile defense program and finance other inefficient and 
unnecessary military programs.
  [[Page E806]] On a positive note, with the help of a handful of 
Republicans, House Democrats were successful in rejecting provisions of 
the legislation that would have required the old star wars antimissile 
defense system program to be deployed at the earliest possible date.
  However, should this measure become law it will hamper the 
President's ability to deploy U.S. troops in U.N. peacekeeping 
operations. As we have seen recently, United States leadership and 
participation in international peacekeeping missions, such as in Haiti, 
have produced positive results. While not all such operations are 
equally successful, this bill would put the United States in the 
position of acting alone or not at all in such humanitarian missions.
  The Republicans' plan would also require that budget firewalls 
between defense and other domestic discretionary spending be restored, 
in order to prevent defense cuts from being used to pay for domestic 
programs. With the overblown rhetoric in Congress supporting a 
constitutional balanced budget amendment, it astounds me that the 
restoration of these budget firewalls is being contemplated. If we are 
to seriously attempt to balance the Federal budget, defense spending 
must also be on the table.


  ``business incentives'' or dismantling environmental and workplace 
                              safeguards?

  The regulatory rollbacks and new entitlements proposed by my 
Republican colleagues would have disastrous consequences for our 
environment, The Federal budget, and our legal system. First and 
foremost, if passed by the House, this legislation would wreck havoc on 
the valuable environmental protection laws that we have enacted over 
the past 25 years. Laws that are proven successes, such as the 
Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act are 
all threatened in this bill.
  The legislation also has the potential to explode the Federal deficit 
at a time when we are just beginning to bring it under control. The 
bill's takings provisions would require the Federal Government to 
compensate landowners when Federal actions affect their property values 
by 20 percent. The U.S. Constitution already protects private property 
rights. This proposal could create new liabilities costing the Federal 
Government billions of dollars. This new entitlement program is hardly 
in line with the downsizing of Government that the Republicans claim to 
support.
  Finally, while the Republicans condemn excessive litigation in 
America today, this measure dramatically expands the scope of judicial 
review of Federal regulations, placing Federal courts in the 
unprecedented role of judging the scientific and economic merits of 
agency decisions. As past experience shows, this would clog America's 
courtrooms and give opponents of any new rule an ideal tool for 
creating gridlock in the regulatory process.
  More bureaucracy, expanded Federal entitlement spending, additional 
work for already overburdened courts, and a rollback of protections for 
our health, safety, and environment are what America stands to reap 
from this crop of Republican regulatory reform proposals. While we must 
address the legitimate concerns of property owners, local governments, 
and industry, this is not the answer. We must find ways to increase 
regulatory efficiency and flexibility without compromising the 
environment or the health and safety of the American public. These 
challenges are daunting, but the stakes are too high for us to fail.
      ``creating a citizen legislature'' or limiting voter choice?

  The Republican proposal to impose term limits on Member of Congress 
failed to pass because it was simply antidemocratic. Placing a limit on 
terms of service assumes that the American people lack the common sense 
and ability to decide if they want their Representative or Senators to 
continue serving. Imposing such limits abridges the fundamental right 
of all Americans to freely choose who will represent them. If the 
voters feel that someone has been in office too long, they can remove 
his or her at the ballot box. The last several elections prove this 
point.
  Term limits are an emotional response to the notion that incumbents 
in Congress have become entrenched. The facts show, however, that a 
permanent Congress, as critics like to call it, is a myth. During the 
Reagan Presidency, for example, 55 percent of the House turned over. In 
other words, less than a quarter of the Members who were serving in 
1980 are still in office. In just the last two elections, a total of 45 
percent--196 members--of the House turned over. Further, the average 
number of years of service in today's Senate is 10.2 years, 1 year less 
than the average for the 103d Congress. Also since 1980, the political 
party whose majority controls the Senate has changed parties three 
times.
  The antidemocratic nature of arbitrary term-limitation proposals 
should be reason enough to reject them, but there are also other 
reasons. While some turnover is healthy--and significant turnover 
already takes place--we also need experienced leadership. In today's 
Congress, we deal with very complex issues, and we need experts in 
Congress to address them. A new Representative, even one who has 
significant government experience, does not arrive in Washington with a 
full understanding of complex issues such as the budget, military 
weapons systems, and Federal housing policy. In many cases, it takes 
years to learn an issue fully. No one would want to turn their business 
over to entirely new management every few years, and it is audacious 
for proponents of term limits to contend that Congress is the only 
workplace in America where experience is inherently had.
  Increasing the turnover rate of Members of Congress would also 
increase the power of staff members, lobbyists, and bureaucrats. In a 
Congress perpetually filled with inexperienced Members, these unelected 
yet highly experienced people would replace our duly elected 
Representatives as the true powers in Congress. That would betray what 
the Framers of the Constitution envisioned when they created Congress--
the people's branch of Government--as the first branch of Government.
           ``fiscal responsibility'' or constitutional cover?

  In another attempt to tinker with the institution rather than deal 
with the real problems at hand, the Republicans sought to pass a 
balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The majority party 
tried to perpetuate the myth that a constitutional amendment will erase 
the deficit and end all of our budget woes. The balanced budget 
amendment, which passed this House, was an attempt to escape political 
responsibility for the deficit. The Constitution did not create our 
budget problems, and changing it will not solve them. The deficit is a 
problem created by politics, and one that must be solved by an exercise 
of political will.
  The Constitution is our most valuable governing document and an 
expression of permanent policy. Amending it to deal with ever-changing 
economic conditions would be a grave mistake. In the words of Charles 
Schultze, a former Presidential economic advisor:

       No Constitutional amendment can be written to cover the 
     budgetary exigencies of the future. If interpreted literally, 
     the amendment could lead to radically inappropriate budget 
     decisions. . . . If interpreted loosely, the amendment would 
     lead to a sharp deterioration in the quality of . . . 
     governmental process generally.

  As Members of the Senate defeated the amendment, they acknowledged 
that those of us who were elected must take responsibility for 
eliminating the deficit. Our job is to make these tough budget 
decisions--not simply to hope vainly that some constitutional 
machination will do the work for us.
  In addition to their gimmick for a constitutional budget fix, my 
Republican colleagues want to shift more control to the White House by 
giving the President a line-item veto. This proposal also represents 
tinkering with our constitutional balance of powers. A measure such as 
this allows the President to substitute his or her judgment for that of 
535 Members of Congress who are elected to represent all regions and 
viewpoints in our diverse Nation. While this measure is touted as a 
weapon against unnecessary spending, the line-item veto could backfire 
and actually increase spending under a strong President, such as Ronald 
Reagan or Lyndon Johnson. Our interests are best served by the give and 
take of the legislative process, not by granting new legislative 
authority to the executive branch.


                   the first ``100 days''--historic?

  As the Republicans talk about the first 100 days and their Contract 
With America, they will undoubtedly boast of how historic it was and 
how much was accomplished. It's true that much legislation was passed 
in the House, but I will argue that it has not been good for our 
country.
  The Republican majority seeks to shake the Federal Government at its 
foundations. But to what end and at what harm to the lives of 
Americans? If the Republican answer to our society's most difficult 
problems is to dismantle the Federal Government rather than develop 
real solutions, then perhaps the first 100 days of the 104th Congress 
was indeed historic.
  The Republicans who set the agenda for the first 100 days should be 
recognized for their general contempt for the most successful 
democratic government in the world. In their haste and ideological 
purity, they would tear down basic protections for our quality of life 
and the safety net for our society's most vulnerable individuals. We 
should also be aware of their disregard for the wisdom of our Founders 
and their zeal to rewrite the U.S. Constitution to accommodate their 
political goals.
  Haste rarely produces positive results in the democratic process. The 
House Republican leadership has had its 100 days in the spotlight. We 
must now take stock of this assault, and return our focus to governing 
for the good of the American people.




                          ____________________