[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S5383]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S5383]]

                           THE HOUSE CONTRACT

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, 2 years ago, when President Clinton marked 
his 100th day in office, I said the occasion ``should not be regarded 
as a magical threshold for defining achievement or failure.''
  The same thought applies now. This is a logical time to take stock, 
but the real measure of success can't be taken for many months--not 
until the rest of the Democratic process, namely the Senate and the 
President, bring their perspectives to bear.
  I give the new House leadership credit for lots of energy and 
activity in the flush of electoral victory, but this should not be 
mistaken for definitive accomplishment.
  The fact is the Contract With America is a contract made by 
Republican candidates for the House of Representatives. It is not a 
contract made by the Senate and certainly not one made by Senate 
Democrats nor by the President of the United States.
  Since the contract seems to be the product of pollsters and campaign 
consultants, it is not surprising that nearly everyone can agree with 
at least several of its objectives. But when we look at the fine print 
of some of them and when we get down to the hard job of deciding on the 
means for achieving those objectives, there are bound to be vast 
philosophical disagreements.
  I certainly agree with the objectives of fiscal responsibility, 
welfare reform, continued action on crime control, job creation, 
fairness for senior citizens, and promotion of family values.
  And I even agree with some of the means proposed, such as unfunded 
mandate reform and capital gains tax relief to create jobs, child 
support enforcement to advance family values and an increase in the 
Social Security earnings limit for the benefit of senior citizens.
  But I find myself in profound disagreement with several of the major 
objectives as well as the means to implement them. These include:
  The balanced budget amendment, which I opposed because it would have 
cut too much too soon.
  The line-item veto, which I opposed because it yields too much 
congressional power to the President and because it is administratively 
unwieldly.
  Term limitations.
  Increased defense spending.
  Reinstatement of the death penalty and cuts in spending on social 
programs (such as midnight basketball) to control crime.
  Tax cuts without deficit reduction.
  Welfare reforms without compassion.
  Reduced support for the United Nations.
  Any reduction in support for education or elimination of support for 
the arts and humanities.
  So, Mr. President, it is far too early to tally up score cards on a 
contract made by one party in one House of the legislative branch. Many 
of us simply don't subscribe to substantial parts of it and don't 
believe that implementation of it in toto would be good for the 
country.
  The streamroller needs to be slowed down and the contract needs to be 
pruned, modified, and in some cases excised. This is the role that the 
Senate is so admirably equipped to do. And only when it has done so 
will the revised elements of the contract be candidates for 
Presidential consideration. Then and only then, when the executive 
branch has concurred, can the final score be tallied.
  As I said 2 years ago, the true measure of success should be taken 
over the extended timeframe of this whole process, without drawing 
hasty conclusions here and now. One hundred days is only the first 
milestone of a long journey.


                          ____________________