[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 134 (Wednesday, September 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H11220-H11226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 2230
REVIEW OF CONTRACT WITH AMERICA AND OTHER ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF 104TH
CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr.
Wicker] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, this Friday marks a very significant day for
me and many of my colleagues and, most importantly, for millions of
Americans. This Friday, September 27, is the 2-year, is the 2-year
anniversary of the signing of the Contract With America. When more than
300 Republicans gathered on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in 1994 to
sign the Contract With America, it was not some kind of campaign
gimmick. It was a commitment that we made, a signed contract with the
people of the United States.
At this point the pages are bringing a copy of that contract to the
well to place by my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Gutknecht].
We promised if we were elected to the majority 10 broad legislative
proposals would be debated, discussed and voted on by the full House of
Representatives. For years, many of these issues had been bottled up in
committee, never making it to the floor, never seeing the light day,
the positions of our elected officials never examined by public
scrutiny.
We set out to change that by making a solemn promise to the people of
America, not an empty promise. The American people deserve much more
than that. That is why we put our promise in the form of a signed
contract.
All too frequently in today's political arena, promises are made and
then not kept. Representative government, our government, Mr. Speaker,
is not well served when our elected officials say one thing at home on
the campaign trail, but then take office and come up here to Washington
and do something other than that which they promised. This dishonest
practice undermines the very fabric of our government's integrity and
further promotes the negative cynicism with which Americans view
Congress.
The Contract With America was the first step in changing that
negative perception of Congress. We put forth a positive agenda, an
agenda that sought to help make this great country an even better place
to live, work and raise our children.
Mr. Speaker, we campaigned on a positive agenda, and we were elected
to a majority on that agenda. We changed the direction of debate in
Washington through that agenda. No longer are people talking about a
larger Federal role. The discussion and debate now in Washington, DC,
is how we can make government more efficient, how we can make the
Federal role small, and emphasize individual responsibility and State
and local control. And, best of all, we kept our word to the American
people.
At this point, I want to quote a story written by columnist David
Broder, dated April 9, 1995. True words then and just as true today.
David Broder said this: ``It is healthy for our politics and
politicians, regardless of affiliation, when the public sees elected
officials doing what they promised.''
Mr. Broder goes on to say, ``The greatest threat to our system of
government is rampant cynicism. The best cure for cynicism is to
demonstrate that campaigns and elections really matter,'' and Mr.
Broder then says, ``The House Republicans have provided such a
demonstration.''
For over 40 years, one party held the majority in this House of
Representatives. As a result, we have high taxes. Almost 40 percent of
a family's income goes to pay for government. We have mountains of
bureaucratic regulations, bigger government, but we also have lower
student test scores and a skyrocketing crime rate.
In 1994, Republicans summoned the courage to finally throw down the
gauntlet and offer the people what they said they wanted and what they
deserved, a balanced budget amendment, tax relief for families, safe
neighborhoods for themselves and their children, an end to the lifelong
dependency on welfare, a Congress which will be accountable to those
people they serve. But in the history of American politics, there have
been few occasions where something has been so misrepresented and so
maligned as the Contract With America.
Our colleagues from the other side of the aisle have spent literally
hundreds of hours on the floor attempting to destroy and to distort
what the Contract With America means and what we stand for.
Just to provide you some examples, Mr. Speaker, a colleague of mine
from the other side of the aisle took the floor the other day and said
the Contract With America would have cut Medicare, a completely false
statement. There is nothing whatsoever in the Contract With America
about Medicare, much less cutting Medicare. That it would have cut
environmental protection, cut education, all to give tax cuts to the
wealthy. Four completely erroneous statements in the space of one
sentence. It is enough to take your breath away, Mr. Speaker.
Another quote from the Boston Globe: ``Republicans' Contract With
America failed to capture the hearts and minds of the average American
family, especially that new breed, the Reagan Democrats.''
And then the would-be Speaker, our current minority leader, said
earlier this year, ``This was supposed to be the Congress of the
Republican contract and somewhere along the line we've got a lost
contract there.''
I will tell you where the contract is, to my distinguished colleague
from Missouri, the contract is 65 percent signed into law right now.
Sixty-five percent of the items that we voted on in the Contract With
America have not only been passed by this body, but have been passed by
the U.S. Senate and signed into law by the Democrat President of the
United States.
Under the Contract With America, the 104th Congress took the first
steps toward transforming government, not only to provide a smaller,
more efficient government but a better government. We passed
legislation as part of the contract that moves power, money and
authority from inside the Beltway to the States, communities and
families.
Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I am joined by several of my freshman
colleagues from all across the Nation, north, south, east and west, and
we are here tonight to set the record straight.
First, contrary to the inflamed rhetoric of my Democratic colleagues
and much of the news media, the Contract With America was largely
successful. I know that my friend from Minnesota is chomping at the bit
to get in his two cents' worth, and I at this point yield to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht]. Certainly I know that he
shares my frustration when we have 65 percent of the contract passed,
74 of the separate pieces of legislation were offered, and 48 of these
are part of the law of the land.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. I would like to thank my colleague from Mississippi
and I am delighted we have a good turnout tonight of some of our fellow
freshmen. I would like to talk a little bit first of all about
the revisionist history. I think it was Mark Twain who said, ``Truth is
incontrovertible. Ignorance may deride it, jealousy may attack it, but
in the end there it is.''
I think if the American people will take just a few minutes to
examine what we promised 2 years ago tomorrow, and what this Congress
actually delivered for the American people, I think they will come to
the conclusion that first of all we meant what we said, we said what we
meant, and that in the end I think their will has been done by this
Congress. For the first time in 40 years, we have a Congress that not
only has listened to the American people but has responded as well.
I don't want to take too much time tonight, but I do want to share a
couple of observations and memories of those days, and those days that
I remember, the most remarkable days of all, were those glorious days
and the first was on September 27, 1994 when we signed the contract. It
was a glorious day. In fact, if you recall, it was kind of cloudy early
in the morning but as we approached the Capitol steps, and there
[[Page H11221]]
were over 300 of us there, the sun began to shine and it was almost
like it was providence or prophetic that the sun came out on America
again and that there was going to come a day when the sun would shine
here on this Capitol and inside this Capitol building as well.
The other day that I remember that was so glorious was election day.
I don't know if ever I told this story or not, but when we were
watching the returns back in Rochester, Minnesota, I think it was Dan
Rather, he announced that it appeared that I was going to win the 1st
Congressional District seat, a seat that had been held by the Democrats
for 12 years, and in the next breath, he said, ``It now appears that
the Republicans will have enough votes to control the United States
House of Representatives and that Newt Gingrich will be the next
Speaker of the House.''
Well, that was certainly a glorious day for me and I think for all of
us here. But again I think it was a glorious day for all Americans. And
then of course the other glorious day was the day that we were all
sworn in and for the first time in 40 years the power of the United
States House of Representatives changed hands.
I will never forget the very next day, Dick Armey, our majority
leader, I was standing behind him and he was interviewed by a reporter,
I think, from the New York Times, and the reporter asked our majority
leader, the reporter asked, ``How does it feel now that the American
people have given you this power?'' And he said something incredibly
important then. He said, ``The American people haven't given us power.
They loaned us power. They gave us responsibility.''
And so we began on the Contract With America and on that very first
day, I remember 2 days before, I was called by the leadership and I was
asked if I would take the leadership role on the adoption of the rule
for the very first bill, H.R. 1, the Congressional Accountability Act.
I sort of thought about it a minute and I said, Well, I'm not certain
that I can handle that much responsibility on my very first day on the
job but I said yes. And the interesting thing was that the leadership
had enough confidence in this freshman class that they let us take the
lead on the adoption of every rule of the first 10 items of changing
the rules of the House the very first day on the job here in the House
of Representatives.
We marched through it that night, we passed the Congressional
Accountability Act, we passed the Congressional Audit Act, we made, as
I say, the House live by the same laws as everybody else. We ended the
idea that chairmen of committees could serve forever. We put term
limits on chairmen. We opened up the committee process. We eliminated
proxy voting. All of that happened on the very first day and what a
glorious day it was. And it was as if almost that the dam had broken
and we had begun to change the course of history.
And then we marched on down through the rest of the contract and
again I was very proud of this House, because every day, I will never
forget as well when we started the House sessions, we would read the
Contract With America and it kept us on message, it kept us in focus,
it kept us doing what we said we were going to do.
So it was a very positive time in American history and I was very
proud to have played a part of it. I know we have got other freshman
colleagues and I know they have got a lot of other observations, but I
thank the gentleman from Mississippi for asking for this special order
and I am thankful that I have had an opportunity to participate.
Mr. JONES. If the gentleman will yield, I really appreciate the
opening remarks by the gentleman from Mississippi, my southern friend.
But the gentleman from Minnesota talked about the first day and I think
that is so important because again it was the beginning of the Contract
With America. You mentioned the fact that chairmen were restricted on
committees. I believe I am correct, please correct me if I am wrong,
that a chairman will serve for 3 terms, meaning 6 years. The Speaker of
the House would only serve for 4 terms, 8 years. And that was a drastic
change in the operation of the House, because there had been chairmen
that served for 15, for 18, for 20 years and Speakers that go back to
John McCormack from Massachusetts who I think served for like 20 or 25
years.
So that very first day, as you well stated, was the beginning of
listening to the American people, that we were going to change the way
that the Congress, the House of Representatives, operated. I think that
set the tone for a very successful 104th Congress. I just wanted to
commend the gentleman on his comments.
Mr. WICKER. If I could simply add to that point made by my friend
from North Carolina, it might seem to some Americans that perhaps those
first day reforms were inside the Beltway, inside Congress reforms, but
actually everything we have done with the Contract With America,
everything we have stood for with the Contract With America has been to
help the lives of individuals out there running their businesses,
getting their kids off to school, and even those first day reforms
affect the lives of local citizens all across the 50 States. When
Congress agrees finally for the first time in the history of this
Republic to abide by the laws that it has foisted off on the rest of
the American public, I think everyone agrees that we are going to see
better laws passed, that we are going to see more responsible
regulations. When we as Congressmen now know that when a regulation is
passed on that plumber in Tupelo, MS, that we have to abide by that
same wage and hour law ourselves.
I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
{time} 2245
Mrs. SEASTRAND. It was great to meet all of you 2 years ago on the
steps of the Capitol. We were excited and I still am about what we
accomplished in this 104th. I know we all came to Washington to try to
move the money, the power, the influence out of this place, and rush it
to the folks back at home, the ones that we represent.
But what was interesting, after signing the contract, I just want to
remind people that what our promise was was that we were going to bring
10 items up for consideration on this floor, items that were gridlocked
in committees, never saw the light of day. They were simple things,
things that people back home wanted to have debated.
I would like to remind people what some of these are. We talked about
changing the way this place was run, but let us take a look.
Many times people say, oh, well, you all thought of that in some back
smoke filled rooms. No, these items were brought into being because the
folks at home across America were interested. They wanted to see these
items debated. Like the balanced budget amendment, line item veto,
stopping violent criminals by having them really have death sentences
for violent offenders, definitely saying if you do the crime, you are
going to do the time. Welfare reform, protecting our children by giving
parents greater control over education and forcing child support
payments, getting tough on child pornography.
And they the issue of tax cuts for working families, to say that if
you are going to have that American dream, we want to give you the
ability to save some dollars, buy a home and send the kids to college.
A strong national defense. By golly, if we are going to send our men
and women across to different countries, they are going to serve under
their Commander in Chief, our President of these United States, and to
wear the red, white and blue, and not some symbol of the United
Nations.
To raise senior citizens' earning limits, to say to our seniors, you
are going to keep what you make. We want you to keep more of what you
make. To roll back government regulations, so that in our districts
across this Nation, those that are in a small business can make it. And
they can hire perhaps one or two more people so we can have job
opportunities for people.
Naturally, common sense legal reform, because we have those frivolous
lawsuits, the overzealous lawyers. And, as I said, congressional term
limits. These were items important to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to break in here and remind people, not
only changing the rules, with term limits for chairmen and such, but we
wanted to change and bring about things not discussed on this floor.
[[Page H11222]]
I would agree with the gentleman from Mississippi with revisionism in
history, because here I pick up one of the newspapers from Capitol
Hill, Wednesday, September 25, and here is the opening statement: On
Friday, House Republicans will convene on the Capitol steps to
celebrate a 2-year anniversary of a document that they no longer talk
about and an agenda that was never fully enacted.
Well, you know, when I am at home, some of the people that oppose
what we are trying to do will say it is a failed contract, and I
chuckle. Every time I speak to the Rotary, to the Lions, the Kiwanis,
meet with the League of Women Voters and such, I talk about balancing
the budget, line item veto, welfare reform, seniors keeping more of
what they earn. It is just interesting to me, because somehow, the
message is out across this land that the contract has failed.
I am so pleased that you have brought that pie chart to show how even
our Democrat colleagues supported the Contract With America, those
items Americans wanted us to bring up. And I think we should take it as
a compliment that at the Democratic National Convention, the President
of these United States, Bill Clinton himself, took credit for many of
the accomplishments. Whether it was tax cuts for small businesses, the
line item veto, the Congressional Accountability Act that says Congress
has to live under the same laws we all have to live under, unfunded
mandate reform, the Personal Responsibility Act, the welfare reform
bill, and long-term care insurance deductions. All of those were in the
Contract with America.
I was pleased, I guess that if the best form of flattery, when
someone takes your ideas and says that they are theirs, or they belong
to the President.
So I am just pleased to join my colleagues from across this Nation,
freshmen, very eager freshmen, when I first met you. And, you know
what? You still are. We are going to be excited to come back and
continue with many of these reforms that we worked on.
So, gentlemen, congratulations. I am going to see you again on the
steps of the Capitol come this Friday, and we are going to have a great
celebration. I do not know about you, I am going to tell it from the
roof tops of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties in California
and talk about our successes, our accomplishments here in this 104th. I
think the people of this country are going to be proud of us, they are.
They are always telling me to hang in there, and we are going to see
them once again on November 5, telling us they are pleased with our
accomplishments.
Mr. WICKER. The gentlewoman from California is not only one of the
most principled and determined Members of our freshman class, but also,
as you can see, she is one of the most articulate advocates for a
common sense conservative point of view with the Contract With America.
We are joined by my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Ehrlich. Welcome to
this conversation.
Mr. EHRLICH. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi,
and the gentlewoman from California. It has been great serving with
you. I look forward to another 2 years.
The gentlewoman from California, the gentleman from Minnesota, and
the gentleman from North Carolina have talked about this new
opportunity agenda that was brought to Washington in 1994. But I was
just standing here thinking about, this is substance. This is statute,
this is regulation, this is law. This is what we get paid to do. And I
submit, we will talk about this, and I think it is equally important to
talk about the new mindset that this group brought to this town. I
think that is of equal importance, and certainly as important as the
substantive agenda that we have all talked about.
We come to this floor every day, and we hear, particularly Republican
freshmen, characterized as extreme and dangerous, whatever adjective
you can think of. And you know what? They are right. In this town, this
new mindset is extreme and dangerous and unique and unprecedented.
Think about it. A group of folks all over the country who actually
have a concrete set of principles that they actually believe in,
actually lived in their own lives in the private sector, banding
together on the steps of the Capitol and saying to the American people,
if you elect us, we will bring these initiatives that we actually
believe in to the floor of the House for a vote. Having these same
folks get elected, come to this floor, and actually do it.
No misrepresentation, no politics as usual, not the old political
con. Actually having people of principle come to this town and do
exactly what they said they would do during the course of the campaign,
real follow-up, promises made, promises kept, and that is extreme and
dangerous and unprecedented and unique. And I submit that this town has
not seen a group like this in many years.
The gentleman from North Carolina, my good friend, Mr. Burr, has a
comment on my comments, and I welcome the gentleman. I will just close
with this point: This opportunity agenda, and the gentlewoman from
California just read portions of this opportunity agenda, I had my
first debate the other week, and my opponent talked about the Contract
With America and running from the Contract With America. Running from
the Contract With America. These principles define not only this group,
but the majority of Americans, a majority of Americans who work and
have a stake in this country and in this country's future. That is this
agenda, two-thirds signed into law already, 20 percent vetoed by this
President. We have some problems. We have made a great start. We have a
long way to go. It has been my pleasure to serve with you during these
first 2 years.
The gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Ehrlich's comments
remind me of a story shortly after finishing the Contract, when a
journalist came up to me and said, ``Congressman, many people in this
country consider you to be extremist and radical. What do you think
about that?''
I think Roger was in the room with me when the question was asked. I
leaned across the table, and I said to this journalist, ``If you think
I am radical and extremist, you ought to see the people that elected
me.'' And the reality is when we talk about the mind set change in
Washington, what we are a reflection of is the people who sent us here.
They sent us with a very clear message. And I am like Bob: The label of
``extremist'' and ``radical,'' that does not worry me, because I still
carry the Contract. And I challenge any person who wants to debate
policy to look at the Contract and tell me what is extreme, what is
radical? What would you not attempt to achieve for the American people
and/or families across this country? Because the reality is maybe we
did not name this right.
Maybe it should have been ``The Common Sense Contract With America,''
because in fact that is what it reflects. As our dear colleague from
California discussed, the reality is that this was not too tough to
come up with. The reality is that these 10 points were probably items
that all 87 Republican and Democrat freshmen came here with a
conviction and a commitment stronger than anybody here to accomplish
this task, to bring common sense to Washington.
Mr. JONES. If the gentleman would yield on that point, would you
please remind us of how much during the President's speech at the
Democratic National Convention, how much he tried to take credit on the
issues that were in the Contract With America that we passed, and now
he is trying to take credit for, that we the Republicans passed? Would
you please remind me of that figure?
Mr. BURR. The gentleman has a good point, and I have always learned
that math is calculated differently in Washington than it is in the
rest of the country. But by North Carolina arithmetic, he hit on 7 of
the 10 points of the contract that he highlighted as successes of this
administration. I believe that in fact 58 percent on average of the
Democrats in the House of Representatives supported Contract items.
Mr. WICKER. That fact is supported by the chart in the well there.
Mr. BURR. It is supported by the chart. And the reality of it is this
was not a contract that had a political face. It did not have partisan
leanings. When laid out and debated on the House floor, which every
item was, 58 percent of the Democrats agreed with the common sense
initiatives of the Contract With America. The realities are that
[[Page H11223]]
when you look at the American people and you ask them about the
importance of the issues that we discussed, we debated, and eventually
we passed many of them, the reality is that the majority of Americans
are in agreement with us.
So maybe if in fact we are extremist or radical, so is America. But I
think we knew before we came that the American families were fed up
with business as usual in Washington. And I think when you look back on
the record, our good friend from Minnesota pointed out very clearly
that on the first day, a historical event happened: Congress went to
work. And as we stand here tonight, I do not think that we have had a
break since then, it seems like.
But the reality is we have accomplished a lot, not only with the
contract, but with very important environmental legislation, with
health care reform, with issues and legislation that no other Congress
in the past 6 to 8 years has been able to move through this body. In
fact, the accomplishments of this Congress I think will be historical.
Not by the standards of the Contract With America, but by the standards
of what this country needed and the right policy that we promoted.
Mr. ENSIGN. If the gentleman will yield, let another Westerner jump
in on this fun conversation you all are having here tonight, just to
make a comment. Based on what the gentleman from Minnesota probably saw
that day standing on the steps of the Capitol when the sun broke
through coming from Minnesota, that might have been a rare sight.
Coming from southern Nevada, we see it will about 365 days a year, so
it probably was not as spectacular a new sight for me.
I am on the Committee on Ways and Means. I was one of the three
freshmen appointed to the Committee on Ways and Means, because our
leadership had confidence in this freshman class, actually the first
Republican freshmen appointed since George Bush back in 1967. And I
think that the freshmen have done well on the committee.
My two colleagues, Jon Christensen and Phil English, I think they
have performed in an outstanding manner on the Committee on Ways and
Means.
As a representative of the tax writing committee, which is the
primary responsibility for the Committee on Ways and Means, let me
enlighten all of you to not only some of the things that we brought up
in the part of the Contract With America, but actually we have been
talking about, actually items that have been signed into law. That is
the bottom line. It is great to debate all these items, but it only
affects people's lives once you can get them into law.
First of all, we had the small business tax relief. We increased the
amount of money the businesses can deduct as far as depreciation is
concerned, instead of depreciation, actually expensing them, up the
$25,000 per year. Small business people around the country understand
that means they will be able to buy more equipment to make their
employees more productive, to be able to pay their employees more
money.
We also have a spousal individual retirement account. If you have a
spouse that is living at home right now, they are not allowed to have
an individual retirement account, an IRA. Our legislation allows you,
enacted into law, now for your spouse to get an IRA as well.
{time} 2300
We also have long-term care incentives. Right now in America, senior
citizens are deathly afraid that they are going to have to lose
everything that they have to be able to go on Medicaid, to be able to
get good long-term care, skilled nursing facility type care in this
country. We are not putting in tax incentives to buy long-term care
insurance, for one, but also to deduct long-term care expenses off of
their tax return.
What this does is it keeps more people off of Medicaid, off of the
taxpayers' backs, but also gives them more control over their lives.
We also raised the Social Security earnings limitation. We are
raising it over a 6-year period to $30,000. Right now you get penalized
if you are between 65 and 69 years of age, penalized for every dollar
you earn over $11,280. You get penalized on your Social Security. That
is unconscionable.
We are taking some of the people with the most experience and wisdom
in our society and saying do not work, we want you to retire, and most
of these people want to stay productive, and we are saying we are going
to penalize you if you do. That is wrong and we repealed that.
The adoption tax credit. Everybody talks about abortion. They talk
about all these other things and they say, why do you not encourage
adoption? This Congress is now encouraging adoption by giving a $5,000
tax credit to offset adoption expenses for families that make up to
$75,000 a year.
Now, there were a couple of items in the contract that were vetoed
and it is unfortunate, too, because the average American family pays
more in taxes than they do in food clothing and shelter combined.
Yes, the $500 per child tax credit was vetoed. Yes, the marriage
penalty relief was vetoed. The American dream savings account was also
vetoed. And also economic growth tax cuts, known as the capital gains
tax reduction of 50 percent, was also vetoed, which would have been a
huge boost to the economy and to economic growth in this country.
We are now in a global economy. We have to realize that when we are
passing laws in this country. We need to make American business
competitive once again. The cost of doing business, the cost of
borrowing money, the cost of capital plays into how competitive
American business is in a global economy.
We could have helped make American business more competitive by
giving capital gains tax relief. And, by the way, of all of the taxes
that we proposed, tax cuts that we proposed, they talk about it was for
the rich. Between 70 to 80 percent of the tax relief we passed as part
of the Contract With America were for families making less than $75,000
a year.
I do not know about my colleagues; districts, but in Las Vegas
$75,000 a year is definitely not rich. And in Southern California most
people cannot even afford to buy a house if they make $75,000 a year.
We saw working families struggling and we tried to help them and I
was proud to be part of this freshman class that truly changed the
scope of things.
Mr. JONES. If the gentleman from Nevada would yield for a moment.
Mr. ENSIGN. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. JONES. I have great respect for the gentleman from Texas, Bill
Archer, who is chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and I
compliment you as well as the other committee members.
One of the contract items that was absolutely vital to the future of
this Nation, and Mr. Archer was out in front on it as well as many
other Members, was welfare reform. I saw him on talk show after talk
show defending what we were trying to do to help citizens that were on
welfare become productive working citizens.
I want to ask the gentleman this, and if he will respond, then I will
stop. Mr. Ensign, is it not true that welfare has cost the American
people, since the mid 1960's, the years of the Great Society, $5.3
trillion? And it is not also true that Bill Clinton, when elected as
the President of the United States, for 2 years had a Democratic Senate
and Democratic House and never a welfare reform bill introduced until
the Republicans became the majority? Is that true or not?
Mr. ENSIGN. Not only is that true, I think that one of the reasons
maybe people do not believe us up here is because we do not give credit
when credit is due. I think we need to give President Clinton the
credit for raising the minimum wage. He brought this Congress fighting,
dragging and screaming and everything to raise the minimum wage. Now,
we had to do that, but the only way we would do that is by giving small
businesses tax relief along with that, so we improved the bill. But we
should give him credit for raising the minimum wage.
The President does not deserve credit for welfare reform. He is
taking credit for it but he does not deserve credit for welfare reform,
because, frankly, it was this Congress that did welfare reform. We
recognized that welfare was destroying families. Illegitimacy rates are
incredibly increased and a big factor in that is welfare.
[[Page H11224]]
We tell a teenage mother, we say, if you get pregnant we will get you
an apartment. You can move away from your parents, get you an
apartment. You can have any man live with you except for the father of
the child. Do not get a job. You cannot save anything. And, by the way,
if you want more money, have more children out of wedlock. If that is
not a morally bankrupt system, I do not know what is.
And this Congress, with all of us working on it together, finally did
the most sweeping social policy change in 60 years of this country, and
we now have a true welfare reform bill that this President now signed
into law because he was forced to.
Mr. WICKER. Reclaiming my time for just a moment. As my colleagues
can see, the gentleman from Nevada being on the Committee on Ways and
Means is on a committee that has a wide range of jurisdiction, from all
the tax measures that he mentioned on to welfare reform.
I am sure some of my colleagues will want to join in this debate on
tax relief, because a great part of the Republican Contract With
America is tax relief. But what the gentleman from Nevada has just
outlined in the items that passed dealing with tax relief, the item on
small business, we know that most jobs created in the United States
today are created by small businesses, so that tax relief package is a
job creation package. It is going to create jobs for people where they
live out in the 50 States.
The gentleman mentioned the spousal IRA, which is very important to
many, many women around this country. A tremendous achievement. Tax
issues dealing with health, dealing with senior citizens, allowing them
to retain more of their earnings, and then certainly the adoption tax
credit.
I know the President mentioned on television how delighted the First
Lady was when we passed the adoption tax credit and sent it to the
President for his signature. And I am sure there are other people that
want to talk about the issue of tax relief for the American people. And
I would be happy to yield at this point to the gentleman from
Minnesota.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman. I think sometimes our critics
here in the House, and some of the folks in the media, sometimes have
tended to say that, well, we cannot balance the budget and provide tax
relief at the same time. And I think the beauty of the budget plan that
was put together by the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kasich, and others,
was that it demonstrated that if we do it over 7 years and we limit the
growth in entitlements and make some cuts in domestic discretionary
spending while we freeze defense spending that we can balance the
budget in 7 years and allow American families to keep a little more of
what they work for and what they earn.
Sometimes we do have to bring this all back. What does it mean? What
does a balanced budget and reduced taxes mean to the working families
of Minnesota? What does that really mean to them? Well, it means that
more of the power is being returned to them.
As Senator Phil Gramm says, I know the family and I know the Federal
Government and I know the difference. And every Sunday American
families sit around their kitchen tables or their coffee tables and
they clip 120 million coupons from their newspapers worth an average of
63 cents. That is how families balance their budget every single week.
Now, when is the last time my colleagues saw a Federal bureaucracy
clipping coupons? As a matter of fact, what happens at the end of their
budget cycle is they try to figure out how to spend every last penny so
they will not be cut next year.
Let me just say that it ultimately means a balanced budget and tax
relief for working families so that they can afford new homes and new
cars, and so that there will be more jobs for the folks who need them.
It means more security for our seniors and it ultimately means more
opportunity for our kids.
I think, in the end, that is really what this debate is all about, it
is about more accountability in Washington and more responsibility and
authority and resources being returned to the American families. And
that is where it should be, because they know how to balance the
budget, they know how to get the job done.
It is not a decision about whether we are going to have more money
for children or their nutrition or their education, it is a debate
about who gets to do the spending, and we believe in families.
Mrs. SEASTRAND. If the gentleman will yield, he talked about those
families sitting around the kitchen table trying to figure out how they
are going to meet their expenses. I know they pinch pennies. I have
been in that position, so I know what it is like to see how to make
ends meet.
I thought it was interesting, I think all of my colleagues would
agree with me, that very first day we were sworn in we were given our
key to our office and we opened the office to see if we would have a
desk and a phone connected, but I remember almost stumbling over a
bucket. Do my colleagues remember that, a plastic bucket filled with
ice cubes?
We did not have time to worry about that. I think someone threw the
ice cubes in the sink and that was it. But what was amazing is that
afternoon there was another bucket, and then there was this ritual for
a week or 2 weeks. And I kept saying, what is this all about? Where is
this coming from?
And it is interesting because that is what we came to, a place that
was still delivering ice twice a day to each of our offices when we
have refrigerators, our own little personal refrigerators, or we can
run down to the cafeteria and get a Coke with ice in it. And many other
times the ice just melted.
And what did we do? We went to work, this freshman class went to work
to see how we could pinch pennies. Where is this coming from? Who is
doing it? How much is it costing?
I thought it was amazing to find out that it took 14 people to
produce that ice, deliver it twice a day, and it also meant that it was
costing the taxpayers, those families around that kitchen table,
$500,000 a year. Well, we put a stop to it, and that is $500,000. And
in the scheme of trillions of dollars, I think there was that old
Senator that said, you know, you take a dollar here and a dollar there,
and you add it up and it winds up to be a lot of money.
But I want to point out that not only on that first day did we slash
and cut different things here in this building, but I think that ice
bucket is symbolic of what we have tried to do in this House.
We cut the number of committees, we reduced staffs and budgets by a
third, we slashed Members' mail budgets by a third, we reduced
administrative staff and operating budgets, we closed the in-house
printing and folding services, we privatized mail and postal
operations, we ended a lease on a warehouse that just--do my colleagues
remember that--held obsolete furniture and equipment, and then we ended
a lease on an unneeded parking lot, where we found out that many times
lobbyists parked in, and we opened up another parking lot for the
public so that they could come and use this parking and know that they
could get to their House.
We also did some things like privatizing the beauty and the barber
shop and the shoe shine operation, all of this adding up to millions of
dollars. Again, pinching pennies, symbolic of that bucket of ice, the
way families all across America have to pinch their pennies every month
to make ends meet.
Mr. EHRLICH. If the gentlewoman will yield, I apologize for changing
the course of this discussion somewhat back to the philosophical, but I
have a question for everybody.
There are an awful lot of Americans watching us right now, and that
is good and that is part of democracy and that is a wonderful part
about being in this House. It is very important that folks across the
country hear this discussion, and I know that my colleagues all have
the same experience I do when I go back to my district.
I am fortunate. As my colleagues know, I get to go back almost every
night, and that is not the case with the other folks in front of me,
and I apologize for that. It is a great part of being from Maryland.
I hear one question repeated over and over again, and I want to hear
my colleagues' opinions concerning how they would answer this question,
and the question, in various forms, is: Well, Bob, I love the agenda
the gentlewoman from California just articulated, I love the fact you
have cleaned
[[Page H11225]]
up the House, I love the fact you have cleaned up the process, I love
the fact you all have principles and you have maintained those
principles in the House of Representatives, I like this agenda, I like
this opportunity in society that you want to create in this country, I
really like welfare reform and capital gains and the whole nine yards,
but why is the message not out there? Why do some people believe that
these are actually tax cuts for the rich?
{time} 2315
The gentleman from Mississippi earlier stated that slowing the growth
in Medicare was not even part of the Contract With America. What is
your answer?
Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I referred to the fact earlier that I found
when I got to Washington that they add and subtract differently here.
Inside the beltway an increase of 3 percent a year is in fact a cut
because it is less than somebody wanted. In fact, anything less than
what you want in Washington is considered a cut.
I think that raises a question. The question gets back to what the
gentleman from Minnesota raised earlier. That is, is it radical to
believe that a family knows better how to spend their money than the
Federal Government? I think that in fact the answer is, to this town it
is radical to believe that Members would give up the power of more
money, the power of more decisionmaking capabilities, more regulations,
the perks of the office and that in fact it is inconsistent with much
of the history of this institution.
In fact, in 2 short years we were able to turn that around.
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make him feel better.
The President of the United States shares your concern and your
frustration. Does everybody here remember the President's recent quote
when confronted by the press with respect to the issue? The Republicans
really do not want to cut Medicare at all, Mr. President. They want to
slow the growth in exactly the same way you yourself advocated just 3
years ago.
And does anybody recall the President's answer? He understood the
difference, but it is shorthand, it is Washington. You cannot really
tell the American people what the truth is because you have to use
shorthand because the attention span of the American people is only a
few seconds. And it is the press's fault. The press uses the term cut.
It is not really a cut, but we have to use it in this town because that
is the way we do things in this town; that is, we do not take our time
to explain ourselves to the American people.
I think that is what the President was saying. Does anybody remember
that quote?
Mrs. SEASTRAND. I remember that quote. I might add, you are fortunate
you can go home every night to Maryland. My trip is quite lengthy,
3,000 miles across this Nation to the central coast of California. But
I do go home every weekend.
I know I have heard those same questions. You have done your work. We
want you to hang in there, but why are you not getting the message out?
As I stated earlier, I tried to yell this from the rooftop about what
we have accomplished. Regarding the contract, we said 65 percent of it
has now been signed into law.
But I will tell you one reason that I think adds to the situation of
why our message has become more or less confused and foggy to some
people. I am one of those freshman and I know there are several that
joined us today that have been hit by big special interest groups from
Washington, DC. I would just point out since April of last year, of
April 1995, we just completed the contract. We are going into the
budget discussion. And all of a sudden up on television in my district
we had special interest ads bombarding me and bombarding me ever since
then.
Over $600,000 have been spent in my little old district of outside
money coming in trying to confuse the message and saying that I cut
Medicare $270 billion, that I cut student loans, that I have given tax
credits to the rich to take care of the rich. It is an outrage. I just
would say that shame on those big special interest groups who claim
that they speak for the working men and women. That is one of the areas
that we have had to put up with because we came here, as I said, to
move the power and the influence and the money out of this place back
home.
And so because we did that, we supported the contract, we gave every
issue, we wanted to give more power to the working families at home.
Those big special interests here in Washington are very upset with you,
with me and they are trying to gain that power back so that they can
once again have their perks and their special powers here and to heck
with the people at home.
So I think there are many reasons, but I think that is a big special
reason in many of our instances where almost half of that freshman
class is now being bombarded by millions and millions of dollars from
those people that are upset with our trying to change the way we do
business.
Mr. WICKER. The gentlewoman is absolutely correct. I think it is fair
to say to my colleagues and for us to say to the American people that
we need to remind ourselves that there was another party in control of
this body for 40 straight years, a body that refused to bring up these
items, these 10 commonsense items of the Contract With America.
Frankly, they are not too anxious to balance the budget. They are not
too anxious to have tax cuts for the American people. And for 40 years,
under their rule, Government got bigger, taxes got higher. And
Government got more and more intrusive. We had less and less personal
freedom, less and less local responsibility. Quite frankly, they want
their majority back and they are willing to say things that are not
accurate about what we have been doing.
I have an example just from this morning's Congress Daily where
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle contended during a press briefing
that despite the passage of welfare reform, health care, minimum wage,
telecommunications, safe drinking water, farm and other legislation,
``by and large this has not been a very productive Congress.'' Senator
Daschle went on to say, I believe this session is far short of what we
have done in past Congresses. He added, because we spent almost all of
our time stopping Senate Republicans from doing extreme things, I think
extreme has been their favorite word for these last several months
although as we have shown tonight, 58 percent of House Democrats voted
for the Contract With America.
The article goes on to say, when reporters pressed him afterward to
name another Congress that had passed major legislation and yet could
be judged similarly unproductive, however, Daschle could not name one.
I know there have to be several. I will get back to you on that, he
said.
It is that sort of disinformation that we freshmen, we Republicans
have had to come back for the duration of this Congress.
Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, your
last comment strikes me as something that we all heard before we got
here. That was a Congress that said to the American people, I cannot
answer that today, but I will get back with you later. The fact is that
Mr. Gutknecht from Minnesota said earlier that the freshman class
brought a new mindset to Washington. In fact, he was partially right. I
think the correct answer is the American people sent a new mindset to
Washington. In fact, why we see the situations of outside interests in
California and 38 other districts around the country of large special
interests and why they have an interest in that district is, in fact,
the breakup of power in Washington, that there are people that feel
that for 40 years they have built an empire that in 2 short years is
beginning to crumble.
They will go to any lengths and spend any amount and say anything to
change the trend of the American people taking back over their
Congress. The reality is that, in fact, the most changes have happened
in this 2-year period than probably in the 2-year period in the history
of this institution. I, for one, have been proud to be a part of it.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply call on my colleagues to add
anything they might want to in the way of closing remarks for this
special order.
[[Page H11226]]
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, if I went to this well every day and looked
into that camera and said, folks, Mr. Wicker from Mississippi is
wearing a blue tie today and I bought $100 million of ads and ran them
across the country, and I did not care about telling the truth or
shooting straight or having integrity but I loved those 30-second
attack ads and every one of those attack ads said, Mr. Wicker is
wearing a blue tie, do you know what? I bet you by election day, some
people would believe that you were wearing a blue tie tonight, Mr.
Wicker, and we all know that is a yellow tie.
Mr. WICKER. It is a yellow tie with very small elephants on it.
Mr. EHRLICH. In much the same way some people will believe tax cuts
for working folks are tax cuts for the rich, in a very similar way some
people will believe that slowing the growth in Medicare from 10 percent
to 7 percent a year is a cut and on and on and on. I will close with
this: I think the American people are a lot smarter than that.
Mr. WICKER. Before I yield to the gentlewoman from California, you
have mentioned taxes and tax cuts. Let us remind ourselves, I think it
is important to remind ourselves that President Clinton campaigned in
1992 on a middle class tax cut. Instead, he raised taxes on the
American people the very next year. And the minority leader of this
House got up before the Democrat convention in Chicago just a few weeks
ago and said about that tax hike that the Democrats passed without a
single Republican vote, what we did was right and our President did
what was right, and I would do it again tomorrow and so would Bill
Clinton.
When it comes to taxes, I am afraid that is the truth. They think tax
increases are good and they would do it again tomorrow if they get a
chance.
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, it is just interesting, I am pleased to
participate with you this evening, but as we mentioned, we were trying
and we still are trying to give power back to the folks at home, move
that money and power and influence from Washington, DC to each and
every one of our special places; for me, to California. And I think it
is really something when you think that you gave your word, you kept
your word, you kept your promises and you are called an extremist for
doing so.
I would just say that for doing so, I have been punished more or less
with having that outside money come in. I often tell people, if you try
to go to Washington and try to change the way things were, then you see
why nothing was done for 40 years. Because when you step out of the box
from the way they did things, you are punished with those ads and
misinformation.
I think the gentleman from Maryland is right. I am hoping that the
good Americans across this Nation will be able to see through this and
will again go to the polls and reelect those that are trying to work
for them and give them back their Government.
Mr. BURR. Mr. speaker, I would simply say in closing that I know that
my colleagues agree when I say that character does matter, that
conviction does matter, that commitment does matter, that where there
is, quite honestly, character, there is courage, that where there is
conviction, there is hope, and where there is commitment, there are
results.
And if I could sum up this freshman class in the 104th Congress, it
would be that we have been courageous, that we have maintained a sense
of hope for the future and hope for this country and hope for the
families and that, in fact, we should be judged based upon the results,
the results of 2 years, not a year and a half, like some want to judge
us, but the full 2 years and the impact that we have made on changing
how we represent the American people.
I am proud of the change, and I look forward to serving with each one
of you in the 105th Congress so that we can continue with the progress
that we made in the 104th Congress.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, in the minute or two that I have remaining,
I just want to remind my colleagues of why we are here this evening.
For this Congress and for America, the historic Contract With America
was a positive agenda to restore commonsense Government. The contract,
in its intents and in its substance, has been distorted and criticized
in recent months as a failure and for somehow being extreme.
Tonight we have documented that the contract has largely been a
success, with almost two-thirds of its legislative items passed by
Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. Further, we have
shown that the contract was anything but extreme, with widespread
public support, over 60 percent of the American people support all 10
items of the Contract With America. Much of the contract passed the
House with significant bipartisan support, as I said, 58 percent of
House Democrats voting for the Contract With America.
{time} 2330
My colleagues have repeatedly shown tonight that the contract's
legislation will have a real and positive effect on the lives of all
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I want to thank my colleagues for
participating in this special order.
____________________