[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.

                          ____________________