```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 72 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E931-E932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

                                 ______

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, May 3, 1995
  Mr. HAMILTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my 
Washington Report for Wednesday, April 19, 1995 into the Congressional 
Record.
                       The Contract With America

       The House recently completed 100 days of action on the 
     leadership's 10-point Contract with America, taking up and 
     passing measures ranging from legal and congressional reforms 
     to a balanced budget amendment.
       Despite all the attention to the Contract in Washington, I 
     have been impressed in a number of public meetings in Indiana 
     that the Contract only rarely comes up for discussion. Most 
     people know very little of its provisions. For those who do, 
     many support the major elements of the Contract but also say 
     that the House leadership has tried to do too much too 
     quickly. Still others see Congress as operating under the 
     ``politics as usual'' rules, criticize the spending cuts, or 
     disagree with cutting taxes before balancing the budget.

                                Summary

       Crafted last fall, the Contract with America was organized 
     into 10 major planks, plus a prologue making procedural 
     changes in the House. The promise was to bring all of the 
     items up for a vote within 100 days. All passed the House 
     except the constitutional amendment limiting congressional 
     terms. Some of the measures passed by the House--such as the 
     balanced budget amendment and welfare reform--differed in 
     significant ways from the versions outlined in the Contract. 
     The Senate has not yet acted on most of the Contract, 
     although it did defeat the balanced budget amendment. Only 
     two parts of the Contract have become law--requiring Congress 
     to comply with the laws it passes for everyone else and 
     reducing unfunded federal mandates.
       As it has turned out, the Contract is really a starting 
     point for negotiations. It is clear to me that the raw and 
     unrefined bills, passed by the House will be softened by the 
     Senate, or may be even stopped. Even after surgery by the 
     Senate, some Contract initiatives face possible presidential 
     vetoes. Which parts of the Contract will eventually become 
     law is far from clear.
       I voted for several parts of the Contract and opposed 
     others. The House first took action, with my support, to cut 
     the number of committees and congressional staff and to 
     require Congress to live by the laws it passes. These 
     proposals were similar to legislation I sponsored last 
     session based on the work of the Joint Committee on the 
     Organization of Congress. I also voted for a balanced budget 
     amendment, a version of the line-item veto, curbs on federal 
     mandates on the states, and restrictions on excessive 
     government regulations, among other measures. I did not 
     support certain other provisions, including a bill that would 
     restrict individuals' Fourth Amendment protections against 
     government searches, a term limits proposal that would kick 
     in some 19 years from now, and an expensive tax cut--largely 
     for the 
     [[Page E932]] wealthy--that would make it enormously 
     difficult, if not impossible, to balance the budget.

                            Accomplishments

       There have been several positive aspects to the Contract 
     with America. First, the House leadership did what they said 
     they would do. They took on several major issues and moved 
     them through the legislative process expeditiously. They 
     deserve credit for that. They have seized extraordinary 
     control of the political agenda and the terms of the debate.
       Second, several Contract items represent significant 
     reforms. For example, the measures, that have been signed 
     into law--congressional compliance and restrictions on 
     unfunded mandates--are important changes.
       Third, the Contract has helped bring about a serious 
     reassessment of the role of government. The House leadership 
     has focussed greater attention on several very important 
     questions. How big should the federal government be? Should 
     the functions of income maintenance and regulation be 
     permanent features of our government? Can we pay for whatever 
     we decide the government ought to do? Do states have 
     sufficient resources and capabilities to resume their full 
     role under the Constitution?

                               drawbacks

       There are also several drawbacks to the Contract. First, 
     the Contract has dealt to a surprising degree with 
     legislative and regulatory procedures rather than substantive 
     legislation. For example, the Contract has us vote on sending 
     to the states a Constitutional amendment to require Congress 
     to eventually balance the budget rather than have us simply 
     vote on a balanced budget. As the Speaker said, ``We cleverly 
     picked popular things to do.
       Second, the Contract failed to deal with many of the real 
     problems facing our nation. As House consideration of the 
     Contract was coming to a close, I kept thinking to myself 
     that it is now time to get about the business of the nation: 
     doing something about jobs, incomes, health care, and 
     education. the real test is not how many bills are passed or 
     the popular ratings score or the checklist on the Contract's 
     progress. The real test is whether we improve the lives of 
     Americans and improve our prospects for the future.
       Third, several of the Contract items went too far. For 
     example, a central part of the Contract has been to cut back 
     programs for millions of struggling Americans while at the 
     same time providing tax cuts mainly for the rich--tax cuts 
     the Wall Street Journal called ``the biggest tax-saving 
     bonanza in years for upper-income Americans''. I do not find 
     broad support for the proposals to cut federal programs that 
     benefit children, the elderly, or the middle class.
       Fourth, the tough budget decisions lie ahead. The basic 
     Contract promise, of course, is to cut federal spending and 
     balance the budget. If the new leadership fails at that, they 
     will have failed altogether. The Contract's tax cuts were a 
     major step in the wrong direction. It will be impossible to 
     both reach a balanced federal budget and provide big House-
     passed tax cuts without putting the entire budget on the 
     cutting table, including Medicare and Social Security. So far 
     the House leadership has spoken only in generalities about 
     cutting spending. Sooner or later, they will have to detail 
     politically difficult spending cuts.

                               conclusion

       It is far too early in the process to say that the Contract 
     has been a success or a failure. The House has certainly not 
     finished its heavy lifting, and in many respects the tough 
     decisions lie ahead. Still, a good start has been made on 
     certain items, and it is quite possible that with the Senate 
     serving as a filter and a brake, the legislative results will 
     be pretty good.
     

                          ____________________
```