Roscoe Bartlett

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1215, the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995. By passing this important legislation today, Republicans will fulfill the promises made in the Contract With America. H.R. 1215 offers something for everyone; tax relief for America's hard-working families, relief for senior citizens, and job-creating incentives for an average reduction of $1,718 per filer. It is time for the Federal Government to stop stealing money out of the taxpayer's hands and let them keep it. The Federal Government consumes a huge portion of the family budget. In 1948, the average American family paid only 3 percent of its income to the Federal Government. Today, the same family pays 24.5 percent of their income to Uncle Sam. It is no wonder that a majority of families have both parents working harder and longer hours, but are constantly struggling to make ends meet. The Republican tax bill offers true tax relief for working middle- class families. Unlike the phony so-called commitment of a middle-class tax cut made by President Clinton and Vice President Gore in 1992, the Republicans are delivering on their promises. Also, let us not forget that President Clinton crammed the largest tax increase in American history down the throats of hard-working American taxpayers. America's families deserve tax relief. H.R. 1215 allows families to keep their money by providing a $500-per-child tax credit for families with incomes below $200,000. So a family with two children under the age of 18 will reduce their taxes by $1,000. Seventy-four percent of this tax credit will go to families with incomes below $75,000 and it will eliminate the Federal income tax liability for 4.7 million families. For those couples who are caring for an elderly parent or grandparent at home, the legislation gives them a $500 tax credit. Nonworking spouses will be able to make a $2,000 tax deductible contribution to an IRA. These tax cuts truly reflect a pro-family agenda. This bill also allows senior citizens to keep more of their Social Security benefits and not be penalized for working. We all remember President Clinton's 1993 tax increase on Social Security for seniors with incomes above $34,000 if single or $44,000 for married couples. Not one Republican in either the House or the Senate voted for this increase. Let me repeat: President Clinton raised Social Security taxes. In Maryland alone, Clinton's increase affected nearly 110,671 senior citizens. Republicans, not the tax-and-spend Democrats, are repealing this unfair and discriminatory tax increase. No one, especially senior citizens, should be discouraged from working. Unfortunately, it was President Clinton, who in 1993 singled out and penalized one group, senior citizens, for attempting to remain financially independent. The best way to spur economic growth and job creation is to get the Government off of the backs of business. The tax cuts in this legislation will increase economic growth, which creates more economic opportunity for every American. Our current tax code is oppressive by penalizing successful business owners, thereby eliminating any incentive to remain in business or even start one. Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to investment and job creation. Republicans want all Americans to prosper by promoting jobs in the private sector, not in Government bureaucracy. Democrats view government spending as an investment, while Republicans want the taxpayers to keep their money and make their own investments. H.R. 1215 will create unlimited economic opportunities by allowing small business to deduct the first $35,000 they invest in equipment and expanding the home office deduction. In order to protect the future economic stability of our country, we must reduce the tax burden on workers and businesses. Out of these provisions, I believe the reduction in capital gains is the most important because it provides access to capital. In order to create jobs, people need access to capital, such as tools, equipment, and computers to increase their productivity. Capital is not magically created; business can only secure it if people save and invest. As a member of the Small Business Committee, I have listened to business owners from around the country comment on the high cost of capital and how that hinders new and existing businesses. The current capital gains tax forces investors to hold on to their assets, thus forcing the investor not to sell the investment and reinvest the proceeds in a higher paying alternative if the capital gains taxes he would owe exceeds the expected higher return. By lowering the tax, we will free up capital for small business and entrepreneurs. This will essentially unleash the free enterprise system so it will create more jobs and improve the pay of existing jobs. As promised in the Contract With America, House Republicans are reducing the burden of Government to empower families, create jobs, and enhance our children's future, while paying for it and at the same time, reducing the Federal deficit.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in strong support of H.R. 1215, because it is an investment and job-creation bill. Let me talk for just a moment about tax cuts in general and what they do. First of all, let me say that tax cuts are not a government giveaway. What the Government is doing is simply taking less of your hard-earned money. The Federal Government has no a priori right to your money. When they take less of your money, that is not a Government giveaway. It is simply letting you keep more of what is rightfully yours. Republicans and small business all across the country, indeed, large businesses also recognize that the engine of job growth in America is small businesses. The statistics from our recovery from the last recession are really very illuminating. If you place the companies across our country in categories relative to the number of employees, 5,000 employees and above, and then smaller and smaller until you get down to the smallest companies, and those are with zero to four employees, the new jobs that were created in recovery from the last recession, a tiny percentage of those were created in the companies that had 5,000 employees and more. No company below that, no group of companies below that, increased their work force at all. It relied on the smallest of these groups of companies, the zero to 4 employees. There more than 90 percent of all the new jobs were created. This makes it very apparent that capital investment, capital for small businesses is very, very important in our job force, particularly so when we are trying to recover from a recession. I sit on the Small Business Committee, and I have been impressed over and over with witnesses there how important, how important venture capital is. Regrettably, the Federal Government has in the past, and we are correcting that, the Federal Government has been playing the role of investment banker. It has been taking the hard-earned dollars from American workers and trying to make choices of who will succeed and who is not likely to succeed in the business world. They have not done very well at that, because it is not a proper function of government. We do need money for small business, but this money should not be controlled by the Government. Our oppressive tax structure, after a business finally even gets enough money to get started, our oppressive tax structure penalizes people for success in the business. We had one witness in the committee which told of a friend of his who had a company of over 100 people. The Government was taking more than about half of the money that his company made, and if he was able to save the rest of it, when he went to pass it on for his children, the Government would take more than another half of it. So his children were going to get about 20 cents of each dollar that he earned now. He did not need the company and all of the headaches and the Government harassment, and so he quit. There were 100 people out of work, because there was no incentive for him to continue to work. We need to lower this oppressive tax structure.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Thank you very much. If you continued that, last year, May 27 was tax free day. That is more than 42 percent. But we were not through yet supporting Government, because between May 27 and July 10, every person in America who worked spent all of their money, all the money they made went to pay for unfunded Federal mandates, so the cost of total Government last year took all of the income of all working Americans up until July 10. This is a tax burden that we cannot bear. Just a word, in closing, about the capital gains tax. By statute, CBO cannot dynamically score a tax cut. They must statically score it. What that certainly create jobs and increase revenue to the Government. They cannot score it that way, but everyone who studies this knows a capital gains tax cut is a real winner for everyone.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, this week we vote on the most important part of our Contract With America. In the last Congress, the largest tax bill in the history of this country was passed; and, in typical form, it was mislabeled and called a deficit reduction package. Six times, at least six times in our history, we have tried to reduce the deficit by increasing taxes. It did not work any of those six times, and it may not work now. Only a few of those tax increases have kicked in, and we are already beginning to see the deleterious effects of these high taxes. We will be voting this week on our tax relief bill. This tax relief bill will do two things: It will provide some relief from Clinton's tax increases. It will permit our hard-working people to keep more of their own money. And it will reduce the deficit. When you leave money in the private sector, it creates more and better jobs than when it is taken into the public sector. And in spite of a tax decrease rate the increased tax base inevitably will yield greater tax revenues. So this is truly an important part of our deficit reduction plan. Tonight, I would like to spend just a moment looking at what we are going to do for senior citizens. In the Clinton largest-tax-increase-in-history bill, our senior citizens have been limited to earning just $11,200, after which time their Social Security benefits are cut. If a senior citizen has a job earning $5 an hour, for that $5, he gets to keep only $2.20. This is a higher tax rate than is levied on our multibillionaires. Ross do our senior citizens who choose to work beyond this very low $11,200 cap. Our bill will raise that tax over a few years from $11,200 to $30,000. This whole bill is fair and responsible, and our senior citizens know.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make just one simple point. Some 80 percent of all of our constituents favor term limits. This is nonpartisan. It goes across party line, age, sex, and color; broad support for term limits. We need to respect the wishes of our constituents, and vote today for term limits and send this to the States. There the dialogue will continue in the State legislatures. There will be ample opportunity to debate, and ultimately the will of an even more enlightened electorate will prevail. Term limits is not a new idea. We have term limits for our Presidents. For those who are so vociferously opposing these term limits, they ought to be equally adamant in looking for another constitutional amendment to remove term limits for the President. They are not doing that. We need to respect the will of these 80 percent of all of our constituents, and today vote to send this to the State legislatures where the dialog can continue.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, from the other side of the aisle we have heard a lot of comments during the debate on this amendment about taking food out of the mouths of children. I would just like to observe that this amendment, colleagues, does exactly the opposite of that. It puts food in the mouths of children because this is an amendment that has to do with parental responsibility, with deadbeat dads and occasionally, perhaps, a deadbeat mom. But this is a bill that does exactly the opposite of what they are accusing it of not doing. This amendment puts food in the mouths of children, and the debate during this time ought to be focused on this amendment. I am very pleased that the last two speakers on that side of the aisle did admit, after all of the diatribe before, that this, in fact, was a good amendment and should be supported, and I support it, too.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying that ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Well, the American people know that our welfare system is broke, and they are demanding that we do something about it. In the roughly 30 years since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty, we have spent nearly $58 trillion, that is trillion with a ``T,'' on the war on poverty, a war we are clearly losing. it increased nearly fivefold to 32 percent and it is still climbing. Only 11 percent of families on AFDC spent any time on a monthly basis getting more education, or looking for work. And fully 65 percent of all of the families on AFDC will be on that program for 8 years or longer. The people hurt worst with this debacle are not the taxpayers who are saddled with this unconscionable cost, it is the people trapped by the system, people who are denied the American dream of getting a better education, of owning a home, of having a job and the self respect and dignity that comes with having that job. The American people know that the present system is broken and they are demanding that we do something about it. This bill makes a good start. It deserves our support.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, our Contract With America states the following: On the first day of Congress, a Republican House will require Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else; cut committee staffs by one-third; and cut the congressional budget. We kept out promise. The contract continues and in the first 100 days, we promised to vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we kept out promise; unfunded mandates legislation--we kept our promise; line-item veto--we kept our promise; a new crime package to stop violent criminals--we kept our promise; national security restoration to protect our freedoms--we kept our promise; government regulatory reform--we kept our promise; commonsense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits--we kept our promise; welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence--we're starting this today; family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; tax cuts for middle- income families; Senior Citizens' Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalty; and congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Mountaineers of Mount St. Mary's College on their first ever trip to the NCAA division 1 basketball tournament. The Mountaineers are led by their coach Jim ``Bow Tie'' Phelan, the second most active winning coach in the country, and in his honor I wear this bow tie today. The Mountaineers got to the big show by defeating Rider College in the championship game of the North East Conference tournament. Coach Phelan's hard work ethic and determination drove the Mount to overcome an early 23-9 deficit to defeat Rider in the final minutes of the game. The Mountaineers are a young group of energized players that play with the pride inspired by Coach Phelan. I am gratified that such a spirited team of young men is representing western Maryland in our national tournament. The Mountaineers face a tough challenge when they play the No. 1 seeded Kentucky Wildcats in the first round of the tournament. I am sure the Mountaineers will play to their very best and the lessons they will learn will make them better players and a better team in the future. I wish the Mountaineers and Coach Phelan all the best of luck in this competition.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 80, the inquiry into the President's aid package to Mexico. It is regrettable that President Clinton decided to bypass Congress after Members of Congress refused to act quickly on the loan guarantees for Mexico. You see, Mr. Speaker, the President may know this but let me remind him. As Members of Congress, we are directly accountable to our constituents. Admittedly, the 104th Congress has moved quickly since receiving its November 1994 mandate, but I assure you that neither Congress nor the President received a mandate from the American people to express mail a $20 billion check to Mexico with no return address. is that he made another defective foreign policy decision without addressing the very questions that were first raised. House Resolution 80 is the first step to answering questions about the bailout, including who will actually benefit from these loans, what collateral Mexico can use to secure their payments, what economic reforms Mexico will institute to ensure that this does not happen again, and how a Mexican bailout will affect American taxpayers. I support this important resolution because I will continue to oppose this donation to Mexico, let us call it what it is, until we have appropriate guarantees from their country and until we know everything that the White House knew before the collapse regarding Mexico's economic situation. I take pride in representing my constituents, who are adamantly opposed to this bailout and I resent that the President preempted my opportunity to vote accordingly. Mr. Speaker, the President supplied so few details when he first asked Congress to bailout Mexico it was as if he wanted the American public to blame Congress for the conception of this poor foreign policy decision. Even after he told the Mexicans that the check was in the mail, President Clinton made little attempt to give Members of Congress the information addressing our concerns and those of our constituents. Well, after today Mr. Speaker when constituents question the bailout, I no longer have to respond to them like school-boy trying to convince the teacher that my dog really did eat my homework. If President Clinton will not volunteer these answers, then we will force him to provide us with the cheat-sheet, because the American people deserve answers. I urge Members of Congress to support House Resolution 80.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 80.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation and the poster here is just one reason for that. These are the taxes and regulations that our restaurant people have to live with. Whenever we see a tragedy we frequently ask for a moment of silence. I think when Members see the tragedy of what this does to our small business people we need a long, long moment of silence. This speaks for itself. I will not go over any of the details of this. Let me just note one instance of the inanity that occurs here. One of our restaurant people told us that OSHA came in and threatened them with fines because their workers were not using a protective glove when slicing carrots. The health people came in and threatened them with a fine if the workers did use the protective glove for slicing carrots because the protective glove could not be adequately sanitized in their view. Clearly when we look at this long, long list of taxes and regulations, this represents a burden on our restaurant people that they just cannot bear. I strongly support this bill. It starts us in the although modest application, it really halts our march in the wrong direction and starts us back in the right direction. I advise, recommend, strong, strong support of this bill for this and many many other reasons.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my unwavering support for H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act. Additionally, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Walker, and the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Bliley, for their leadership on this important piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment in November 1993 released a study which stated that the Federal Government devotes inadequate attention and resources to federal risk assessment research. Additionally, EPA's own Scientific Advisory Board noted that if the Nation's finite resources are spent solving low-risk problems rather than risks with inadequate resources to deal with them. Regulatory costs is the single greatest hurdle facing U.S. businesses and is a big job killer. Businesses and local governments which were regulated spent more than $500 billion in direct and indirect costs in 1993 twice the deficit to comply with federal mandates, and that figure is expected to climb to more than $650 billion annually by the year 2000, roughly 3 times our whole defense costs. Almost 75 percent of this cost increase is expected to result from additional environmental, health and safety regulations. Beyond problems caused by the rising costs of government regulations, the regulatory process itself has become unduly rigid, unresponsive and inconsistent. We all lose because of irresponsible policies. Without risk assessment, the EPA does not have to use sound science in environmental regulation formation. Bias input can be used to adjust data to fit a policy agenda which is not looking out for business, local governments or the average citizen--who must comply with political agendas. We need to create confidence in our environmental regulations through risk and cost-benefit analysis. As a representative, one of my goals in representing my constituents in Congress has been to provide regulatory relief to local government and local employers and to balance this with the needs of people for a clean environment. Before we burden our economy and society with costly new laws and regulations or continue some of those now in place, we must be sure that the benefits justify the costs. Sound science, cost benefit analysis and risk assessment must all work together to ensure balanced environmental laws and regulations when they are enacted. The process must include: scientifically sound risk assessment; risk-based prioritization; and cost-effective risk management. In addition, there must be public participation in all phases of the process. These aspects must be at the heart of any environmental decisionmaking.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this very common sense bill and this very common sense amendment. This is just the kind of legislation that the American people anticipated when they went to the polls last November 8. There are a couple of axioms from our heritage that I think are applicable to situations like this. It has oft been said by our fathers and grandfathers that the cure should not be worse than the disease. If we look back at many of our regulations which are now in effect, the cure has very often been worse than the disease, and one can cite as a good example of this the asbestos cleanup in our schools, costing billions of dollars and creating more environmental hazard than if it had been contained and left alone. There is another observation made by an old country sage that put into very few words what this institution has sometimes had difficulty in understanding. His remark when trying to express his concern that the effort was not justified by the results, he would say, ``The juice ain't worth the squeezing.'' I suggest that there are a great many of our regulations of which this could be said. I think that the American people expect that in any of these regulations, that the juice should be worth the squeezing, and this very commonsense bill and this very commonsense amendment will make sure of that. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, it might be retitled, the cost- benefit analysis bill to assure that in all future regulations, the juice is going to be worth the squeezing.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. It addresses a matter of fairness. For years now corporations have been able to deduct the full cost of health care premiums for their employees. The self-employed have been able to deduct only 25 percent. In the future we need to address this inequity. But tonight we address even a worse inequity. That is, that even this 25 percent is not now available. This is because this was a casualty of the failed health care debate in the last Congress. companies that had from zero to 4 employees produced more than 90 percent of all of the new jobs during the past recovery, we see that this is a group that can ill-afford this kind of discrimination. For this reason I submitted H.R. 696 and am delighted that this bill to reinstate this for 1994 is incorporated in the present legislation. Now self-employed people all across the country can file their tax returns and take the 25-percent deduction for their health care premiums. Again I would like to thank the chairman of the committee. We have now interrupted our 100-day contract legislation to enact this legislation. This sends a message how important we think this is for the American people.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, when, some years ago, Henry David Thoreau was lamenting what he thought was harm being done to the environment by mankind, he said that if they could fly they would lay waste to the skies. It was inconceivable to Henry David Thoreau that at one time mankind could fly. I submit that we are about in the position of Henry David Thoreau relative to what is potentially available in terms of a defense against ballistic missiles. I think that it is just not credible to stand here today in the midst of an exploding technology to say there is no way we could ever protect ourselves against the threat of the second, third, and fourth largest nuclear powers in the world. I just think that this threat is so potentially real that the consequences to our country are so overwhelmingly great that it is incumbent upon us to do what we can, and I would submit that there is no way that we should stand here today to say that there is no way we can protect ourselves, therefore, we should not do anything, that we should not do anything to study, to plan, to look at what technology is available so that we can protect ourselves against this. You know, the No. 1 requirement, I think most people agree, that we have in representing our people is to protect them. If you look at the Constitution, article I, section 8, you see there is probably more space taken up with this requirement on the part of this Congress than any other requirement in the Constitution, and I think it is absolutely incumbent on us to take advantage of the opportunities that this exploding technology provides, and that is all that this says. It does not say as soon as we can do it. It says practicable. That word is in there. What it means is we are not going to go off half cocked. We are not going to do something totally irresponsible. I think the totally irresponsible thing is to deny this threat exists. That is in this bill.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7. This bill represents a very appropriate reordering of our priorities. I would like to reemphasize that although we do live in a post-cold-war world, it still is a very dangerous world. Within a decade, we expect some 27 countries will have nuclear weapons with increasing capabilities to deliver them. At this point in time, we have no meaningful defense against ballistic missiles. This bill very appropriately requires a reevaluation in this area. It is a good bill. I urge its support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to comment briefly on the threat. I have heard several comments here tonight like ``the threat does not warrant the development of an ABM defense system.'' I have heard words like ``there is no conceivable threat.'' I have heard the question, the statement, made, that we have no threat because who could put the Soviet Union back together? Let me remind our colleagues that Zhirinovsky, possibly the second- most popular, maybe the most popular, politician in Russia, he wants to have a child in every one of the provinces of what used to be the U.S.S.R. and then when he assumes power, the first thing he wants to do is take back Alaska. He will have at his command 25,000 nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them. If they are targeted somewhere else now, within less than 2 minutes he can target every one of them back here, and we do not have a threat, a potential threat? Come on now. Let us get real.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, why are Republicans working to change the way Government works? Why are we working so hard to pass a balanced budget amendment, to enact real anticrime measures, to reform our welfare state? The answer is: for America's children. We want to get this country in the best possible shape for future generations. Our democracy must remain strong. We must clean our streets of crime, get our fiscal house in order, and provide every American the greatest opportunity to pursue happiness. To do these things, we must change direction. We cannot continue to spend and tax our way to financial ruin. We cannot continue a welfare state that destroys opportunity and ruins generations of Americans. We cannot allow our citizens. Mr. Speaker, these are the reasons I support the Contract With America. It represents real change that most Americans can support. I urge the defenders of the status quo to reflect on one thing: Can our children afford to continue on the path you advocate? For most people, the answer is clearly no.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, it is my happy privilege today to recount our Contract With America and where we are in its fulfillment. Our Contract With America states the following: On the first day of Congress, a Republican House will: Force Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else; cut committee staffs by one-third; and cut the congressional budget. We have done this. It goes on to state that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we have done this; unfunded mandates legislation--we have done this; line-item veto--we have done this; a new crime package to stop violent criminals--we are now doing this; welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; tax cuts for families to lift Government's burden from middle-income Americans; national security restoration to protect our freedoms; Senior Citizens' Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalty; Government regulatory reform; commonsense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits; and congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America, and this is why Americans feel better and better about their Government.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, our Contract With America states the following: On the first day of Congress, a Republican House will: Force Congress to live under the same laws as everyone else; cut committee staffs by one-third; and cut the congressional budget. We did all this on the first day. It goes on to state that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we have done this; unfunded mandates legislation--we have done this; line-item veto--we have done this. Yet to be accomplished: A new crime bill to stop violent criminals; welfare reform to encourage work, not dependence; family reinforcement to crack down on deadbeat dads and protect our children; tax cuts for families to lift Government's burden from middle-income Americans; national security restoration to protect our freedoms; Senior Citizens' Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalty; Government regulatory reform; commonsense legal reform to end frivolous lawsuits; citizen legislature. This is our Contract With America.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?