Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the authors of the substitute, we do accept the amendment. We believe that it goes to the best interests of the farmers that the gentleman from Kansas was speaking so eloquently about just a few minutes ago. We commend the gentleman for his foresight in bringing this matter to our attention.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAXTON. The gentleman mentioned beach closures. I just want to say what the gentleman spoke of in terms of the Coastal Zone Management Act and the provisions that have to do with nonpoint source pollution and the benefits provided for wetlands go a long way to prevent beach closures. In 1987 and 1988, I lived through those beach closures along with the Northeast coast, and I can say, I think uncategorically, that by repealing the laws which the committee bill proposes to repeal, that we are bound to repeat summers like those summers when we had those beach closures, because we are eliminating the protections that we have since put in place that have worked very, very well, and so I thank the gentleman for pointing out those very, very important aspects of this substitute.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAXTON. I would just like to commend the gentleman on his very thoughtful and fine statement and we appreciate very much the gentleman's support. I would just say to the gentleman that he has correctly pointed out, just as we owe our children a legacy in terms of the finances and the way we spend our money today and the way we borrow our money today, we certainly owe our children a legacy in terms of the world and the physical condition that we leave it. I appreciate very much the support of the gentleman.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAXTON. The National Governors' Association supports this.

Mr. SAXTON. I would just like to point out to the gentleman I share your concerns about building bigger bureaucracies and establishing committees on top of committees. The Wetlands Coordinating Committee is something that is endorsed by the Governors, that would have Federal Representation, State Representation, local representation in order to look at individual cases to try and determine where we believe this is warranted. If we all agree, as you stated, I agree with you, that wetlands are important, we have to have some mechanism in which to deal with them. This is a partnership effort established and created in cooperation with the States in order to carry out this coordinating function.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my personal appreciation and the appreciation of many of my colleagues for the cooperation shown by the chairman of the committee in helping to bring forward this rule, and the opportunity of those of us who have some differences with the committee bill, and giving us an opportunity to express those differences as well as to offer amendments like the one at the desk. I would also like to express my appreciation for the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], both of whom have worked many long hours along with me and my staff in working to bring forth the amendment that we are considering at this time. I think it is noteworthy to mention that while this is a substitute amendment, that it adopts some 70 to 75 percent of the committee draft, and that the language of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] in those cases remains the same. There are several however, sections of the bill that we believe can be improved, and I just would like to talk about those several sections for just a minute. As many of my colleagues know, having heard previous statements that I and others have made today, those of us who live in and represent areas of the country that are densely populated, or that are in coastal areas or that are in areas such as the Mississippi River Valley and other environmentally sensitive ecosystem type areas around the country have very serious concerns with at least four sections. One is the section that involves wetlands. The second is the section that involves nonpoint sources of pollutions. The third is in the permitting system, and what the committee mark does to the permitting process in terms of eliminating it is very effective. And the fourth, at least for me and for others I believe, is the issue of ocean dumping, and I would just like to address those four areas for just a minute. With regard to wetlands, it is pretty obvious that in New Jersey, where we estimate that 90 percent of our wetlands would be declassified as wetlands under the language of the committee bill, this causes a great deal of concern inasmuch as wetlands play a very vital environmental role in coastal areas, and so if I, as I am, were a representative of a coastal area anywhere from Maine to Florida on the east coast I would be terribly concerned about the effect of this bill, or if I were a representative from the Gulf States bordering on the Gulf of Mexico I would be terribly concerned about the provisions of bill, and of course if I were from California or Oregon or Washington State I would be equally concerned by the provisions as they relate to wetlands. Of course we all know as well that wetlands act as a natural filtering system and act as the very basis of life in many cases, and so the committee mark, which does what we think is wrong things to the concept of wetlands protection, needs to be rewritten, and our bill does that. With regard to the nonpoint source pollution program and the Coastal Zone Management Act, which in its very nature creates a partnership between State governments and the Federal Government with regard to this very important nonpoint issue, was also done, we think, significant harm by the committee mark. And we believe, therefore, that changes are necessary. Those of us who have had problems with point sources of pollution have been able to identify such things as outfalls into our streams and rivers and bays and oceans. We have been able to deal with them. They are a relatively simple task to take care of, and I say relatively simple. It is never easy nor it is ever simple, but at least you can identify the source of pollution. With regard to nonpoint sources, it is a much more difficult task, and the CZMA sets up this partnership between the State and Federal Government in order to identify and develop programs in order to deal with nonpoint sources, and here again we would maintain what the coastal States association have endorsed, as a matter of fact With regard to storm water discharge, obviously it is a very big issue and a problem that creates a great deal of damage to our coastal environment as well as to other tributaries around the country, and here again the permitting process is damaged severely under the language of the committee mark. And so we would make significant changes and do in the committee substitute which we will be voting on a little bit later today. Finally with regard to ocean dumping, this has been a tremendous task which we have done on a bipartisan basis; the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is here and our former colleague, Bill Hughes, all worked together to put an end to ocean dumping. We address in our substitute only that section of the bill that has to do with dredge spoil deposit offshore. So we ask our colleagues to support our substitute, and I thank the Members for their consideration.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I just wanted to remark there has been much said here today about the economic implications, whether they be good or bad, of this attempt to change the Clean Water Act as it currently exists. I would just like to say if you represent a coastal State and if you look at the provisions of this bill as it stands today and if you think that is good for your economy, then you should have spent the years of the middle 1980's with me in New Jersey or with the Representatives of Long Island when water was dirty. Those were If you think that doing damage to the wetlands provisions as they exist today, in removing 90 percent of the wetlands in my home State from the rolls of wetlands, if you think that is good for my economy, then you should vote for this bill. If you think it is good for the economy to gut the CZMA provisions that pertain to nonpoint source pollution, I do not think it is, but if you think it is, then you should vote for this bill. I would just say that the Coastal States Association does not think that is good, because we have adopted their provisions, and we have done that in the name of the economy. If you think that doing damage to the storm water discharge permitting process, as it happens in this bill, is good for the economy of coastal States, then you should vote for this bill. But I cannot do that, because I know, having lived through the years of the middle 1980's in New Jersey and what happened on Long island, that is not good for the economy. So if you are concerned about the economy of the coastal areas in this United States, whether it be in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, or Virginia or the Carolinas, I am not so sure about Georgia; I have never been there, or Florida or the Gulf States or California or Oregon or Wisconsin, if you are not concerned about the economic implications of this bill, then you have not observed what has gone on in those States that have developed dirty water climates. In the summers of 1987 and 1988, for example, in New Jersey, people were afraid to go to the ocean, afraid to go in the water. They were afraid to take vacations in those kinds of places. So that is our economy, and this bill does damage to it.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me this time. Let me just say at the outset that I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the Republican leadership for giving us the opportunity to debate this very important matter under an open rule, giving us the opportunity to bring our points forward as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and I will do in a substitute a little later on. I called the Speaker on Friday and I expressed my concerns about this bill from a New Jersey coastal perspective. The Speaker, without hesitation, said ``You get together what you think is good for New Jersey in the way of a substitute or in the way of however you want to propose your amendments, and you bring them to floor, and we will have an open rule.'' And I appreciate that. I also appreciate the cooperation by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and members of the Committee on Rules in this regard. It truly is an opportunity for us to debate before the American people some issues that I think are of great importance. I have now been in this House for a decade, and when I was elected to the House and became a member of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, soon to be joined by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], already in place was Mr. Hughes from New Jersey, we were there because we had great concerns, coastal areas of our State. I think the same concerns exist in many coastal States, but perhaps they were emphasized in New Jersey because of our density of population. Perhaps they were emphasized because of our proximity to the largest city on our coast in the country, New York City, of course. We began to look at some of the problems caused by that in the Northeast, Long Island, New England, and along the New Jersey coast; we began on a bipartisan basis, without consideration for politics, in my opinion, in any partisan form, to put together programs that were intended to create a much better condition for inhabitants and visitors to those coastal areas. We had massive beach closings in the summers of 1987 and 1988 in New York and New Jersey and other coastal States. We had flooding in many areas of our country, both inland areas as well as coastal areas, and that has to do very much with this bill. We identified sources of pollution that were relatively easy to take care of, namely, point sources of pollution, and we also recognized that there is another category of pollution known as nonpoint sources of pollution that are much more difficult to deal with, and we put in place national policy sometimes tailored specifically to States through the Coastal Zone Management Act, and that process to take care of many of these programs and to take care of many of these issues and problems as well. I must say together, as Republicans and Democrats, we have been very, very successful. As a matter of fact, just the day before yesterday, an airplane pilot friend of mine who has been flying over the Eastern coast for many years said to us, ``One of the things you have done right,'' he said, ``and I know this from my observations of flying over these areas and viewing the habitat and the environment, particularly the water, that you have done a good job in beginning to turn the corner on coastal pollution,'' and we have been able to do that. Unfortunately, I take issue with many or some, at least, of the provisions of this bill relative to the treatment of wetlands and their importance in keeping the environmental quality what it should be in coastal areas, with the repeal of the CZMA section which has reference to nonpoint pollution, and that is why the Coastal States Association endorses the Saxton-Boehlert approach which we think is much more sensible, as well as the storm water discharge and the permitting process which is repealed by this act. All of these things are vitally important to the health and welfare and the environmental quality that affects the people's lives that inhabit and visit coastal areas. One other issue of particular importance, I know it is of importance to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], as it to me, is the ocean dumping provisions of this bill that relate to dredge spoils being dumped offshore and the elimination of the involvement on a direct basis of the Environmental Protection Agency. And so we will offer at the appropriate time a substitute which we hope we will get broad consensus on relative to these and a few other subjects. And so, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to express my support for the rule this morning and my appreciation for the leadership on our side and the Committee on Rules for permitting us to offer under an open rule changes in regard to these provisions.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, for the last decade I have represented a district that has as many senior citizens in it as any other district save one or two in the country. I think it is totally unfair to our older Americans to pretend there is no problem with Medicare and try to say that the Republican Party is out to make cuts in Medicare to give the rich people a tax cut. It is simply not true. Under our plan, Medicare increases from $4,700 a participant to over $6,000. As a matter of fact, it is $6,300 per participant. That is not a cut. The bottom line with Medicare is, and their party needs to figure this out, fix it or lose it, because the President himself says it will be bankrupt in 7 years.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks, and to include extraneous material, on the bill just considered and passed.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1139) to amend the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 1139, the Striped Bass Conservation Act Amendments of 1995. Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to explain the bill, I would like to make note that this bill is a product of a high degree of bipartisan work and a high degree of bipartisan support. While H.R. 1139 carries my name as the primary sponsor this year, in past years very similar legislation carried the names of others, including, as prime sponsor, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. And, as a member of the minority, I was pleased to have had a great deal of input from the then chairman of the Committee on Fish and Wildlife, so to the extent that I can extend to past Congresses and to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], congratulations for bringing us to this point, it is my pleasure to explain the bill. Mr. Speaker, as the result of a significant population decline that began in the 1970's, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission developed an interstate fishery management plan for striped bass. Congress also responded to the decline of striped bass populations by authorizing the Emergency Striped Bass Study in 1979. In 1984, Congress enacted the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act. The act was originally introduced by my good friend, Gerry Studds, the ranking minority member of the Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee. This act requires a Federal moratorium on striped bass fishing in States that do not implement management measures consistent with the Commission's striped bass plan. Implementation of this plan has led to a resurgence in Atlantic Coast striped bass which are now considered fully recovered. Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of the times when we can collectively say that this House did something right which culminated in the fully desired result. H.R. 1139 extends the authorization for the Striped Bass Conservation Act through fiscal year 1996, and extends the striped bass study through fiscal year 1998. I urge my colleagues to support the continuation of this vital and highly successful conservation effort by voting ``aye'' on this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak to you this morning because $3.5 trillion in private pension funds are at risk. Why? Because the Clinton administration has targeted private pension funds as a new way to finance their liberal social spending agenda. Faced with an angry revolt of voters, fed up with an oversized and overintrusive Federal Government, Clinton's advisers devised a behind the scenes, incremental strategy to achieve Clinton's pension grab. The overall strategy came from a campaign document called, A National Economic Strategy calling for an $80 billion investment in an array of social projects that will be leveraged with public and private pensions. President Clinton and his Department of Labor are trying to use private pensions to fund social investments. These social investments include: Public housing, infrastructure, and pork-barrel projects. The administration has dubbed these social projects economically targeted investments or ETI's, but I prefer to call them PTI's or politically targeted investments. Stage 2 in Clinton's great pension grab came in June 1994, when Labor Secretary Robert Reich issued an interpretive bulletin which defined ETI's in a way that makes them seem consistent with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. This law was specifically designed to ensure the safety of America's private pension funds. The strength and force of this law has now been undermined. Stage 3 in Clinton's pension-fund grab was the establishment of a clearinghouse intended to showcase ETI investments and give them the Federal Government's seal of approval. The Clinton Labor Department, without congressional authorization I note, has already contracted to spend $1.2 million to get the clearinghouse up and running. Stage 4 is now in the process of unfolding. As members of the press know, it has been widely reported that the President will likely nominate Assistant Treasury Secretary Alicia Munnell to be the next Governor of the Federal Reserve Board. Not long ago, Munnell proposed a 15-percent Federal tax on private pension funds to help finance the Federal Government's liberal spending habits. Once planted at the Fed, not only will Munnell be completely outside of the reach of Congress, she will also be strategically situated to help the administration execute its grab for private pensions. Let me emphasize that targeting private pension fund investments is a radical and dangerous idea. ETI's violate the clear mandate of ERISA that a pension fund manager must give complete and undivided loyalty to the pension beneficiaries. Let me quote directly from ERISA: a pension fund manager must ``discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of (i) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (ii) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan.'' Besides ETI's obvious conflict with ERISA, the best economic research indicates that pension funds that target social investments produce yields well below market averages. For instance, a 1983 study by none other than Alicia Munnell found that public pension funds that targeted social investments had assets that were significantly riskier, less liquid, and earned lower yields. Also, a 1993 study by Roberta Romano of Yale Law School concluded that the greater the political influence on the investment decision, the lower the corresponding return. And, a 1994 University of Pennsylvania study by Olivia Mitchell determined that public pension funds required to make a certain portion of in-State investments generated lower investment returns. In light of the empirical research on ETI's and given their dubious legal standing, stage five and beyond in the great pension fund grab becomes easy to predict. The President and his administration will seek ways for the Federal Government to offer subsidies, guarantees, and other imaginative techniques to shield pension trustees from blame when ETI investing pension funds get into trouble. Richard Ferlauto of the Center for Policy Alternatives gives us a clue to their plans: ``ETI programs must be enhanced through the development and use of appropriate risk reduction mechanisms. Examples include state-funded loan guarantee programs, state or private insurance pools, and insurance premiums . . .'' This means taxpayers will be put at risk as well. The ultimate objective would be to implement a social-responsibility requirement for private pension funds similar to the one now being imposed on banks--an ETI quota for every private pension fund. One need only refer to the ETI quota bill introduced on February 24, 1995, in California to realize the potential damage to the pension community. What would a 5-percent quota mean if enforced at the national level? In 1993, total private pension fund assets in the United States amounted to $3.5 trillion. A 5-percent ETI quota would mean that the Government would suddenly have at its command a whopping $175 billion with which to enact the liberal social agenda. More insidiously still, a quota of even this magnitude would mean that politicians had succeeded in conscripting private pension funds into the compulsory economic service of the U.S. Government. What Secretary Reich would make permissible today, will become compulsory tomorrow. Today, I am introducing a bill that will protect the 36 million private pension participants from President Clinton's pension fund grab. My bill, the Pension Protection Act of 1995, will not alter the fiduciary duties laid out in ERISA. Instead, my bill will simply reiterate that the act means what it says, no more, or less. ERISA couldn't be clearer. Trustees may not invest in ETI's because by definition ETI's seek to benefit someone other than solely the participants and beneficiaries of the pension plan; and ETI's pursue an objective other than exclusively the interest of the plan's participants and beneficiaries. My bill removes any uncertainly by making it unambiguously clear that solely means solely not primarily or even overwhelmingly; and my bill makes it unambiguously clear that exclusively means exclusively not almost only or even just about completely. Exactly what parts of solely and exclusively doesn't the Clinton Labor Department understand? My bill also will prohibit the Federal Government from guaranteeing, subsidizing, or encouraging social investments. And, it will put an end to the clearinghouse. The security of our pension funds is no small issue. Every American who plans on retiring someday should be very concerned about what the Clinton administration is up to. I believe that if we act quickly, we can ensure that everyone working today can rest easier if my bill to protect their pensions is passed.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill today which is known as the Pension Protection Act of 1995. I must say that usually I am pleased to introduce a bill. Today I say that I regret that it is necessary to introduce this bill. But it is, because when American workers get their check at the end of the pay period and they look at the check stub, they look to see, how much has been deducted for their contribution to their pension plan. And those pension plans have become very, very important, because those are essentially savings that the American worker is putting aside for his or her retirement. The Clinton administration has been up to some mischief, I believe, that is destructive to that process. So the Pension Plan Act of 1995, which is cosponsored by our leadership on the Republican side, and I certainly invite our Democrat friends to join with us as well, is an attempt to protect the American worker from the mischief of the Clinton administration. It is interesting to note that something over $3.5 trillion are in private pension funds today. This is the magnitude of the risk that has been brought about by the Clinton administration. Why? Because the administration has targeted private pension funds as a new way to finance their liberal social agenda. Faced with an angry revolt of voters last November against too much Federal spending, President Clinton and his Department of Labor are trying to use private pensions to do what they used to do through old fashioned taxing-and-spending. These social investments include: Public housing, infrastructure, and pork-barrel projects. The administration has dubbed these social projects ``Economically Targeted Investments'' or ETI's, but I prefer to call them PTI's or ``Politically Targeted Investments.'' Let me emphasize that targeting private pension fund investments is a radical and dangerous idea. ETI's violate the clear mandate of the Federal law that Congress passed to protect private pensions--the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or ERISA--which requires that a pension fund manger must give complete and undivided loyalty to the pension beneficiaries. Let me quote directly from ERISA: A pension fund manager must ``discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of (I) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (II) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan.'' Besides ETI's obvious conflict with ERISA, the best economic research indicates that pension funds that target social investments produce below market returns. The Clinton administration's ultimate objective is to establish an ETI quota for every private pension fund. What Secretary Reich would make permissible today, will become compulsory tomorrow. Today, I am introducing a bill that will protect the 36 million private pension participants from President Clinton's pension fund grab. My bill, the Pension Protection Act of 1995, will not alter the fiduciary duties laid out in ERISA. Instead, my bill will simply reiterate that the act means what it says, no more, no less. ERISA could not be clearer. Trustees may not invest in ETI's because by definition ETI's seek to benefit someone other that solely the participants and beneficiaries of the pension plan; and ETI's pursue an objective other than exclusively the interest of the plan's participants and beneficiaries. The security of our pension funds is no small issue. Every American who plans on retiring someday should be very concerned about that the Clinton administration is up to. I believe that if we act quickly, we can ensure that everyone working today can rest easier if my bill to protect their pensions is passed.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee on the Whole House under the 5-minute rule: The Committee on Agriculture; the Committee on Banking and Financial Services; the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; the Committee on House Oversight; the Committee on International Relations; the Committee on the Judiciary; the Committee on Resources; and the Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minority has been consulted, and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, Monday, April 3, 1995, marked the first official day of long-deserved retirement for my associate and friend for many memorable years, Muriel M. Dougherty. After having worked with me for almost 22 years, most of them as a public servant, Muriel will now blissfully enjoy the fruits of a leisurely life, including the company of her 5 children and 13 grandchildren. Muriel first worked with me as secretary in the real estate firm of Saxton, Imlay and Falconer, earning her real estate license along the way. In 1975 when I began my political career as a New Jersey State Assemblyman, Muriel became my legislative assistant, working diligently in her new position, as always. After 6 years, she moved with me to the New Jersey Senate. Because Muriel is a completely trustworthy, competent, and people-oriented individual, I was always able to concentrate on my legislative duties in Trenton, while leaving the administrative responsibilities to her. In 1984, when the opportunity arose for me to run for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, Muriel was the first to say in her usual enthusiastic way, ``Go for it!'' During those hectic days, she would take care of just about anything that needed to be done, always competently and with a smile; and would often use her free time to help with campaign activities. Upon taking my seat in the House on November 9, 1984, Muriel became office Manager for my Mount Holly district office, where decade. During our many good years together, Muriel has served not only as my employee, but also as a trusted friend, always willing to go the extra mile to help her boss with whatever needed to be done. From knowing the proper way to address the President to soothing unhappy or angry constituents, she always knew the proper way to do things. Her sensitive and able assistance to the numerous constituents in my district has always made my job much easier. And, as a friend to her co-workers, who looked at her as a teacher, she has won praise and admiration for always handling things just right. I, as well as my entire staff, will very much miss Muriel's calm demeanor and gracious manner. Her legacy of excellence will be felt in my office for a long time to come. One thing for sure is Muriel will rarely be found at home. She loves to travel and visit places of interest with her many friends. We wish her health and happiness in the years ahead. She truly deserves it.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, it is simple; 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 our promise. It continues that in the first 100 days, we will vote on the following items: A balanced budget amendment--we kept our 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 kept our promise; congressional term limits to make Congress a citizen legislature--we kept our pomise. And finally, the Contract With America Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act, including tax cuts for middle-income families, and the Senior Citizens' Equity Act to allow our seniors to work without Government penalty--we kept our promise. This is the Contract With America.