Contract with America

The contract was seen as a triumph by party leaders such as Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and the American conservative movement.

[4] On the first day of their majority in the House, the Republicans promised to bring up for vote, eight major reforms:[5][6] During the first one hundred days of the 104th Congress, the Republicans pledged "to bring to the floor the following [ten] bills, each to be given a full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote, and each to be immediately available for public inspection".

The contract promised to bring to floor debate and votes ten bills that would implement reform of the federal government.

An amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget unless sanctioned by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress (H.J.Res.1, passed by the US House Roll Call: 300-132, January 26, 1995, but rejected by the US Senate: Roll Call 65–35 (the amendment was defeated by a single vote, with one Republican opposed, Oregon Republican senator Mark Hatfield; Bob Dole cast a procedural vote against the amendment to bring it up again in the future), March 2, 1995, two-thirds required.

[7] An anti-crime package including stronger truth in sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions (H.R.666 Exclusionary Rule Reform Act, passed US House Roll Call 289–142 February 8, 1995), death penalty provisions (H.R.729 Effective Death Penalty Act, passed US House Roll Call 297–132 February 8, 1995; similar provisions enacted under S. 735 [1], April 24, 1996), funding prison construction (H.R.667 Violent Criminal Incarceration Act, passed US House Roll Call 265–156 February 10, 1995, rc#117) and additional law enforcement (H.R.728 Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act, passed US House Roll Call 238–192 February 14, 1995).

An act to discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by reforming and cutting cash welfare and related programs.

A November 13, 2000, article by Edward H. Crane, president of the libertarian Cato Institute, stated, "the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.

"[clarification needed][9] Some observers cite the contract with America as having helped secure a decisive victory for the Republicans in the 1994 elections; others dispute this role, noting its late introduction into the campaign.

Most elements did not pass Congress, while others were vetoed by, or substantially altered in negotiations with President Bill Clinton, who would sarcastically refer to it as the "Contract on America"[10][11] implying that the Republicans' legislative package was akin to an organized-crime "hit" on the American public.

[3] George Mason University law professor David E. Bernstein has argued that the contract "show[ed] ... that [Congress took] federalism and limited national government seriously", and "undoubtedly made [the Supreme Court decision in] United States v. Lopez more viable".