[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 8 (Friday, January 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H239-H240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       BUDGET CUTS NEEDED FOR GAO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, as the 104th Congress begins to examine 
areas to cut Federal spending, this Member would like to convey his 
strong support for reduced funding levels for the General Accounting 
Office [GAO], an investigative arm of the U.S. Congress.
  Last year during consideration of the fiscal year 1995 legislative 
branch appropriations bill, this Member offered an amendment to cut 
funding for GAO by 5 percent below the fiscal year 1994 level. 
Unfortunately, this amendment failed by a close vote even though three 
committee chairmen vigorously worked against it on the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, during a time when the American public has called for 
reduced Federal spending, the GAO has continued to undergo funding 
increases. Most recently, GAO received a funding level of $430.2 
million in fiscal year 1994, and the House fiscal year 1994 legislative 
branch appropriations bill included a fiscal year 1995 funding level of 
$439.5 million--an increase of $9.4 million. The final fiscal year 1995 
conference report for legislative branch appropriations included $449 
million for GAO, $10 million more than the House-passed bill. This 
Member's amendment would have reduced the fiscal year 1995 funding 
level of GAO to $408.7 million, a reduction of $30.9 million from the 
committee-approved bill, and $21.5 million below fiscal year 1994's 
funding level.
  This Member strongly believes that GAO is an agency where growth is 
out of control. It is an agency which also has not been responsive to 
individual Members, especially those who serve in the minority. The 
quality of work produced by the GAO is increasingly shoddy. While the 
quality of the work varies dramatically, unfortunately and 
inappropriately, all GAO reports are given the same high respect and 
credibility simply because they are GAO products. The level of 
personnel and budgetary resources provided to GAO for its work now is 
excessive and has
 grown disproportionately when compared with other congressional 
support agencies. In addition, GAO resources are also used in certain 
questionable cases for consultants, training, and for various 
unnecessary expenses. Concern has also been expressed that GAO is more 
interested in getting headlines than in supporting the Congress with 
required information.

  From 1985 to 1993, the number of GAO investigations doubled from 457 
per year to 915. In addition, GAO's budget jumped from $46.9 million in 
1965 to our current spending level of $449 million, a percentage 
increase of nearly 1,000 percent in unadjusted dollars.
  In fiscal year 1994, the number of full-time equivalent positions at 
GAO were reduced from the fiscal year 1993 amount by approximately $6 
million and 100 positions. However, additional cuts are still needed to 
account for the past growth at this agency, which this Member will 
outline. In 1980, for example, funding for GAO staff cost $204 million. 
By 1985 that had grown to $299 million. In 1988 it was $330 million, 
and in 1989, $346 million. The average increase between 1980 and 1990 
was 8 percent per year. Then, in 1991, GAO was increased by 14 percent, 
to a total of $409 million. In 1992, GAO received another 8-percent 
increase to $443 million.
  The GAO is the largest support agency for Congress, and, incredibly, 
its budget represents more than one-quarter of the total fiscal year 
1995 legislative branch appropriations. GAO's budget is 7\1/2\ times 
the size of the Congressional Research Service, 19 times the size of 
the Congressional Budget Office, and 20 times the size of the Office of 
Technology Assessment.
  According to a Democratic Study Group [DSG] special report issued on 
[[Page H240]] May 24, 1994, in January 1994 the number of GAO employees 
was 4,597. This level is nearly as large as the staffing level of 4,617 
for the entire Library of Congress--the largest library in the world--
which also includes the staff of the Congressional Research Service.
  Mr. Speaker, here is something that should catch the attention of the 
House and the Congress. According to this same study, in 1994, GAO's 
staffing level was nearly 2\1/2\ times as large as the 1,849 House 
committee staff members--during the 103d Congress, and more than one-
half as large as the 7,340 individuals employed by all of the Members 
of the House together.
  The DSG study also compares funding levels for the legislative branch 
from 1979 to 1994, in inflation-adjusted dollars. According to the DSG, 
the General Accounting Office has received one of the largest increases 
in funding for the entire legislative branch at an inflation-adjusted 
level of 13.5 percent during this time period.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, now hear this: The funding for other 
areas of the legislative branch have actually declined since 1979 in 
inflation-adjusted dollars, according to this study. For example, the 
Library of Congress received a 17.6 percent reduction, CBO was reduced 
by 3.8 percent, and Members' staff has even been reduced by 6.4 percent 
in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1979. But, again, the GAO has an 
inflation-adjusted increase in its budget of 13.5 percent.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly urges his colleagues to 
support efforts to reduce the funding level of the GAO. This Member 
will continue to support any Budget Committee or Appropriations 
Committee efforts regarding this matter and offer assistance in 
accomplishing this objective. If such appropriate cuts are not 
forthcoming, this Member will prepare to again offer budget reduction 
amendments for the GAO to be offered on the House floor.
                              {time}  1050
                   REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, last November the American people sent a 
clear message to Washington: Get the government off our backs. Last 
week Congressman DeLay and I introduced a bill to do just that. It is 
called the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995. And what it does is put a 
moratorium in place on Federal regulations until June 30, 1995 so that 
we can enact the Contract With America and change the way the 
regulatory systems do business here in Washington.
  This bill is a critical first step toward cutting bureaucratic 
redtape and protecting the middle class from the hidden tax of 
regulation. The Clinton administration has admitted that regulations 
cost Americans at least $430 billion each year. Leading economists have 
projected that Federal regulation costs the average family between 
$8,000 and $10,000 a year. The hidden tax of regulations affects 
everyone, and the middle class is hit hardest of all. Moms pay higher 
prices to put food on the table, and mothers and fathers pay higher 
prices for shoes for their children and for all kinds of services. Our 
mothers, our wives, our daughters are subject to greater risks of 
breast cancer because of the bungling at the FDA and the bureaucratic 
redtape that it takes to get new products on the market. Small business 
men and women spend over $1 billion each year filling out redtape and 
other forms that the Federal Government requires. You know, Mr. 
Speaker, it has taken a shorter time than that to win wars in this 
country.
  While these very human costs alone justify the moratorium on 
regulation, there is an even more ominous threat to our society that is 
not reflected in the figures that I mentioned. I am speaking of the 
strangling choke hold that bureaucratic redtape has on American spirit. 
Perhaps the most eloquent expression of this was made over 150 years 
ago by Alexis DeToqueville who observed that if America was ever to be 
ruled by a tyrant again it would come not in the form of a human 
tyrant, but in the form of a choking fog of regulation.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress has been elected to liberate the middle 
class and all Americans from this
 choking fog of regulation. Next Thursday, January 19, the House 
Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and 
Regulatory Affairs will hold hearings on our bill to create a 
regulatory moratorium and to do just that.

  On December 12, House Republican and Senate leaders asked President 
Clinton to voluntarily freeze new regulations for the first 100 days of 
the new Congress, but his administration has not chosen to do that. So 
our legislation will provide such a moratorium. It is extremely urgent 
since the administration's regulatory plan shows that the Clinton 
administration has about 4,300 new regulations that we plan to take up 
in 1995.
  The moratorium on these new regulations will temporarily stop the 
Federal Government from loading even more burden onto the middle class 
and onto the American taxpayer and thereby give Congress time to pass 
the Contract With America and change the way we do regulations in this 
country from now on.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Regulatory Transition Act along 
with 51 other Members of Congress and encourage the remaining Members 
of this House to sign on to the bill and thereby demonstrate to the 
American people that we have heard the message and we will change the 
way we do business here in Washington. We will cut back on the 
regulatory redtape and provide more freedom for all Americans to go 
about their business.
  

                          ____________________