[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2722-H2723]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SPENDING CUTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized
during morning business for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I read in last Friday's Congress Daily that
the chairman of the Budget Committee in the other body is looking for
between $150 and $200 billion in discretionary cuts as part of his
effort to bring about a balanced budget. Some might see that as a
difficult or even an impossible task. But a careful and honest
assessment of all discretionary accounts yields heartening news. It can
be done, I say. It can be done. There is at least this much nonpriority
spending we can eliminate. In fact, I would argue that there is much
more than $150 to $200 billion. As we move toward the budget and
appropriations process, it is imperative that we address the wasteful
spending that bloats our Federal budget, as everybody knows. As I have
done for the last 3 years, I have again submitted to the budgetary
leaders of both Houses of Congress my annual list of discretionary
spending cuts for their consideration. These 75 cuts would save the
American taxpayer $275 billion over 5 years.
Madam Speaker, critics of the balanced budget amendment contend that
it would mandate draconian cuts in entitlement programs because our
discretionary budget simply just does not offer significant savings.
The facts clearly show otherwise. In reality, we continue to fund
outdated and duplicative programs that operate in the shadows serving
our bureaucracy and special interests rather than the American people
we work for. We desperately need to shed some light on these ancient
programs. The Appalachian Regional Commission, a Great Society era
created as a temporary response to poverty, continues to spend hundreds
of millions of dollars annually with little discernible impact on the
long-term economic health of the United States of America.
These are probably very worthy projects, but I do not think they
really are getting at the core of poverty and they probably would not
compete as well with other Federal dollars for more urgent needs. Only
in Washington could this be construed as a legitimate response to
poverty. The Rural Electrification Administration, which provides
electricity for my home in Sanibel, formed in 1935 when only 10 percent
of projects have included funding for the NASCAR Hall of Fame and most
recently $750,000 toward a new football stadium in South Carolina.
Rural America had electricity, continues to spend billions of dollars
subsidizing rural electric and telephone companies--this despite the
fact that today 99 percent of rural America has electricity and 98
percent has phones. I suggest those who do not have it do not want it.
Taken alone, each of these programs may not amount to large costs--but
when you start adding them up, going through a whole list of projects,
you can see why we have a budget crisis.
Unfortunately, programs like these are the rule rather than the
exception. Of course, Government must lead by example. That is why I
have proposed
[[Page H2723]] also reducing the legislative and executive branch
appropraition by 20 percent, which would save $3 billion over the next
5 years. The American people spoke clearly last November--they want to
downsize the Government. We should understand that message. And that
process needs to begin at the top with Congress and the President. To
be credible, we must not only eliminate wasteful spending but we must
also be willing to look at good programs and prioritize our limited
financial resources so we get the most important served. I do not
pretend to think that we can correct decades of neglect and abuse
overnight. While these 75 proposals which I offered are not a cure-all,
they will hopefully serve as the first shot in the coming budgetary
battle between the defenders of the status quo and those of us who came
here to make a difference.
The debate is between the habitual big spenders in the District of
Columbia and those newcomers who have dared to suggest maybe the
Federal Government should stop the waste, fraud, and abuse of the
precious tax dollars. There is no one in America who has come forward
to claim or even to imply that every Federal dollar spent is a dollar
well spent. On the contrary, there are tens, if not hundreds, of
millions of Americans who know we are not handling their tax dollars as
wisely as possible and they are asking us to do better. There is no
excuse for us not to do better. We can start now, we can start today. I
urge my colleagues to look at my list of spending cuts, and if they do
not like my list, make your own. There are plenty of places to cut
spending.
____________________