```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5468-H5470]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   REVITALIZING THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] is recognized for 60 
minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, to continue this discussion of 
why it is important to downsize Government and how we reach our goal of 
having fewer taxes and greater responsibility in Government and greater 
individual responsibility for our citizens, I would call on the 
esteemed chairman of the task force that led the effort to structure 
the dismantling of the Department of Commerce, Mr. Dick Chrysler from 
Michigan.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Thank you very much, Nick. It is good to be here. You 
know, this task force that we put together to dismantle the Department 
of Commerce, we had some very courageous and energetic and innovative 
freshmen work on that committee as well as some sophomores. Between the 
freshmen and the sophomores, we are 54 percent of the majority, so we 
are the majority of the majority. But Helen Chenoweth, Mark Sanford, 
Sue Kelly, Wes Cooley, Jim Talent, Joe Scarborough, Mark Neumann, Jack 
Metcalf, Sam Brownback, Todd Tiahrt, and even Nick Smith from Michigan, 
helped us put this task force together and brought this proposal 
forward today.
  It was only 3 months ago that we announced a goal that had been 
unthinkable in previous Congresses, and that was the elimination of the 
Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, and Housing and Urban 
Development. The House budget resolution that passed last week calls 
for the elimination of three of those four Departments, and the Senate 
budget resolution calls for the elimination of the Department of 
Commerce.
  We said it back in February that it was time to put the Department of 
Commerce out of business, and we promised to have specific legislation 
to do just that by the spring. Today we unveiled the vehicle to achieve 
this goal, the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act. It is promises 
made and promises kept.
  Our Commerce task force spent the last 3 months studying every 
program in the Department, putting each one under the microscope. We 
asked three questions of every program: First, is this program 
necessary and is it worth borrowing the money to pay for it only to 
have our children pay it back? Second, if it is necessary, does the 
Federal Government need to be involved or is it something better left 
to the States, communities, and/or individuals? Third, if the Federal 
Government does need to be involved, are we currently doing the job in 
the most effective and efficient manner?
  The result of this analysis is what I hold in my hand today, a 
specific step-by-step plan that will eliminate, privatize, or 
consolidate every aspect of the Department of Commerce.
  The Department of Commerce Dismantling Act creates a temporary 
Commerce Program Resolution Agency that will oversee a 3-year windup 
period of the Department of Commerce. By cutting the unnecessary and 
wasteful programs immediately, we will save our constituents $7.765 
billion over the [[Page H5469]] next 5 years. By consolidating the 
beneficial programs to be more streamlined and efficient, we are 
creating a government that is more accountable and responsible.
  This is not just a reckless effort to slash programs for the sake of 
cutting Government. Our plan is well thought out and clear in its 
intentions. If we found that a program was duplicative, we consolidated 
it. If a program was better performed by the private sector, we 
privatized it. If it was beneficial, we streamlined it. And if we found 
a program that was unnecessary, we eliminated it.
  As we said in February, the November election was a clear call for a 
smaller, more efficient, and more focused Federal Government. The 
Department of Commerce Dismantling Act delivers on this mandate by 
beginning to downsize a government that is too big and spends too much 
money.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. If the gentleman would yield on that point, I 
think, Dick, it is so important that we remind the American people the 
catastrophe that can happen if we do not do some of the things that you 
are talking about here today, that we are talking about in our efforts 
to balance the budget.
  Let us just remind ourselves that we have got a huge deficit, and we 
use the words making our children and our grandchildren pay for our 
overindulgence.
  But what does that mean? That means that today, with our 
overspending, we are taking money out of circulation by borrowing. We 
are borrowing this year 42 percent of all of the money that is borrowed 
in the United States.
  Now, what happens when we demand that we have that money, not caring 
what the interest rate is? We drive up interest rates. By demanding 
that we have 42 percent of the money that is out there to loan, that 
pressure on interest rates alone is going to be a depressant. It is 
going to be a downward pressure on economic expansion and jobs.
  It is estimated that we can save 1.5 percent reduction in interest 
rates if we end up balancing the budget. What else do we do? We take 
the money out of circulation. This year the money that we are 
overspending could be used for people to go to college, to build homes, 
maybe, more importantly, to expand their business and their jobs, to 
have better jobs in this country.
  If we are going to encourage those businesses to buy the better tools 
to put in the hands of great American workers to make us more 
efficient, then the downward pressure on interest rates by balancing 
the budget is going to do just that by tremendously lowering costs. If 
we allow businesses to expense the items that they buy, we could reduce 
the cost of those items by an estimated 16 percent.
  I think it is important to just note that we are not just doing this 
for the sake of cutting down government. We are going it because this 
pressure on the economy of America is going to do what all of the 
economists suggest, and that is we are going to lose jobs for our kids 
and our grandkids, in addition to making them pay back the tremendous 
debt that we have accumulated.

                              {time}  1900

  Five trillion dollars we have now accumulated in debt, having no idea 
how we are going to pay back. This effort to look at the different 
departments and agencies of government is so important, and I 
compliment you so very much for the tremendous 80- and 90-hour weeks 
that you have put in.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Certainly, we do need lower taxes and less government, 
and we need to let people keep more of what they earn and save. We need 
to let people make their own decisions about how they spend their 
money, not government, because people will always make a better 
decision. And we cannot continue business as usual in our Federal 
Government. We must make the tough choices, as the gentleman said, in 
our budget priorities.
  Our plan to dismantle the Department of Commerce provides positive 
and constructive change in bringing government back to the role it 
should and must play. I know in the words of Robert Frost, one of my 
favorite poems, the last verse says, and I think this speaks volumes 
for both the freshman and the sophomore class, we do have promises yet 
to keep and miles to go before we sleep, and miles to go before we 
sleep.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank the gentleman very much.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I 
appreciate the opportunity to take a moment just to thank Congressman 
Chrysler and you for your leadership on this issue. Congressman 
Chrysler has for the last 3 months worked exhaustively to make sure 
that in a businesslike way because he is someone who came to the 
Congress, who has been involved himself in starting businesses and 
employing individuals, fighting the Federal regulations, trying to make 
a change.
  Now he has brought that horse sense, that common sense, business 
sense to make us save dollars and cents here in the Federal Government. 
I think we as Members of Congress are the beneficiaries of Dick 
Chrysler's wisdom and his energy and the principles he has brought here 
to help us reshape our thinking.
  We can talk about different agencies, as Congressman Smith has talked 
about, in elimination and the duplication or consolidate or privatize. 
That all sounds good, but every American can make a difference
 in giving us recommendations on the kinds of activities that we are 
now involved with, Mr. Speaker, whatever they are. Whatever agencies 
that are now doing good activities for the country, if there are ways 
we can do them better, let your Congressman know, let Congressman 
Chrysler know, let Congressman Smith know, let me know. Any agency that 
can do a better job because of an idea you have, they want to do their 
job better. If it is better done in the private sector, as Congressman 
Chrysler said, because it is really better left to the private sector 
because it is not a government function, we also need to know that.

  We started with four agencies. We started historically for the first 
time since 1969 having a balanced budget. We think it is going to lead 
to a more responsible position, one that is more accountable to the 
American people.
  I appreciate the time the gentleman has given me to reflect on where 
we are trying to go as a Congress in a bipartisan manner, Republicans 
and Democrats alike, Senators and Congressmen, alike to work with the 
President to move forward to make the Government better, to make it 
more responsive and more accountable. I think this is the beginning. We 
have finished the contract and we are now into looking closely at those 
Federal agencies. I think we can make a difference, not only in this 
Congress but in Congresses to come. I appreciate the time you have 
yielded to me.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's 
bipartisan efforts. I was delighted when the President said that he was 
going to offer a balanced budget that might take 10 years to balance 
but such a difference between that and the budget that the President 
gave Congress here just 6, 7 weeks ago.
  That budget actually increased deficit spending over the years so 
that by the year 2002, we would have been borrowing or overspending 
$314 billion in that year 2002. That is the year that we call it zero 
with the budget proposal that came out of the budget.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. It is amazing to me that in just 18 months, we will be 
spending more money on just the interest on the debt than we spend 
right now on the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the CIA, 
the FBI, and the Pentagon combined. And that is money that is not going 
for any good programs or any good purposes, not for Medicare, not for 
Social Security, not to help people that need the help, not for Pell 
grants, not for education, nothing except interest on a debt.
  I tell you, we have got to get this deficit under control. Then we 
have got to start working on eliminating this debt. I think by holding 
spending to 1 percent less than our revenues, we can have the debt paid 
off in this country by the year 2025. I think that is every bit as 
important as eliminating the deficit.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman again. It 
is so important to our future economy. Greenspan, who is the head 
banker for this country, chairman of the Federal 
[[Page H5470]] Reserve, said that if we do not balance the budget, 
because of the increased interest rates, because of the money that we 
take out of circulation, because of the overspending, because of the 
tremendous amount of this budget that it takes to service the debt, pay 
interest on the public debt, let me just mention as a footnote, the 
interest this year on the public debt is $339 billion. That represents 
25 percent of all revenues coming in from all sources to the U.S. 
Government. We just cannot continue to dig ourselves deeper in this 
hole of public debt.
  Then if we look at Social Security, the unfunded liability of Social 
Security, the actuary deficit now amounts to an estimated $5 trillion. 
Medicare, the unfunded liability or the actuary deficit amounts to 
close to $8 trillion. Depending on future workers to pay the bills for 
current expenses, whether we are talking about pension benefits or 
whether we are talking about Social Security or whether we are talking 
about Medicare or whether we are talking about borrowing from future 
generations to pay for the overzealous spending of this Congress must 
stop.
  I complement Wally Herger for his extraordinary efforts on the 
Committee on the Budget and as a member, esteemed member of this 
Congress that is looking for ways to bring about more responsible 
government.

                          ____________________
```