BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to begin by thanking the subcommittee chairman for his hard work on this effort that is in front of us and for the committee's identifying ways to reduce what the Federal Government spends, especially in the leg branch.
The fiscal year 2016 proposed funding level is $3.3 billion. That is $173 billion below the President's request. I think there is more work that we could do, and my 1 percent across-the-board spending reduction will save taxpayers an additional $29 million in budget authority and $25 million in outlays for fiscal year 2016. It is a targeted cut in discretionary spending that exempts the Capitol Police, the Sergeant at Arms, and security maintained by the Architect of the Capitol.
Again, as I said, I want to recognize the work of Chairman Graves and his committee. They have done several very important things that, I think, we ought to highlight.
First, this measure continues to freeze Member pay in place, where it has been since 2010. Second, it continues a 14 percent reduction in funding for the House of Representatives, which Republicans began in 2011. I appreciate that Chairman Rogers brought attention to that as general debate began. Third, the bill cuts funding for programs such as the Government Publishing Office, which we have just been discussing--many programs that have outlived their usefulness.
We can cut more, and a penny on a dollar is worth the effort. We are a country that has over $18 trillion in debt. Financial security has become an issue of national security. Admiral Mullen said the greatest threat to our Nation's security is our growing national debt. That is a reason for our getting our fiscal house in order and looking to future generations and saying, let's go in and cut one more penny out of a dollar. This effort that I bring before you would do just that--one more cent--and do it for future generations.
I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I find it so interesting that this is called a ``meat-ax approach.'' Yes, I do come regularly to offer these amendments, because I care what happens with our Nation. I care about our future, and I want to make certain that we are on solid financial footing. We have a responsibility to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money. It is their money.
To say this is mindless and easy, how interesting that is. Go tell all of the Governors from coast to coast--Democrat and Republican--who use across-the-board spending cuts to get budgets in balance. Tell that to mayors who use this same process. The reason it is done is it works. It helps the bureaucracy hold itself accountable, and that is absolutely what we ought to be doing at this point in time.
As you can see, cutting is a very emotional issue. Cutting brings forward a lot of emotions. Talking about doing more with less, being resourceful, that is what we should do every single day. In order to be a good steward of the taxpayers' money, we should want to do more with less. We should do it in the name of freedom, for freedom's sake--for the sovereignty of this Nation.
Ill-conceived and unrealistic? When is operating by a balanced budget and spending and living within the means the taxpayers have said they are going to have for this Federal Government ever considered ill-conceived? When would it be considered unrealistic? It is what we ought to be doing. Indeed, if every department did what the legislative branch did of cutting 14 percent, we would be getting close to budget.
To say that we are suspending intellect and judgment, do you know that is almost frivolous and almost silly to say.
We spend less and should be spending less and should try to continue to spend less and reform this government and hold it accountable to the taxpayer who is footing the bill because, yes, the Nation's future depends on it; our national security, yes, depends on it; and respect, it is respecting future generations and the taxpayer to be a wise steward.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT