nomic Committee, but I am also the Chairman of the subcommittee on the Senate side on the legislative appropriations bill.

There was a very clear statement made by the American people during this last election: they want less government, they want less spending, and they want more freedom.

It seems to me that while the bill that we are going to deal with is a small amount of money relative to the other appropriations bills, I think it is fair to say that we are in a position to make a statement. This statement will reflect our commitment to reduce the size and scope of government, but also how much it spends and how it goes about the process.

As you know from our joint hearing of about 10 days or so ago, there are many ideas about how one could do a better job by making some management decisions and changing the approach with which we carry out various functions.

So the message is loud and clear: Reduce the size and scope of government. One of the first things that I did as the Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee this year was to take what was left of this year's budget and take 20 percent right off the top, and just set that aside and say we are not going to spend that. I would recommend that for fiscal year 1996 we make a 25 percent cut.

REVIEW OF JOINT COMMITTEES

I think it is important to have on the record that there was a reform task force in the Republican conference of the Senate that concluded that we should eliminate all joint committees. The recommendation by that task force has not been addressed, and so it is difficult to tell where it might go. But clearly with issues having to do with the joint committees, it is going to be a determination by both the House and the Senate.

The comment that I am making to you is that it was a statement by a task force of only the Republican Members of the Senate and does not represent the entire Senate, nor does it represent the House of Representatives.

But there is a feeling that we should eliminate the Joint Economic Committee at some point. But I am recommending that in the year 1996, that we reduce that budget by 25 percent.

Mr. PACKARD. Do you share that feeling of elimination eventually?

Senator MACK. My own personal feeling is the answer is yes; that those functions which the Congress feels are important could be transferred to other committees the Banking Committee, the Budget Committee, whatever the determination might be.

But again, I would underscore that for fiscal year 1996 I would recommend a 25 percent cut in the appropriation for the Joint Economic Committee.

Mr. PACKARD. If it is to be eliminated, would you suggest that it be eliminated, say, at the end of the 1996 budget year by a further phasing out, maybe a further 25 percent cut, or should it be sunset perhaps immediately after the 1996 budget year?

Senator MACK. We are going to have to leave that to the two bodies. I had discussions with Jim with respect to the role of the Joint Economic Committee and our feeling is that we were able to make

reductions this year of 20 percent. We think we should go to 25 percent in FY 1996.

There are differences of opinion in the House. As you know, the Speaker and others feel very strongly that the Joint Economic Committee is an important committee in order to make recommendations and to make the arguments, if you will, about certain economic policy.

There are those I happen to be one-who believe that that can be done through either Banking or Budget, setting up a particular subcommittee under each of those to deal with it.

Mr. PACKARD. What kind of a budget do you have for your committee?

REVIEW OF COMMITTEE BUDGET

Senator MACK. I believe that what we had to deal with this year is roughly $3.5 million.

Mr. PACKARD. I think the current year is $4.1 million.

Senator MACK. That is with overhead costs we don't have any direct control of.

Mr. PACKARD. And you have cut back approximately 20 percent of that. Does the 25 percent include the 20?

Senator MACK. No. It would be an additional 5 percent.

Mr. PACKARD. Five percent. OK. And how did you make the 20 percent cut? How did your joint committee make that decision? By a vote?

Senator MACK. Eventually that was how it was done. When we took control on the Senate side, and it became apparent that the Republican Senate position was the one that would be the Chair, we immediately began looking at the budget and tried to analyze what we could do in this first year, and we concluded that we could do a 20 percent cut. We have been working on that over the last several weeks and concluded that we could do a total of 25 for 1996.

Mr. PACKARD. I am aware, Senator, that you have meetings in the next 10 or 15 minutes. Would it be all right if we submit some questions for the record and then move to Jim Saxton?

Senator MACK. Sure.

[The information follows:]

■Statement by Senator Connie Mack before the House

Legislative Branch Subcommittee February 15, 1995

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your Committee today as Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. I am also pleased that the ViceChairman of the JEC, Jim Saxton, will speak before this Committee as well.

Mr. Chairman, as you know I really wear two hats today. only am I Chairman of the JEC, but I chair the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on the Senate side.

Since I

Not

enthusiastically support cuts in government spending, this gives me a unique opportunity to, quote, put my money where my mouth is.

I have stated publicly that I favor significant cuts in committee staffs and budgets, and even the elimination of some committees. In fact, I have

supported efforts to eliminate all of the Joint Committees, including the JEC.

My belief is that the November elections signalled a change that Washington is still trying to come to terms with. The American people want real change. They want smaller

government and less spending. I agree with them.