[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 20, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H5842-H5843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    WILL WE SQUANDER OUR SURPLUSES?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, I am sure everybody this morning has 
heard all about the surpluses we have here.

[[Page H5843]]

We have had the Office of Management and Budget, which is the arm of 
the White House, indicate that there will be $1 trillion in surpluses 
over the next 15 years, and we have heard information from the CBO, 
which is the arm of Congress, also saying there will be a huge amount 
of surpluses.
  My concern this morning is that the spending that we are talking 
about here in Congress is increasing, and I hear all the new programs 
that the President is proposing, so I am concerned. I thought I would 
bring my concerns to the floor today to discuss with my colleagues a 
couple of things we should concern ourselves with.
  When the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and 
Budget made their forecast, they used the assumption that none of the 
spending increases would break the budget caps; that is, the spending 
limits set by the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement would be held intact.
  I think we all know here this morning that we have already broken the 
budget caps in some ways, and many of us feel that, in certain areas, 
we should. But there are several factors that must be in place in order 
for these optimistic forecasts that CBO and OMB have projected to 
become reality.
  Besides holding within the caps from the 1997 Balanced Budget 
Agreement, there is a built-in assumption in both these organizations 
that the economy will continue to chug along with a growth rate of 2.5 
percent a year until the year 2008. In other words, there is nothing 
built in in that case that we have a recession. Maybe we will not have 
a recession, but there is a possibility that if we do not have a 
recession, at least the economy will slow down.
  Madam Speaker, today we have two assumptions that are built into the 
CBO and the OMB's projection; one, that we will stay within the budget 
caps, and two, no recession or economic downturn will occur over 10 
years, possibly 15 years. My colleagues, both of those assumptions are 
difficult to believe under today's realities.
  The 1997 budget agreement set tight spending controls on the growth 
of discretionary spending. Discretionary spending accounts for a great 
deal of the spending by the Federal Government, and the portion of the 
budget that the folks here in Congress can control. It includes but is 
not limited to such items as the Department of Education, the FBI, 
disaster relief, and all these other programs.
  If we adhere to the spending caps, then everything will be fine, but 
that is a big if. As I mentioned earlier, the only problem is that 
Congress is already having a difficult time in keeping it within the 
limits set by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Is it realistic to think 
that in the year 2009, that is part of the projection of these 
organizations, that there will only be an 11 percent increase in 
spending? That is just a little over 1 percent a year.
  Let us go back in history and take a look at how that compares to 
what we did in the last 11 years. From 1987 to 1998, discretionary 
spending rose by 75 percent. That is just a little under 7 percent. So 
I say to my colleagues, even the projection that these organizations 
are providing and we in Congress are assuming, that discretionary 
spending will increase by 1 percent, is not accurate, because in the 
past it has been almost 7 percent.
  So we have some real difficulties that are looming before us. The 
appropriators have already indicated they cannot stay within the limits 
imposed by the 1997 budget. Therefore, if domestic spending should 
begin to rise, then the interest payments on the debt will not decline. 
If the surplus starts to decline, then the debt in turn will increase, 
and interest payments will continue to increase, also.
  In conclusion, Madam Speaker, the two assumptions that CBO and OMB 
have used have great validity only if they come true. The first 
assumption is that we will stay within the budget caps. As we know, we 
have already broken the budget caps in certain areas, and I expect we 
will probably break them again.
  The second assumption is that there will be no recession in the next 
10 to 15 years. That too is not realistic. I caution my colleagues that 
we need to try, as much as possible, to control spending because I 
think the Balanced Budget Agreement set us on the right course. I hope 
we will not deviate, and try to restrain spending.
  I call upon the President also. For every new program that he offers 
us, he has to come up with a way to offset it. We must hold the line on 
spending, and if we do these things, hold the line on spending and 
continue to reduce taxes, I think that we can look at surplus into the 
future.

                          ____________________