[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16898-16899]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 BUDGET, DEFENSE, AND VETERANS' ISSUES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wilson). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Turner) to continue his discussion.
  Mr. TURNER. In summary, Madam Speaker, if each of those four 
assumptions turn out to not be true, we will find out there is, in 
fact, no surplus.
  When we have needs in Social Security, needs in Medicare, needs in 
national defense, all of these require us to have additional funds. And 
if we want to pay down the national debt and not pass on that burden to 
our children and grandchildren, we need to reject this blockbuster $864 
billion tax cut that will be before the House this week.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask Congress to maintain 
fiscal discipline and to work to reduce the national debt.
  In the coming weeks, we are going to be talking about tax cut 
packages and what to do with the projected budget surplus.
  I underline projected. It does not exist, it is just imagined.
  The Congressional Budget Office earlier this month revised its budget 
outlook upward saying the budget surplus would reach a total of $996 
billion over the next 10 years assuming existing revenue and spending 
policies remain in place and the economy continues growing

[[Page 16899]]

at rates at least equal to its performance today.
  The Office of Management and Budget, relying on the same kinds of 
assumptions, projected the budget surplus would grow to $1.08 trillion 
over the next 10 years.
  These projections are very dangerous.
  Only three years ago they were projecting deficits for as far as we 
could see.
  Now it is surpluses.
  We simply should not spend money we do not have, and when we get some 
extra, we should pay off the debt.
  A new study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows the 
projected budget surpluses may not come true.
  This study shows that the majority of this so-called surplus is based 
on Congress maintaining the budget caps set in the 1997 Balanced Budget 
Act.
  But, Mr. Speaker, Congress this year alone has already broken those 
caps by almost $30 billion in unanticipated spending.
  If we set aside the Social Security trust fund, as we should, protect 
Medicare and deal with emergencies, there will be a small surplus, and 
it should go to pay off the debt.
  While some folks are getting caught up in a surplus feeding frenzy, 
we should be conservative and be careful before spending projected 
surpluses that may not materialize.
  We should not rely on ten and fifteen year budget projections to 
justify large tax cuts or new spending programs.
  Budget projections for the next ten years have improved by nearly $2 
trillion in the last twelve months--they could go the other way just as 
quickly.
  Today's budgetary projections are headed in the right direction but 
they are simply best guesses.
  If a surplus actually appears, we should use it to get our budget on 
a solid long-term path by paying down our debt and dealing with Social 
Security and Medicare first.
  Paying down the national debt is the most important thing Congress 
can do to maintain a strong and growing economy with low inflation.
  Madam Speaker, we talk about these projected surpluses like they were 
real money, but there is an old joke in the part of the country where I 
come from where they talk about the board of directors that was going 
to hire a new CEO.
  They brought in an accountant and they interviewed him, and they 
said, what is two and two? And he said, well, it depends on whether it 
is a deficit two or whatever column you put it in. So they rejected 
him. They brought in an engineer and they said, what is two and two? He 
said, well, it depends on whether it is a plus two or a minus two. It 
depends on how you put it together. You can get different answers. Then 
they brought in a Republican budget forecaster and asked him. They 
said, what is two and two? He looked under the table, in the closet, 
behind the curtains, under the chairs, and then he looked at the board 
of directors and he said, what do you want it to be?
  That is what we are looking at here. We have numbers here that do not 
mean anything. It is someone's imagination. We should not take the 
chance when we do not have the money and ignore the fact that we have 
to save Social Security, we have to save Medicare, we have to take care 
of our veterans and our farmers and educating our children.
  Most of all, we owe it to our children to pay off this debt. We 
simply cannot let this debt go on and on and on. With this money, when 
the surplus does exist, we should recognize our responsibilities and 
not pass this debt on to our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, what has been the point of this special 
order? The point of this special order is that we ought not to throw 
the dice again as we did in 1981. We threw the dice in 1981 and said we 
are going to balance the budget; we are going to cut $750 billion in 
taxes. And lo and behold we thought we were going to cut spending. But 
what happened? For 12 years Presidents Reagan and Bush suggested that 
we increase spending. And they asked for more spending over those 12 
years than the Congress appropriated. We quadrupled the national debt 
and we pushed down our kids and their generation and the generations to 
come.
  The point of this special order is to say, let us not do it again. 
Let us not gamble on that surplus existing. Let us take it prudently 
and apply it to reduction of debt, saving of Social Security, 
stabilizing and ensuring Medicare, and investing in our national 
defense and other domestic priorities, to the extent that we can, so 
that the next generation of Americans to come will say, ``That was a 
fiscally responsible generation, and, as a result, our economy 
continued to grow, to create jobs and opportunities for our young 
people and good times for our families.''
  The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) talked about families, 
many of whom serve in the military. We need to take care of them before 
we take care of those who have so much.
  Madam Speaker, I hope, we all hope, that tomorrow, or whenever that 
tax bill is brought to the floor, that we look the American public in 
the eye and tell them honestly, ``We will manage your money so that 
your debt will be reduced, your economy will remain strong, and the 
fiscal management of America will continue to be responsible.''

                          ____________________