[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 19]
[House]
[Page 25849]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  SPENDING IS THE REASON FOR DEFICITS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring to my colleagues' 
attention a recent Washington Post article regarding deficits. What I 
found refreshing in this article is that it highlights the true reason 
behind deficits, that is, excessive Federal Government spending.
  I realize there have been some difficult choices since September 11, 
2001. As we fight the war on terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other 
areas that harbor terrorists, we obviously have to increase spending on 
defense, and I do not think many people would disagree with that, that 
it is necessary.
  However, as any individual or business leader will tell us, when one 
has to increase spending in one area, they normally hold or decrease 
spending in another area. That, the Federal Government should realize, 
is basic Economics 101.
  The biggest misconception about deficits is that by themselves they 
threaten the economy's long-term vitality. Not necessarily true. The 
real threat is rising government spending. The reason is simple. 
Government spending must be paid for by either taxes or borrowing, a 
deficit. If spending rises too high, economic growth may suffer from 
either steeper taxes or heftier deficits. Spending, Mr. Speaker, is the 
real culprit.
  Robert Samuelson, in his article, notes ``since 1961, the Federal 
Government has run deficits in all but 5 years. Over that same period, 
the Gross Domestic Product has expanded by almost a factor of four.''
  So we see that the real problem is excessive spending. The Federal 
Government does not have its own money to freely spend. It either taxes 
or borrows the money needed to fund its myriad of programs, many of 
which have long outlived their usefulness, if they had any to begin 
with.
  Yet we continue to spend. In fact, over the past 5 years, the 
government has increased spending by $586 billion. Spending is now just 
over 20 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. In fact, it is spending, 
combined with the 2001 recession, that reduced over three-quarters of 
the previous budget surplus.
  Unfortunately, we are going to see additional pressure to increase 
spending in the future. Baby boomers will be retiring. We are adding a 
new prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and we will need to continue 
funding the war on terrorism. And that is precisely why we need to 
control Federal spending here in Congress.
  Samuelson notes that these future spending pressures will result in 
three choices: raise taxes; borrow funds, deficit spending; or cut 
benefits to certain programs. Obviously, all of these choices are 
difficult.
  There is another way, Mr. Speaker, and that is to hold down Federal 
spending and attack waste, fraud, and abuse in this spending. We must 
also have a Balanced Budget Amendment. It is much easier to hold 
spending to a minimum if the law obligates us to do so. Clearly, we as 
a body have not shown sufficient restraint in holding or reducing 
spending in meaningful ways.
  The second measure is to realistically attack waste, fraud, and abuse 
here in government. The Heritage Foundation notes: ``If congressional 
waste cutters had reduced mandatory spending by just 1 percent in 1980, 
taxpayers would have saved $190 billion through 2003, more than $2,000 
per household.''
  The 2004 Budget Resolution called for a 1 percent cut in programs to 
be identified by targeting waste, fraud, and abuse. That is an 
important step both for this year and for future years. However, we 
should not stop just at 1 percent. The Medicare program alone could be 
spared up to $150 billion over 10 years if we effectively could target 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Mr. Speaker, our constituents are expecting fiscal restraint. They 
understand that concept much better, it seems, than even the Federal 
Government. They understand it from both a business and an individual 
family standpoint. The recession forced Americans to curb their 
spending at home. Businesses curbed their spending to hold down costs. 
They understood that ever over-spending would result in severe problems 
in the future.
  Short-term deficits will not harm our economy. In fact, our economy 
is improving. However, if we continue to follow an alarming increase in 
Federal spending, the government will be faced with much more difficult 
choices in the future and with much more dire consequences.
  We must, Mr. Speaker, maintain fiscal discipline and hold down this 
Federal spending.

                          ____________________