[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 14 (Tuesday, February 1, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S412-S414]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CORKER (for himself, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Burr, Mr. McCain, 
        Mr. Alexander, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. 
        Kirk):
  S. 245. A bill to reduce Federal spending in a responsible manner; to 
the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am glad to be here today with the 
Senator from Missouri, my friend Claire McCaskill. We are introducing a 
bill called the Commitment to American Prosperity Act, the CAP Act. It 
is a 10-page bill designed to limit spending in Washington and set our 
country back on a sustainable fiscal path.
  We have cosponsors in Senators Alexander, Burr, McCain, Isakson, 
Chambliss, Inhofe, and Kirk. I thank them for joining us in this 
effort. I hope many more will do the same.
  I spent a lifetime in business, and I came to the Senate not to score 
political points, not to be involved in messaging, but to solve our 
country's problems. Everyone in this body understands we have 
tremendous fiscal and financial issues with which to deal. This morning 
I was happy to see 33 Senators meet over at the visitor center from 
both sides of the aisle to listen to people involved in the financial 
industry talking about the path we are on and what that is going to 
lead to as far as the ruination of our fiscal situation and our ability 
to borrow money at low rates as we are today. All of us know what that 
will mean to our citizens.
  There is no one who doesn't understand how problematic our financial 
situation is. I know the Congressional Budget Office just said that 
this year alone we will have a $1.5 trillion budget deficit. I think 
everyone in this body is very aware that we cannot continue on that 
path. For that reason, Senator McCaskill and I have crafted a 10-page 
bill, a very simple bill. It does a lot, but there are not a lot of 
whereases. One of its purposes is to cap spending relative to economy.
  Most people understand that when we look at economies in other 
countries of the world, people look at the amount of spending their 
government does relative to their economic output. Senator McCaskill's 
husband is a businessman. When he looks at the amount of debt he has in 
his company, he looks at that in relation to revenues and the amount of 
income he has and his ability to pay the debt. That is the way the 
world looks at the health of countries.
  For the last 4 years--this is the post-entitlement period--our 
country has been spending 20.6 percent of our GDP or economic output at 
the Federal level. Everybody knows that right now we are way above that 
number, at over 24 percent. So again, not to try to create some 
messaging tool but to solve this problem, Senator McCaskill and I have 
joined to say we need to get back to the norm over a 10-year period, on 
a glide path that takes us back to fiscal health and to that 20.6 
percent of our economy being spent at the Federal level.
  The legislation calls for multiyear averaging so we can make sure 
that economic differentials don't create volatility, so we know exactly 
what those targets are in advance, so we can go about our work in 
appropriations in a methodical and thoughtful way. In addition, it 
creates something called sequestration. That means if Congress does not 
have the courage, which we recently have not shown, to do the things it 
needs to do to make those cuts to live within this glide path we have 
laid out, then sequestration will take place. The Office of Management 
and Budget, 45 days after the end of the year, if we have not done 
those things

[[Page S413]]

we need to do to make sure we are on this glide path, will, on a pro 
rata basis, take money out of the accounts of both mandatory and 
nonmandatory spending. In addition, if there is an emergency that comes 
up, it would take a two-thirds vote by both Houses of Congress to 
overcome those spending limits.
  To my knowledge, this is the first time in the entitlement era that 
we have ever tried to put in place a total spending limit on 
government. Many of us talk about discretionary spending. All of us 
know that discretionary spending is less than a third of all Federal 
spending. All of us know that if we don't redesign the entitlement 
programs that are about two-thirds of our spending at the Federal 
level, then there is no way for us to deal appropriately with this 
issue. So for this reason, this bill would kick in, if it is 
implemented, in 2013, giving us time to redesign the entitlement 
programs, especially Medicare and Social Security, so that we know they 
are here for future generations, so we know that seniors have the 
benefits they need.
  This is the first time we would be putting everything on the table in 
a comprehensive way as we look at the Federal budget. Simply, this bill 
will cause us to live within our means.
  The problem we find ourselves in today is not a Republican problem or 
a Democratic problem. Both parties have contributed to the situation. 
What this bill would require us to do is to set priorities. It would 
mean that we would have to ensure that programs are being run as 
effectively and efficiently as possible. I know our main cosponsor, 
Senator McCaskill, has spent a lot of time looking at waste and abuse 
within the Federal Government. One of the best things about this bill 
is, if we want to limit spending relative to the country's economic 
output, it is obviously easier to do so if the economy is growing. So 
what that would mean is that both parties would be joined at the hip to 
put in place policies that promote economic growth.
  I thank Senator McCaskill for her courage in stepping forth with me 
and others on this bill. It is my hope that we will have people from 
both sides of the aisle who will join us in this effort. Again, this is 
being put forth as a serious bill. It is a bill that has no ideology 
base, simply a bill to solve a problem. We are going to a 40-year 
average of spending relative to our country's gross domestic product. 
We are not trying to do things differently than in the past. Both of us 
know we have not had the courage in recent times to live within our 
means, to set priorities as they need to be set. This bill is something 
that will take us toward that end.
  We have a very monumental vote that will be taking place a little bit 
later in the year regarding the debt ceiling. All of us know it would 
be irresponsible not to be responsible prior to that debt ceiling vote. 
We offer this bill as a responsible way to put us on a glide path 
toward a place that is reasonable for this country, giving us time to 
redesign the programs that need to be redesigned. It is my hope this 
bill or something of its nature will pass prior to the debt ceiling 
vote. It is also my hope that we will go ahead and vote on actual cuts 
to the Federal budget prior to that time so we can show markets around 
the world and the American people that we have the ability to work 
together to solve what I think is our most pressing domestic issue and 
that is getting our fiscal house in order.
  I again thank Senator McCaskill. She has been a leader on fiscal 
issues since she has been here.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, like my colleague, I appreciate the 
work he has done on this issue. We have been talking about this for a 
number of weeks. Our staffs have been hammering out the details.
  I will be candid. As I left my office, some members of my staff said: 
OK, good luck walking that plank. We will see how it works out for you. 
Because this is politically risky, what the Senator and I are trying to 
do. As I was riding over here on the tram to make this speech, I got a 
text message from one of my kids. All of a sudden it became clear to me 
what this is like. This is like saying no when you are a parent. It is 
so easy to say yes to your kids. When they want something, when they 
want to do something we think is risky, the easiest thing in the world 
to do is to say yes.
  When they want money, when they want to have a new car, when they 
want to borrow your car, when they want to go spend the night at a 
friend's you do not know very well, when they want to stay out later, 
when they want this, that, when they want to go to the mall, it is so 
easy to say yes. It does not take a lot of time. It makes them happy. 
You feel good. But there is always that voice in your head that says: 
If I am going to be a good parent, sometimes it is more important to 
say no.
  Well, we have a bunch of people in Congress who have made a lifetime 
career of saying yes. I understand it. We run for office around here. 
We want everyone to be happy with us. We want everyone to love us. We 
do not want to disappoint anyone. We do not want there to be 
controversy about the decisions we make. So how do we avoid the 
controversy? We say yes. We say yes. And we have said yes and yes and 
yes until we find ourselves at this point in our history where our 
unwillingness to say no, our unwillingness to embrace controversy and 
political risk, has led us to an economic brink, a place where if we do 
not do something that is going to make some people angry, that is going 
to cause some negative ads to be run against us, then we are not doing 
our job as stewards. That is all we are here. We are passing through. 
We are not entitled to these jobs. We borrowed these jobs. They belong 
to the American people, and we have a responsibility as stewards to say 
no now, to say no.
  I remember when I used to tell my kids: It is so much easier for me 
to tell you yes. And they would say: Well, it is easier for you. It was 
easier for me. I would say: The right thing to do is for me to say no. 
And they would say: Well, that is not easier for us.
  That is beginning to be what is happening around here. I have noticed 
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying: We are 
going to cut, cut, cut, cut. Now it is all bubbling up, with all the 
people saying: No, you can't cut our subsidy; No, you can't cut the oil 
company subsidy; you can't cut a farm program; you can't cut this; you 
can't cut that. Everyone is coming out of the woodwork to protect the 
spending that is embraced by our bad habit of saying yes.
  So that is why this bill is necessary. This is like telling Congress: 
You have to be better parents, and if you cannot muster the courage to 
say no, these cuts are going to happen anyway. It is like a discipline 
for us. And I do not go here lightly. I do not go here without 
understanding the political risks involved. But I go here because I 
deeply believe it is necessary for our country. We cannot get control 
of the deficit if we do not control spending.
  Let me talk for a minute about debt and deficit because as I go out 
and talk to people, there are a lot of people who use those two terms 
interchangeably. They do not understand. There is a big difference 
between the debt and the deficit. The deficit is like your monthly 
budget and not having enough money to come in to meet your monthly 
expenses. We talk about the deficit on an annual basis: How much money 
is the government bringing in and how much money is going out. When 
more is going out than coming in, we have a deficit.
  What happens to that deficit every year? It goes on our debt. It is 
like a family's mortgage. But instead of us paying down the mortgage 
every year, we keep adding to the mortgage every year. That is why we 
now have a $1.4, $1.5 trillion deficit this year. We are going to spend 
that much more than we take in this year. We have $14 trillion in debt. 
That is the long-term mortgage our country has right now that we owe 
someone that we have to pay. So we have to get hold of this debt.
  I want to compliment the President of the United States because the 
short-term spending stuff is important. And I want to compliment 
Senator Sessions. He and I have worked on short-term spending caps for 
over a year. But now it is time for us to look at long-term discipline 
and what we can do to get our country on a glide path where we no 
longer are precariously on the edge of not being the strongest economic 
power in the world.

[[Page S414]]

  Our deficits are unsustainable and our debt is out of control. This 
bill takes a very measured approach, gives us time to figure things 
out. It is not like the ridiculous proposal over in the House where we 
are going to cut $2.5 trillion this year. Anybody who thinks that is 
going to happen, I have a tutu you need to wear down the hall tomorrow. 
That is a ridiculous proposal. That is impossible to do. But this bill 
is possible and responsible. This puts us on a glide path to say to the 
American people that our spending is going to be capped at a certain 
percentage of our economic activity in this country. That is possible, 
and it is responsible, and we should do it.
  Who is to blame? Let's be honest about how we got here. The biggest 
factor in our deficits the last 2 years is our poor economy. I know, I 
know; you would think it is the stimulus. You would think it is TARP. 
It is not. Political cheap shots but not true. The biggest fiscal hole 
we are facing is because of the poor economy.
  The biggest increase in spending in the last 2 years? You would think 
it was the auto bailouts or you would think it was the bank bailout or 
you would think it was the stimulus. It was not. Do you know what the 
biggest increase in spending was over the last 2 years? Unemployment 
benefits because of our bad economy. That was the biggest increase in 
spending over the last 2 years. Our fiscal hole has grown primarily 
because of a bad economy over the last 2 years.
  But there also have been bad decisions by both parties over the last 
decade. When Clinton left office, our debt--he may have been running a 
surplus in terms of the deficit, but our debt was $5.7 trillion. When 
Bush left office, he had doubled it from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 
trillion. And today it is $14 trillion.
  Over the past decade, we have had two wars we did not bother to pay 
for, a brandnew Medicare entitlement--brand spanking new--that was not 
means tested. We are buying Warren Buffett's prescription drugs. Go 
figure. Like we are busted and we are buying multihundred-million-
dollar billionaires prescription drugs, and we did not bother to pay 
for it. We have had increases in discretionary spending by both parties 
that increased our deficit and exceeded inflation.
  I want to talk a minute about the boogie man of the TARP and the 
stimulus. I am so sick of that being blamed. It is so wrong and 
factually incorrect. We have tax cuts that go on forever that have 
contributed to this. We have wars that we are fighting that have 
contributed to this. We have entitlement programs that are not paid 
for. But the stimulus was a one-time expenditure. It is not something 
that goes on. It has no tail.
  Anyone who understands economics and understands the balance sheet of 
the U.S. Government knows this problem was not the stimulus. One-third 
of the stimulus was tax cuts. The last time I looked, unpaid-for tax 
cuts were the way of the world. One-third of the stimulus was tax cuts. 
Another third of it, almost, was unemployment benefits. That is not the 
problem. And TARP? Let's be honest. It was a genius decision in many 
ways because it stabilized our financial sector, and it has cost us a 
mere fraction of the money that was used on a temporary basis to make 
sure our economy did not twist down the drain, as it was likely to do 
had President Bush not intervened with his economic team to ask us on a 
bipartisan basis to do something that was in the best interest of our 
Nation.
  We can move on as to who is to blame because now we have to talk 
about tomorrow's problems. I am proud the President is dealing with 
short-term spending by his freeze. I am proud he is working on earmarks 
and all of the other things that are a symptom of the disease around 
here. But our challenge is long-term spending. In the long term, 
spending is going to drive the debt up even higher. Medicare and 
Medicaid cuts are going to double by 2021. Social Security is going to 
increase by 70 percent by 2021.
  We have to look at those issues and make sure on a bipartisan basis 
we do what is responsible. We have to make sure these programs--
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--are stable and secure for my 
children and their children. If we cannot agree even on the modest 
measures such as the 3-year discretionary spending cap Senator Sessions 
and I have been pushing for over a year, I question whether we have the 
discipline to do the hard work. Getting control of spending is very 
hard, but we have to do it, and we have to do it now.
  First and foremost, we need to focus on eliminating the waste and 
mismanagement. That is what drives Americans crazy. It drives people 
crazy that we are spending money on duplicative programs and we are not 
even checking to see if they work. It drives them crazy when the 
Federal Government runs huge deficits and we are paying out $55 billion 
in improper payments at Health and Human Services and $12 billion of 
improper payments by Treasury to people who do not even qualify.
  It drives Americans crazy when we do not make the reforms our 
auditors recommend. The Defense Department has 1,200 suggestions that 
have been made by our government auditors about how it can manage its 
money and its programs better, and they have not acted on almost 1,200 
of them. It drives people crazy we are running deficits when we have 
Departments such as the Agriculture Department and Homeland Security 
that get failing management grades for 8 straight years. And it drives 
people crazy when we are running deficits and we are passing 
appropriations bills with $15 billion worth of earmarks.
  I have been working hard to try to clean up all this waste. We have 
been working on contract management. I have never requested an earmark. 
I voted against every omnibus appropriations bill that has come to the 
floor since I have been a Senator, and I have worked hard for the last 
year with Senator Sessions to cap spending. Now I look forward to 
working hard with Senator Corker and many of my friends in the 
Republican Party to work on the Corker-McCaskill bill to put a cap long 
term on spending in the Federal Government.
  As I say, this is a bold step. It has risks. And if this bill is 
distorted and twisted, it could cost me my Senate seat. I will say that 
again. If this bill is distorted and twisted, it could cost me my 
Senate seat. But it is a price I am willing to pay. It is a price I am 
willing to pay for my country and, more importantly, it is a price I am 
willing to pay for my grandchildren.
                                 ______