[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 17 (Thursday, January 28, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S327-S328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           DEFICIT REDUCTION

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to talk 
a bit about developments that involve our Nation, Iran, and the other 
five nations that joined us in negotiating the joint agreement. And we 
are encouraged that it will reduce--maybe substantially--the likelihood 
that Iran will build a nuclear weapon in the near future or even a good 
deal beyond that.
  I came to the floor to talk about that subject, but after hearing the 
previous speaker, I felt compelled to say a few things. I am a 
recovering Governor. I was the Governor of Delaware for 8 years, and we 
balanced our budget 8 years in a row, cut taxes. I have been told that 
more jobs were created during those 8 years than at any other time in 
Delaware history.
  I chaired the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs. We worked closely with GAO. We actually worked very closely 
with the Bowles-Simpson folks about 5 or 6 years ago. They came up with 
three ideas for deficit reduction and to make sure that we do it for 
the long haul.
  The Bowles-Simpson Commission was formed at a time when deficit was 
$1.4 trillion. For those who are following it, the deficit is still too 
high, but it has

[[Page S328]]

been reduced by more than two-thirds--I think it may have even been 
close to three-quarters--and that is good.
  There are things we need to do for further deficit reduction.
  No. 1, we need to really consider what we do with our entitlement 
programs. The Bowles-Simpson Commission suggested that we make some 
changes and that we make them in ways which do not harm older people 
and which will save these programs for our children and grandchildren. 
I think that is very important, and that is one thing we need to do.
  No. 2, we need some additional revenues. We actually had four 
balanced budgets in a row during the last 4 years of the Clinton 
administration. If you look at revenues as a percentage of GDP in those 
4 years, it was 20 percent. Revenues as a percentage of GDP for the 4 
years we had a balanced budget was 20 percent. When you look at 
spending as a percentage of GDP during those 4 years, the last 4 years 
of the Clinton administration, it was 20 percent. During that time we 
had a balanced budget. In fact, we had a little surplus. But all of 
that got away from us in the 8 years that followed. After we had a 
change in administrations, the deficit piled up to $1.4 trillion. Well, 
we have been ratcheting it down, and now we are recovering from the 
worst recession since the Great Depression. Can we do better than that? 
Sure we can do better than that.
  In terms of deficit reduction, entitlement reform actually saves 
money, save these programs for our kids and our grandchildren, and 
doesn't harm old people and poor people.
  The third thing we need is tax reform that generates revenues and 
hopefully reduces some rates, especially on the corporate side, where 
we are out of step with the rest of the world.
  The fourth thing we need to do is look at everything we do in order 
to find ways to save money. I will always remember a woman who came to 
one of my townhall meetings early in my time as a Congressman years 
ago, and her message to me, which I have never forgotten, was 
``Congressman Carper, I don't mind paying for additional taxes; I just 
don't want you to waste my money.'' That is what she said. ``I don't 
mind paying for additional taxes; I just don't want you to waste my 
money.'' I think most people in this country feel that way.
  As it turns out, one of the jobs of GAO--the Government 
Accountability Office--as a watchdog on spending for us is every 2 
years they provide to the Congress a high-risk list of ways we are 
wasting money. When Tom Coburn and I led the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, we used that as kind of our shopping 
list that we used to offer changes in spending and changes in 
revenues--especially in government collection--that would actually 
further reduce the deficit. We have taken action on a bunch of the 
ideas from GAO, and we need to find additional steps to take that 
provide part of the blueprint. Every major agency has inspectors 
general, and many of them regularly give us recommendations on how to 
save more money. Those reports should not just go up on a shelf 
somewhere but should be an action plan for us. So there is work for all 
of us to do.
  The last thing I will say is that health care costs as a percentage 
of GDP in my time as Governor--actually, after I stepped down as 
Governor in 2001--which was pretty flat during the mid-to-late 1990s, 
started to rise again and continued to rise until right around 2010, 
2011. At that time health care costs as a percentage of GDP in this 
country had risen to 18 percent.
  When I ask a friend of mine how he is doing, he says: Compared to 
what? Well, how about comparing it to Japan? In Japan health care costs 
as a percentage of GDP are about 8 percent. We were 18 percent and they 
are at 8 percent. They get better results, longer life expectancies, 
and lower rates of infant mortality. They cover everybody.
  Four or 5 years ago, we had 40 million people going to bed without 
health care coverage at all, and we didn't get better results and we 
were spending 18 percent of GDP. The good news is that since the 
Affordable Care Act--I wrote parts of it, and I am proud of the part I 
worked on. But there are things we need to change, and my hope is that 
some day we get to a point in time where Democrats and Republicans, 
instead of just trying to kill and get rid of it, will say that there 
are some good things in this legislation and some good things that will 
be coming, and one of the good things that is coming is that health 
care costs as a percentage of GDP are not 18 percent anymore. They are 
coming down. The impact on deficit reduction is actually quite positive 
because of this legislation.

                          ____________________