[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 159 (Monday, September 29, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6822-S6824]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        Eliminate Shutdowns Act

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I will ask you, I ask anybody in the 
Chamber, anybody who will listen to me on C-SPAN: Aren't you getting 
sick and tired of these government shutdown showdowns--with the drama, 
the turmoil, partisan bickering, the holding American people and our 
economy hostage for demands for billions and billions of dollars and 
more spending that we can't afford?
  I know I am. This madness doesn't have to continue. We can begin 
ending this madness tonight by voting on a very simple piece of 
legislation: Eliminate Shutdowns Act.
  Again, it is very simple. All it does is say, if we don't pass 
appropriations bills for all of government or any department, we don't 
shut those departments down. We don't shut all of government down. We 
do, literally, what the State of Wisconsin has done since the 1950s: We 
keep spending at last year's levels. I mean, how more common sense can 
you get?
  We accomplish that by enacting 2-week rolling continuing 
appropriations to fund all of government or any part of it that doesn't 
have an appropriation passed for it on a rolling basis. I ask the 
Chamber: Who could be opposed to something so simple that, again, it 
prevents all this turmoil, all this drama, all this partisan bickering?
  Well, my guess is Democrats will oppose it. My guess is also some of 
our appropriators will oppose it. I have heard some of the rationale. I 
don't think it really holds water. But what one point made is the 
problem with continuing resolutions is they fund programs that should 
be reduced or canceled and prevent important new programs from being 
started.
  Well, again, that will create the incentive--I agree with that, by 
the way; I don't like CRs either--that will create the incentive, under 
these automatic rolling 14-day continuing appropriations, to pass 
appropriations bills. It doesn't in any way, shape, or form diminish or 
detract from the authority of appropriators or the Appropriations 
Committee.
  I also heard the appropriators want the pressure of government 
shutdowns to allow them to pass appropriation bills. I guess I somewhat 
understand their point. But I would like to point out that pressure 
certainly hasn't worked.
  I got here in the year 2011. I don't think anybody can dispute the 
fact that at least since that point in time--and probably before that--
the appropriations process is broken. It is dysfunctional.
  In 15 years, what we should have done in Congress is pass 180 
appropriations bills during those 15 years: 12 a year times 15--180 
bills. Do you know how many we actually have passed? Six--six bills--
one for fiscal year 2017, five for fiscal year 2019--six bills. That is 
a 3.3-percent success rate or, stated a better way, that is a 96.7-
percent failure rate of the appropriations process.
  During that 15 years, we have had three shutdowns, and we have passed 
55 continuing resolutions--55. And people are going to oppose an 
automatic rolling continuing appropriation? By the way, this year, the 
continuing resolution that we did pass took us 6 months. It took us 6 
months of dysfunction before we finally passed the appropriations for 
this year, which, of course, is going to end in a day and a half.
  What the shutdown pressure did produce is the pressure to mortgage 
our children's future for it. It produced the pressure to pass 
multiple, thousand-page omnibus spending bills. We have increased or 
suspended the debt ceiling 12 times in those 15 years, since I have 
been here. Our debt has gone from $14 trillion to over $37 trillion. 
Clearly, this is a broken process. Spending is completely out of 
control.
  I don't think it is going to surprise anybody to find out that I 
brought a couple of charts to basically make my point. I would like to 
talk about a few facts, a few figures. This Chamber is generally not 
really interested in talking about, like, figures, but with my 
accounting background, I would like to. So let me give you a little 
history lesson. This dates back--these are 4-year average deficits 
going back to the year 2001.
  You will see, in the two terms of President Bush's administrations, 
average deficits were $200 billion and $300 billion. So the average 
over his 8 years is $250 billion worth of deficits. Again, those were 
unacceptably high back then. That is when $100 billion or 2, actually, 
was real money. People were concerned about it.
  President Obama came into office with the great recession. As his 
adviser Rahm Emanuel said, ``Never let a good crisis go to waste.'' And 
he didn't. So, in his first term, President Obama's average deficit was 
$1.27 trillion. That sparked the Tea Party movement. I am part of that. 
When the Tea Party came, we actually made a difference. We did dig our 
heels in on that out-of-control deficit spending. So for President 
Obama's second term, deficits averaged $550 billion. Again, $550 
billion--that is a lot of money, except in Washington, DC.
  President Trump came into office with a divided government, and he 
had to do deals to get spending bills passed. So his deficit increased 
to $810 billion for the first 3 years. Then COVID hit. We went on a 
massive, bipartisan, ``uniparty'' spending spree: a $3.1 trillion a 
year deficit--$3.1 trillion. We went from $4.4 trillion in spending to 
6.5 and never looked back.
  Now, responsible leaders would have recognized that that was an 
aberration. We can't keep spending once the pandemic has passed.
  You know, back in World War II, we had responsibilities. We started 
World War II by spending 11.7 percent of GDP. During World War II, that 
increased to 41 percent for the war effort, but responsible leadership 
brought that spending back down to 11.4 percent of GDP, after the war, 
in 1948.
  That is not what the Biden administration did. They kept spending at 
pandemic levels. We averaged, during the Biden administration, deficits 
of $1.9 trillion, and we will have a deficit this year of about $2 
trillion.

[[Page S6823]]

  And the very sad fact is, over the next 10 years, based on the CBO's 
most recent figures, the total 10-year deficit is going to equal about 
$26.4 trillion. That is $2.6 trillion per year. It starts out at about 
$2 trillion and ramps up to over $3 trillion by the year 2035.
  Most of our party leadership says the problem here is we have a 
spending problem. We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending 
problem. Let me just prove that point.
  This is one of my favorite charts. It literally shows that no matter 
how much we try and punish success with the top marginal tax rate--we 
had, back in 1959, a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent. How much 
would you work if the Federal Government took 91 cents of every dollar 
you made? I wouldn't work very hard, personally. It has been as low as 
28 percent. I would say, for a brief period of time, we were 72 percent 
free under Ronald Reagan. Now we are at 37 percent for the top marginal 
tax rate. But, again, you can see the ups and downs.
  What is noteworthy about this chart is that no matter how much you 
try and punish success, over time, it has been very consistent. We were 
able to extract 17.1 percent of the American economy in Federal 
revenue. We have had a high of 20 percent, but that was after the dot-
com bubble, and that quickly came back down to a 17.1-percent average.
  It is time we recognized that reality. If we ever balance our budget, 
what we need to do is get spending under control. We have a spending 
problem, which I think this chart clearly demonstrates.
  Back in 2000, we spent $1.8 trillion--$1.8 trillion. That was 17.7 
percent of GDP. That was the year that we had 20 percent of revenue. We 
had a surplus for 4 years. We had a surplus for 4 years, and we 
frittered that all away. We finally broke the $2 trillion mark in the 
year 2002, after 9/11. All of a sudden, we were on a war footing. We 
had to spend more to defend this Nation. Again, we have never looked 
back.
  The absolute high point--other than World War II, the high point in 
spending was with President Obama, after the great recession, at 24.4 
percent of GDP. By the way, that year, because of the recession, 
revenue went down to 14.4 percent. That is what produced those massive 
deficits of $1.2 trillion, $1.3 trillion.
  In 2014--again, as a result of the Tea Party--we pretty well held 
spending flat at about $3.5 trillion for about 5 or 6 years. So 
spending, as a percent of GDP, which is a relevant figure, dropped down 
to 20.2. This year, we are going to be spending over $7 trillion--
greater than 23 percent of our economy--and we are going to collect 
about 17.1 percent. We have got in excess of a 6-percent structural 
deficit. It is clearly unsustainable.
  I hear a lot of talk about, ``Well, Ron, it is all mandatory 
spending,'' which is a problem. All of these government shutdowns are 
all about 25 percent of Federal spending--the discretionary accounts. 
We have 75 percent of our spending in mandatory, but you have to 
understand this is not all Social Security, Medicare, or even Medicaid.
  Over the decades--I am researching to see exactly how this happened--
we have transferred what I would consider and what probably formerly 
was discretionary spending into other mandatory. So, this year, we will 
spend about $1 trillion in other mandatory spending. What this chart 
shows are the variants between 2019 spending, plussed up for population 
and inflation, leaving Social Security and Medicare and interest alone 
with spending at 2025 levels. If we were to do that, instead of 
spending $7 trillion this year, we would be spending about 6.5. In 
other mandatory--again, not Social Security and Medicare or even 
Medicaid--we are spending $239 billion more than inflation and 
population adjusted for 2019 spending. I don't think we were spending 
too little in 2019. Nondefense discretionary is up about $145 billion 
over fully inflated 2019 levels. So that is not the problem.

  There is just one other fact I want to dispute, particularly for 
defense hawks in my party, because I hear it a lot.
  Well, the good news is we have got parity between defense spending 
and domestic spending. I don't know what figures they are looking at, 
but if you only consider nondefense discretionary--yes, it increased 
from Bill Clinton--it is pretty close to 1 to 1. But that was before 9/
11, before we were on a war footing. Under Trump, it is 1.64 to 1. But, 
again, you can't ignore the other mandatory--that other trillion 
dollars--nowadays. If you factor in nondefense discretionary and other 
mandatory, we have increased spending on domestic programs 2\1/2\ times 
to 1. In defense, from Obama's spending, the increase is 3\1/2\ times 
to 1. Under Trump, it is 3.65. So we don't have parity.
  I am sorry, defense hawks. You have had--you know, lights out. You 
have lost that battle. We are not even close to parity. Whatever you 
think you are getting in defense, they are getting 3\1/2\ times that in 
domestic spending. Again, we can't afford it.
  So, again, those are just some basic facts, some basic figures that 
explain our current fiscal situation. Let me go back to where I 
started.
  Here we are again in another shutdown showdown. The Democrats' 
opening bid, by the way, was: OK, well, we will give you a 4-week CR--4 
weeks--and all we are asking is for another $1.5 trillion in spending. 
So we are willing to end the turmoil, and we will quit playing games 
with people's lives for 4 weeks, as long as you agree to roll back 
everything you passed in the One Big Beautiful Bill and increase 
spending by $1.5 trillion.
  Is that a serious starting negotiation point? I don't think so.
  What I am asking from all of my colleagues is, please, imagine a 
world in which these ridiculous shutdowns are no more than a ridiculous 
relic of the past, where we are not wasting our time and effort and 
energy and angst over this partisan bickering.
  Again, I have to remind you that the Eliminate Shutdowns Act does not 
diminish the authority of the Appropriations Committee. If we do these 
rolling continuing appropriations, now the appropriators can get 
together, and they can find areas of agreement, like we did in this 
Chamber on Veterans Affairs and Military Construction, in that minibus. 
Where there are areas of disagreement, we will take some time and find 
the compromises.
  As I said, I agree with the point that the problem with CRs is that 
they fund programs that should be reduced or canceled, and they prevent 
important new programs from being started. There, again, is another 
incentive to do appropriations, and now you have the time to do it. We 
won't be wasting our time and effort and energy and angst on these 
charades. These are charades.
  I can't predict exactly what will happen if we pass the Eliminate 
Shutdowns Act. Nobody can. I can predict we will never have another 
shutdown--ever--in the Federal Government. I am OK with that. Again, I 
don't like CRs. I don't like our current spending level. I am willing 
to concede much higher spending levels than I think we can afford to 
eliminate government shutdowns for all times. So I can predict that.
  But here is something else I think could happen: If we are not 
wasting our time on this partisan bickering over shutdowns, there have 
been so many discussions about bipartisan appropriations and budget 
reform, things like 2-year appropriations cycles, where, instead of 12 
bills, which, obviously, we can't pass, how about doing 6 and making it 
manageable? In the year you don't appropriate for an account, you are 
doing oversight, and just reverse the cycle. I mean, I would even 
consider 3-year appropriations bills--4 a year--but that could impinge 
on future Congresses.
  Again, I understand there are complications to all of these things, 
but think positively about what ending shutdowns could do for this 
body, for this government, for people's lives.
  Passing the Eliminate Shutdowns Act, eliminating shutdowns for all 
time, would be a signature achievement of this Congress. Think of that. 
We together, on a bipartisan basis, can say we are the group after the 
horrible assassination of Charlie Kirk. Recognize this is the moment to 
come together as a nation, as a Senate, as a Congress. Do the right 
thing for the American people. End government shutdowns. That would be 
a signature achievement in this Congress, and I am hoping and praying 
that we do that. But let me be honest. Voting no on this bill--voting 
no is basically voting yes for continuing the chaos and for continuing 
to play partisan games with

[[Page S6824]]

people's lives and our economy. That is what a ``no'' vote is. Voting 
yes would help cement this as a lasting legacy for this Congress.

  So, again, I urge all of my colleagues, please put the partisanship 
aside. Recognize the value of eliminating shutdowns and vote yes on 
this very simple, very commonsense bill that I think quite honestly the 
American people want to see passed.
  With just a couple more minutes, I sat in the Chamber, and I listened 
to all the arguments about the ObamaCare subsidies--the temporary, 
COVID, enhanced ObamaCare subsidies. Nobody is talking about doing away 
with the ObamaCare subsidies. But for sure it should be pointed out 
that the reason health insurance is so expensive on the individual 
market is because of the faulty design of ObamaCare.
  We had high-risk pools to take care of people with preexisting 
conditions. It needed a couple of tweaks to cover everybody. But that 
wasn't good enough for Democrats because they want a single-payer 
system, so they threw out and outlawed high-risk pools, and in its 
place forced people on the individual insurance market to pick up the 
full cost of covering people with preexisting conditions. That caused 
insurance rates on the individual market to skyrocket. That is why 
insurance prices continue to skyrocket on the individual market in 
particular.
  What Democrats did during COVID is they basically removed any 
participation in the ObamaCare exchanges from many millions of people 
who qualified. The result of that is massive fraud. You have 
unscrupulous agents and brokers who are signing people up, just using 
their name and their birth date, for health insurance that these people 
don't even know they are signed up for. So they don't make claims. 
Something like 12 million people on the ObamaCare exchanges out of 
20\1/2\ million had no claims. It is typical that maybe 10 to 15 
percent of people on insurance don't make claims because they are 
healthy but 12 million out of 20\1/2\? That means 6 million don't even 
know they have a policy.
  So we are literally pouring tens of billions of dollars per year into 
insurance companies for policies for people that they don't even know 
they have and they don't use them, while we are paying commissions to 
those dishonest brokers. That is a massive level of fraud that 
apparently Democrats have no problem perpetuating. Republicans have a 
problem with that. We want to lower premiums by doing commonsense 
reforms and repairing the damage done by ObamaCare.
  Again, I think what I heard on the floor needed some response. That 
is my response to that.
  I will just end again by encouraging all of my colleagues--the 
American people don't like these shutdowns. They want them ended. We 
have a very simple bill--not partisan--that really offers no advantage 
to anybody, which is perfect. It just keeps the government open. It 
gives appropriators time to do appropriating, appropriate those 
Departments, and end all the chaos and all the turmoil and all the 
playing games with people's lives.
  With that, I yield the floor.