[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10628-10629]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          EXTENDER ALTERNATIVE

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an alternative 
approach to the extenders legislation. The Thune amendment is a very 
simple, if not a novel idea in Washington these days. The novel idea is 
that it would actually pay for the spending proposed in the bill--all 
of it. Furthermore, it doesn't raise harmful taxes on the job creators 
of this country to pay for temporary tax relief. It does not raise 
taxes temporarily, nor does it raise taxes permanently, as the 
underlying bill proposes to do.
  To illustrate the difference between the Thune amendment and the 
Baucus substitute, I will share a USA TODAY editorial from May 25, 
2010. I am quoting:

       Now it's time to start making choices about what's vital, 
     and for those programs that are paying the bills instead of 
     borrowing.

  I could not agree more with that editorial.
  The alternative is a good first step on the road to fiscal 
responsibility. We all noted recently that our national debt has 
reached $13 trillion, and as alarming as that milestone is, we are 
actually on pace to double that by 2020. For 2010 alone, the United 
States is expected to run an annual deficit of $1.6 trillion--1 year. 
Next year isn't much better with a projected deficit of $1.3 trillion. 
Total U.S. Government debt is near 100 percent of gross domestic 
product. Let me say that again. Our debt is near 100 percent of our 
entire gross domestic product. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, net interest on publicly held debt would more than quadruple 
between 2010 and 2020, rising from $209 billion in 2010 to $916 billion 
in 2020. These are sobering figures. We should be under no illusions 
that the road to fiscal responsibility will be anything but a hard job, 
but we have to start somewhere. It just isn't acceptable to kick the 
can down the road and continue to deem all of our spending as an 
emergency.
  As the USA TODAY editorial noted:

       None of these needs suddenly popped up yesterday. The 
     dictionary defines emergency as: ``a sudden, generally 
     unexpected occurrence.'' In Congress-speak, though, an 
     emergency is something you don't want to pay for.

  The amendment fully offsets the spending and tax relief provisions by 
enacting a series of responsible initiatives such as rescinding 
unobligated stimulus funds; cutting $100 million out of Congress's 
budget; cutting wasteful and duplicative government programs--640 
different instances are identified in the amendment; freezing Federal 
Government salaries; capping the hiring of Federal employees; cutting 
the budgets of Federal agencies by 5 percent--something the President 
and OMB Director Peter Orszag outlined on Monday; and selling unused 
government property and real estate.
  I wish to be clear about something. Even I support some of these 
programs that are targeted. However, we are in a dire fiscal situation 
that calls for significant contributions from everyone. Government 
cannot be all things to all people, and some reductions must be made 
because it is very clear by any economist's definition that this 
spending is not sustainable.
  We must examine our government spending and weed out the lowest 
priorities. We must make hard choices. That is why we are sent here. 
But that means establishing priorities and having the courage to make 
those decisions. Just look at the recent study by the Bank for 
International Settlements. It ranks the United States of America fourth 
in general government debt among developed countries, ranking only 
behind Greece--which is getting a lot of attention these days--Italy, 
and Japan. Being ranked No. 1 is not a goal we should be working to 
achieve, but that is certainly where we are headed if we keep spending 
over 40 percent more than revenues are bringing in. If we want our 
children and our grandchildren to have any chance at a prosperous 
future, we must start to make tough decisions today.
  As I mentioned, another reason to support the alternative is that it 
does not contain tax increases. Let's take a look at the tax increases 
contained in the Baucus substitute. We have higher taxes on carried 
interest, new taxes on S corporations, and harmful retroactive taxes on 
other parts of the economy.

[[Page 10629]]

  Punishing job creators with tax increases that will only stifle 
growth, expansion, and investment is not the recipe for success. Nearly 
10 percent unemployment is high enough. Congress should not be adopting 
policies that will push it higher. Yet, ironically, only here in 
Washington would this bill be titled a ``jobs bill.'' Plus, only in 
Washington, DC, does it make sense to pay for temporary, short-term 
extensions of tax relief with permanent tax increases. Is it any wonder 
so many business groups that typically support tax relief are opposed 
to the Baucus bill? On one hand, they need the tax relief for the rest 
of the year, but at the high cost of paying more taxes permanently, 
many are saying: Thank you, but no thanks.
  Finally, the bill increases the taxes oil companies are required to 
pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund from 8 cents to 41 cents--a 
fivefold increase. At first glance, this seems reasonable given the 
disastrous environmental mess that is occurring in the gulf. But in 
this bill, the money is being used to pay for new, unrelated, more 
government spending.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle claim the money will stay 
in the fund, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be 
using the money both for gulf cleanup and to finance other spending. To 
do both would add an additional $15 billion to our national debt beyond 
what is being claimed. It is a lot like the health care bill which pays 
for new entitlement by siphoning $\1/2\ trillion in the Medicare trust 
fund. Its backers claim to be strengthening the trust fund, but they 
are double-counting the money. The extenders bill pays for new spending 
by siphoning $15 billion from the oilspill cleanup funding.
  This amendment offers Senators a choice between increasing our 
national debt when the country is crying out for fiscal responsibility 
versus paying for what we spend without increasing taxes or increasing 
the deficit--making hard choices.
  I am fully aware some will come to the floor criticizing the 
amendment, making all sorts of claims, but I disagree. The amendment 
attempts to make tough choices, rational choices. We have to start 
somewhere.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Thune amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

                          ____________________