[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3387-3389]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a few minutes 
about our current fiscal situation.
  Over the next few weeks, we are undoubtedly going to have a very 
robust debate on our country's future and the tremendous issues we 
face. We are going to have a debate about the need for fiscal 
responsibility. One thing all of my colleagues should be able to agree 
on is that our current level of spending and borrowing and debt is just 
simply not sustainable. When you are bringing in $2.2 trillion but you 
are spending $3.8 trillion annually, something is seriously wrong. 
Adding $1.65 trillion to the national debt each and every year is not 
the answer. We simply cannot afford to continue in this direction.
  For too long, the answer of Washington was: We will be all things to 
all people--promising everything with really no plan to pay for it. The 
result now is that we face a financial crisis unlike anything our 
Nation has ever seen. While Americans are making very tough, painful 
decisions in their daily lives, their government still refuses to make 
the same difficult choices.
  I come from a State where its citizens really do believe that less 
government is better government. But even if my colleagues disagree 
that less government is better, we would be hard-pressed to find anyone 
who can argue with the numbers. Numbers do not lie, and they cannot be 
spun.
  Let's take a look at the numbers, grim by any economist's viewpoint. 
We are currently borrowing 42 cents on every dollar. For every dollar 
spent today, every dollar spent this year by the Federal Government, 42 
cents is borrowed. Can you imagine an average family charging nearly 
half of all of their spending to a credit card? It would not take long 
for that family to face bankruptcy.
  What is happening with our Nation is we are absolutely losing control 
of our destiny. I heard the Senator from Wyoming talk about the oil 
issues and the fact that we are shipping our resources out of this 
Nation. That is absolutely true. But what is also happening is that for 
every dollar borrowed, we have to find a banker. Looking at this chart, 
who are our bankers out there? China, Japan, other foreign holders, oil 
exporters, the UK. And we begin to understand the point. Billions of 
dollars annually are being borrowed from foreigners who have really no 
home interest in our Nation.
  The interest payments on our debt will increase to almost $1 trillion 
by 2020--an increase of 370 percent since 2009. Again, just look at the 
chart. The numbers do not lie--a nearly 380 percent increase by 2020. 
The American people are absolutely appalled at trillion-dollar annual 
deficits. Just imagine, therefore, trillion-dollar annual interest 
payments. And what if current interest rates go up, which many project 
they will? Each 1 percent increase in interest rates equals--get this--
$140 billion in additional debt. Our interest payments alone will 
eventually bankrupt our country before we even begin to think about 
providing services to our citizens, and everything will suffer. If you 
like education, guess what. It will suffer. If you want to build more 
roads and bridges, guess what. It will suffer. Our society will

[[Page 3388]]

suffer. Probably most important, for those of us in the Senate, the 
legacy we leave behind for our children and grandchildren of a 
diminished standard of living because we could not get our spending 
under control is absolutely a horrific legacy. Our country's national 
debt totals nearly 70 percent of our entire gross domestic product. 
Looking down the road, within 10 years our publicly held debt will be 
at the 90-percent threshold.
  While the American public looks on at this Enron accounting with 
utter amazement, they can't imagine 90 percent of their paychecks going 
to pay off debt. Yet their government continues to recklessly add to 
the debt year after year after year, trillion-dollar deficits, 
trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
  Well, this is just enormous. It is a record-setting annual deficit. 
The alarm bells are sounding, the red lights are flashing, and the 
flags are waving. We have to stop it.
  While this discussion would not likely even acknowledge the 
entitlement iceberg headed our way, we have to come to grips with the 
reality that we can't finance what we have promised. Yet some object to 
$61 billion in spending reductions. In the grand scheme of what we are 
dealing with, that is hard to imagine. How can we possibly attack a 
massive debt if we can't even come to agreement on $61 billion out of a 
$3.5 trillion annual budget?
  Now, I acknowledge $61 billion is significant. I acknowledge many of 
these programs are programs I like. But if we don't come to grips with 
this, those programs will not exist. Yet many are saying: Well, let's 
do a little nip and a tuck. Let's maybe get $4 billion out of this. 
That is only fourteen onehundredths of 1 percent in reductions. Does 
anyone really think that is a serious effort? Nobody is buying that. 
The media is not buying it, and the American people aren't buying it. I 
just did nine townhall meetings all across my State, and they are not 
buying it back home. It is time to roll up our sleeves. It is time to 
say: Look, we can't go on doing this.
  It is my intention to be on the floor of the Senate on these issues a 
lot in the weeks and months ahead. I believe we are at a tipping point. 
If we don't turn this around, we may lose the ability to control our 
own destiny.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I understand I have up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  The Senator from Nebraska has suggested the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I withdraw my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, if the Chair will let me know when I get 
within 1\1/2\ minutes of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so advise.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise today to speak also on the matter 
of our country's unlimited spending, the fact that this last month, 
February--I don't know if many people know this; it was just 
published--we had the largest budget deficit for 1 month in recorded 
history of $223 billion. Those numbers were just released.
  I know we have some measures we are going to vote on this week 
regarding reductions in spending. I realize the Republican version 
likely will not pass and the Democratic version likely will not pass. 
Hopefully, we will then sit down and work out something to allow 
government to be open with, hopefully, a long-term CR. I know we are 
having a lot of difficulties in our departments as they try to manage 
their budgets not knowing what we are going to do.
  As the Senator from Nebraska mentioned, $61 billion is a drop in the 
bucket as it relates to trying to solve our country's problems. That is 
why I have brought forth something called the CAP Act. I have tried to 
do it and I have done it in a bipartisan way. There are numbers of 
people in this body who have supported the CAP Act. I think the Chair, 
a former Governor, and other people here--and Tennessee families who 
have to live within a budget--realize that around here we have 
absolutely no construct. We do not know where we are going in the 
future. We never have a plan.
  What we do is what we are doing this week: we fight and debate over 
issues that take us almost nowhere. Yet we do not have a long-term plan 
as it relates to spending. I think everybody in this body knows when we 
have $3.7 trillion in spending this year, and we have $2.2 trillion in 
income, trying to solve this problem by only dealing with discretionary 
spending makes no sense. If we did away with all discretionary spending 
during this year--all discretionary spending including defense--we 
still would not have a balanced budget. All of us know it is the 
mandatory programs that have to be added into this. What we need to do 
is create a comprehensive budget, a straitjacket for Congress.
  I, along with others, have offered something called the CAP Act. It 
takes us from where we are today over a 10-year glidepath to the 
historical average of spending in this country relative to our 
country's output. That is about 20.6 percent of our country's economic 
output. I have tried to not message. This is not a messaging bill. It 
is a bill that I truly hope to pass. I have been meeting with numbers 
of my Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues. I have numbers 
of meetings set up over the course of the next several weeks to try to 
build consensus.
  Here is the way it would work. We would pass it as a statutory bill. 
What it would do is take us from where we are today--and that is a 
little over 24.5 percent of spending relative to our country's output, 
which is way out of line. By the way, I am not here to cast blame. I 
think both parties can recognize some of the contributions they have 
made to getting us where we are as a country. But the fact is, we know 
we cannot continue on today's path. We know that. We have to not just 
look at discretionary spending.
  I have heard so many of my colleagues talk on the Senate floor about 
trying to solve this entire problem with only a very small percentage 
of the budget. That makes no sense. Everybody understands that. I know 
everyone here wants to ensure that the entitlement programs seniors 
benefit from are here for the long term. We want other seniors to 
benefit from them. Yet we know the way these programs are set up, they 
are not sustainable. There is not a person here, I don't think--there 
may be a few, but I think most of it would be rhetoric, though I don't 
want to cast judgment--who doesn't know these programs cannot continue 
as they are.
  So this bill would require us to start today, working ourselves down 
to 20.6 percent of our GDP. Again, that has been the historical average 
for 40 years. This isn't something to try to overreach. For what it is 
worth, what that would mean to our country is that over the course of 
the next 10 years--as opposed to the course we are on now, the 
alternative CBO scenario and what they deem most likely to occur 
without our action--we would spend $7.63 trillion less than we are now 
spending. This is how it would work. There is a formula in here.
  This is a 10-page bill. There are not a lot of ``whereases'' in this 
bill. It is just a business document, something the former Governor 
from New Hampshire might be accustomed to looking at. It is a business 
document that puts in place statutory limits that are formula driven to 
take us from here to there.
  If we don't meet those requirements, then after 45 days--and there 
are targets each year of spending relative to our economy. By the way, 
this joins everybody at the hip in wanting our economy to grow because 
if our economy grows rapidly, those targets are much easier to hit. But 
if Congress doesn't act, if we don't have the courage to act, then 
there would be automatic sequestration on a pro rata basis, depending 
on the enumerator, what the size of that particular budget 
appropriation is relative to the overall budget. So on a pro rata 
basis, we would have sequestration that would take out those monies.

[[Page 3389]]

  Now, none of us wants to see that happen, so that would force us to 
actually do what any Congress acting responsibly needs to do; that is, 
to actually work together each year to meet those requirements.
  I have heard so many people recently, especially on the other side of 
the aisle, talking about focusing on discretionary spending only, 
basically cutting out some of those things that might make our country 
stronger. There are some things certainly in all of these bills, as the 
Senator from Nebraska was mentioning, where I might have differing 
priorities. But the fact is, when we try to do it all only on 
discretionary spending, we are not only not solving the problem but it 
prevents us from actually looking at some aspects that might otherwise 
make our economy grow.
  Again, this bill, the CAP Act--with Claire McCaskill signed on as an 
original cosponsor with me, and others are looking at it--would cause 
us to look at everything. So, again, first, a comprehensive look at 
spending relative to our economy at historical levels. Everything is on 
the table and on budget. Sequestration would be in place, and it would 
take a two-thirds vote of Congress to override these spending limits.
  Again, I did not come here to message. I didn't come to move the bar 
beyond what the other side might be doing just to make a name for 
myself or create publicity. I came to solve our country's problems. I 
look at these young people in front of me, and I don't think they have 
any idea what our irresponsibility is doing to them. We talk about 
future generations, but I think all of us know we are actually at a 
point now where we have been so irresponsible that this is not just 
going to affect future generations, it is getting ready to affect us.
  There is a lot of turmoil in this world today. For that reason, the 
United States has been perceived as a safe haven. Our interest rates 
continue to be low because of the rest of the world's turmoil. The fact 
is, if and when--and we hope that when is soon--everything settles 
down, as people begin to again look closely at where we are as a 
country, and if we continue to not act responsibly and show the world 
we have the ability to at least put in place this framework that causes 
us to work together and get to the place we all know we need to get, 
then I fear interest rates, over time, are going to run from us, and 
that interest relative to our debt payments is going to continually 
consume more.
  In closing, Madam President--and I appreciate the time--I have gone 
around the State of Tennessee and conducted 43 townhall meetings 
talking about this type of approach. I know numbers of Members on the 
other side of the aisle have talked about what they believe is an 
appropriate level of spending relative to our country's economy. I 
believe this bill is not out of line. I know this bill is at least 
appropriate. There are a number of people who think it should be lower, 
but this is something that would cause us to first agree on where we 
are going.
  It is difficult for a body such as this, with 100 Senators and 435 
House Members on the other side, to agree on little matters when we 
don't have any idea where it is we are trying to go. This would create 
a target for us. It would create a straitjacket for Congress. It would 
cause us to prioritize.
  So I am going to continue talking about this until, hopefully, we 
pass it and actually have a process that causes us to work together in 
a constructive way.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair for the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

                          ____________________