To limit the applicability of public debt limit to social security trust funds.

INCREASING THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT

The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will report the next order of business.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 51) increasing the statutory
limit on the public debt.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today we are discussing legislation to
raise the statutory limit on the Federal debt, the ceiling on how much
the Treasury Department can borrow. It is a very important matter.
The Federal debt is like the family credit card. Sooner or later you
have to pay down the debts that you have already incurred. If you
don't, your credit rating will suffer. The way the Government raises
the debt limit is also like a family who just keeps calling the bank
every time they hit the credit limit and asks the bank over and over
again for an increase in their credit limit without regard to anything
else. Rather than pay down their debt, they just keep on asking for a
higher debt limit.
When the credit card bill comes, it is a time to reassess the
family's budget. It is a time to review the debts and to control the
future spending. The fiscally responsible approach is that of the
typical Montana family who, rather than just ask for an increase in
their credit limit, sits down at the kitchen table and reassesses their
budget. And so should we.
Let's put this in perspective. This debt limit increase is one big
bill. This bill calls for an increase of almost $1 trillion. I have a
chart behind me that shows the increase of the debt limit. This bill
calls for an increase of $984 billion in the debt ceiling, nearly $1
trillion. This will be the largest debt limit increase in history. This
will be an increase of about $3,400 in debt for every man, woman, and
child in America. That is signified by the column on the right, which
is the debt limit increase being asked for here.
That is just the increase. The debt subject to limit is already more
than $22,000 per person. This $3,400 increase would come on top of
that. Before this bill, the largest increase was in 1990, under the
first Bush administration. Then the Government increased the debt limit
by $915 billion.
Since 1990, the Government has increased the debt limit five times.
The average of those five increases was about $450 billion. So $984
billion is a very large number. It is out of line with the most recent
precedents. It is too large a number for us to make now.
As this debt limit increases, it is just the tip of the iceberg. The
budget resolution lays out the fiscal course on which we are headed.
Page 4 of the budget resolution says in black and white: If we follow
the budget resolution, the debt will grow to $12,040,000,000,000 in
2013. That is page 4 of the budget resolution Congress passed. That
would be $39,000 in debt for every man, woman, and child in the country
in 2013, 10 years from now. Following the budget resolution, of course,
would leave a legacy of nearly $40,000 in debt for every American child
coming into the world about the time the baby boomers arrive.
I come from a State where the average income per person is about
$22,000. So these are large numbers. This large debt means that the
Federal Government has to spend the first dollars it receives to pay
interest on past debts. Before the Government can spend a cent on
national defense, education, it would have to set aside $157 billion a
year on net interest on the debt. More

[[Page S7090]]

than 11 cents on every on-budget tax dollar has to go directly to pay
net interest before the Government can spend on any current needs.
That is a debt tax that every taxpayer has to pay. It is a debt tax
that robs this generation and future generations of the ability to make
their own fiscal choices.

The time has come for us to reassess our budget. This is a time to
look to see where we are and how we got here. Not long ago our country
was paying down the debt. When the Government ran budget surpluses in
the late 1990s and the beginning of this decade, it reduced the
Government's demand on the credit markets.
From 1998 to 2001, the Government reduced debt held by the public by
$448 billion. That is demonstrated by the chart behind me to my
immediate left. It shows from 2000 to 2003, about 33.1 percent was the
debt ratio to GDP; that is, we were paying down the debt. That is that
steep declining solid red line with the debt being paid down.
When the Government returned to budget deficits at 2002, it began,
once again, to mount up debt held by the public. In 2002, the
Government ran a deficit of $158 billion. The deficit this current year
will be much higher.
In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected surpluses
of $5.6 trillion for the next decade. That was 2001. Now CBO projects
that the President's budget will result in deficits of $2.1 trillion
for the same period. Thus, CBO's projections of the decade to come have
changed by almost $8 trillion in just 2 years. Imagine, an $8 trillion
difference in just 2 years--from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $2.1
trillion deficit.
These are times of great uncertainty for budget projections. The
recent budget projections have continued this trend. In its May budget
review, CBO made a new larger deficit projection for fiscal year 2003.
According to that new review, the most recent, CBO now expects that the
Government will end 2003 with a deficit of over $300 billion. That is
compared with its March baseline of $246 billion. So the budget
resolution projection of $12 trillion debt limit for 2013 may
understate the debt we will pass along to future generations. That is
certainly clear if we stay on the present course. And all these deficit
figures are for the total budget deficit before netting out the
surpluses contributed by Social Security.
Since the Social Security reforms of 1983, Social Security has been
running surpluses. I will never forget Alan Greenspan headed that
commission; Senators Dole and Moynihan were on it. They came up with
good suggestions for the Congress to pass, and we did. Consequently,
since the recommendations, Social Security has been running surpluses.
The goal of doing so was to increase national savings in anticipation
of the retirement of the baby boom generation starting in the next
decades. Senator Moynihan would constantly remind us of that date. If
we had balanced the rest of the budget, we would have increased
national savings.
But the rest of the budget has not been in surplus. It is not in
surplus now. So these trust fund surpluses have masked the size of
Government deficits.
The Government's deficits are thus much larger than they appear. As
the baby boom generation begins to retire, Social Security's annual
surpluses will eventually turn into deficits. Moreover, CBO projects
deficits for the rest of the Government will continue as far as the eye
can see. So the true larger size of the Government's budget deficits
will become all too apparent in the next decade.
This debt limit bill is very much related to our budget deficits and
the coming budget pressure from the retirement of the baby boom
generation. Think of our children and our grandchildren trying to make
ends meet in their lives. When this generation piles up debt, it is
imposing a tax on them. It is raising their taxes. We have a moral
obligation, I believe, to act as good stewards of what we have been
given, whether it is in the environment or the economy. We have an
obligation to leave things for our children and grandchildren in at
least as good shape as we found them.
This is a great country of which we can be proud. We have weathered
many storms in the past--economic and otherwise.
We live in times of great uncertainty and great challenges. A good
steward would not tempt the fate. A good steward would ensure that we
do not add to the challenges our children will have to face.
In too many spheres, there has been too much seeking after rewards
for this generation, for now. Rather, we should exercise
responsibility. We should ensure that we act as guardians of future
generations. After all, we are not all going to be here forever.
It is time to reassess. It is time to change course. First, we need
to stop making the deficits and the debt worse. We need to put the
brakes on the size of spending increases and tax cuts.
This debate is very much related to the one just concluded on the tax
bill. We need to limit the size of future tax cuts. And wherever
possible, we need to pay for tax cuts, as we did with the CARE act and
the military tax bill. Stop the gimmicks. Be honest about long-term
costs.
Second, we need to extend and strengthen our budget process
constraints. The pay-as-you-go rule and the appropriations caps
contributed to the fiscal responsibility of the 1990s. We need to
follow the rules.
Third, the debt limit itself should provide a much needed brake on
fiscal irresponsibility. We should not increase the debt limit by the
large amount that the House of Representatives proposes. Rather, we
should force the Government to reassess its fiscal situation again
later this year--not next year as the House contemplates--when we will
have a clearer picture of how the economy and budget are faring.
Returning to the analogy of the family credit card, the credit limit
on the credit card is a check on future spending. Similarly, with the
debt limit, a smaller increase now will ensure that we in Congress
address the Government's fiscal policy again later this year.
So this is an important debate. It may not be a glamorous issue, but
it is a very important one. We have a weighty responsibility. This is
an issue that the Senate should debate. Certainly, we should not hide
behind the rules to avoid votes, as the House of Representatives has
done. Certainly, we should not flee from the issues, and to a recess,
without full consideration of this issue.
We will address it best if we do not simply approve this bill without
amendment. Rather, we need to debate and understand why we are here. We
need to scale back this too large amount. If the Senate doesn't reduce
the size of the debt increase, I will oppose it. And we should add
procedures to ensure greater fiscal responsibility in the future.
Only by taking these steps will we be meeting our responsibility. I
urge my colleagues to join me in that effort.
At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment to reduce the
increase in the debt limit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. I have just a couple of remarks. I think we need to
understand where we are. I think most of us do, as a matter of fact. We
have heard from the Secretary of the Treasury, of course, on the final
action by the Treasury to provide room for the debt limit. It has to be
done by May 28, which is very soon.
The House has acted. The House is no longer there. I think the
amendment we will soon hear about would tide us over until maybe
August, instead of doing it for another fiscal year, so we know where
we are.
There is a very big difference between public debt and the debt held
by the trust funds. I will wait until the chairman comes back to go
into that in detail.
I think those who are proposing these amendments ought to explain how
this is going to work, since the House is not there and they have
already acted. Of course, it just ruins the system we are in now. The
fact is, we need to go forward. I suggest we move on with the
amendments. I have to say to my friends that I hope we reject these
amendments because it doesn't make sense not to go ahead with what has
been passed in the House. We know we have to do it. It has to be there.
Then I will be interested, as we go through time, in talking about
spending with the Senator from Montana because

[[Page S7091]]

that has not been something that has been under control on the other
side of the aisle.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is considering legislation to
raise the statutory debt limit by $1 trillion.
This increase is the largest in the history of the Republic--
surpassing by a whopping $100 billion the record that was set by the
first President Bush in 1990. What's more, it would be the second
increase in the debt ceiling since this President took office in
January 2001.
The Treasury Secretary recently wrote to the Congress stating that
the current statutory debt ceiling would only be adequate to ensure the
operations of Government through the end of May. The administration has
tried to excuse the need to raise the level of borrowing authority.
Among its scapegoats, the administration blames economic weakness. It
blames the September 11 attacks. It blames the corporate accounting
scandals of last summer.
That scapegoating may help this administration to explain how it lost
$5.6 trillion of budget surpluses in less than 2 years, but it doesn't
explain why they need to increase the national debt by an additional $1
trillion. It doesn't explain why this administration is pushing for new
tax cuts when we don't even have the money to pay for tax cuts that
have already been enacted into law.
To quote President Ronald Reagan, ``the American people deserve a
President who has the courage to give answers instead of mak[ing]
excuses.''
So far, only $202 billion of the $1.35 trillion tax cut package
signed into law in 2001 has gone into effect. That means $1.15 trillion
in tax cuts are set to phase in over the next 8 years. In addition, the
President is pushing for $1.5 trillion in new tax cuts. That is a total
of $2.65 trillion in tax cuts that would have to be paid for in the
coming years under the President's policies.
But there is no money to pay for them. The cupboard is bare. The
vault is empty. There is nothing left under the mattress. The moths are
flying out of the wallet of the U.S. Government.
The Congressional Budget Office reported a $248 billion deficit for
the first 6 months of the current fiscal year. That deficit is expected
to increase to nearly $400 billion before the end of the fiscal year.
That is $400 billion--$110 billion higher than the record set in 1992
during the first Bush administration.
We will have to borrow the money not only to pay for new tax cuts,
but to pay 85 percent of the tax cuts already enacted into law and
scheduled to become effective in the coming years.
That is why the administration is pushing the Congress to increase
the statutory debt limit by $1 trillion--so that we can borrow the
money to pay for these tax cuts.
The ship is sinking and this administration is drilling more holes in
the bottom of the boat. Administration officials are already beginning
to jump ship. Paul O'Neill left the Treasury Department last December,
along with the President's economic adviser, Larry Lindsey. White House
economist Glenn Hubbard left last February. And now Mitch Daniels is
fleeing the budgetary quagmire he helped to create.
The Republican-passed budget, which assumes the President's budget
proposals are enacted into law, estimates that the statutory debt limit
will increase from its current level of $6.4 trillion to $12 trillion
by 2013. This legislation to increase the debt ceiling by $1 trillion
is just the beginning of an administration effort currently underway to
double the size of the national debt by $6 trillion in just 10 years.
And that rise in the debt limit does not include the total costs of
the war in Iraq. It does not include necessary investments that must be
made to protect the Nation from terrorists. Nor does it include an
adequate prescription drug benefit, or a host of other urgent
investments that need to be made in education, health care, veterans
services, and other essential infrastructure.
Most alarmingly, that debt limit increase does not include the costs
of providing for the soon-to-be-retiring baby boomers, and the
resulting financial pressures on the Social Security Program.
According to the latest Social Security Trustees Report, Social
Security trust fund expenditures will exceed revenues beginning in
2018, when there will be an estimated 65 million Social Security
beneficiaries. The President's budget said ``These high and perpetual
deficits make it obvious that Social Security and Medicare are in deep
trouble.'' Yet there is nothing in the President's budget or the
Republican-passed budget resolution that sets aside a single dime to
deal with the impending Social Security funding crisis.
When this President took office, he told the American people that
every dollar of the Social Security surplus would be saved. But taking
into account the President's proposed $1.5 trillion in new tax cuts, we
will not only spend every dollar of the $2.2 trillion Social Security
surplus through 2011, but we also will have to borrow more than $1.7
trillion to cover the President's spending and tax cut proposals.
It took the entire history of the Nation to accumulate $5.6 trillion
in debt by fiscal year 2001. Under the President's budget proposals, as
incorporated in the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, this debt would
grow by over 100 percent in just 10 years. The United States fought
World War II, the Korean war, and the Vietnam war, and even then our
national debt grew only by $865 billion, from $43 billion in 1940 to
$908 billion in 1980. Under President Bush's budget proposals, it will
grow by almost seven times that amount in just 10 years.
A national debt of that size amounts to $41,370.54 for every man,
woman, and child in this country. That is more money than is annually
earned by over half of the households in this Nation. That is enough
money to put a down payment on half a dozen houses in West Virginia, to
pay for a 4-year college education at West Virginia University, with
money left over, or to pay eight times over for the annual health care
insurance of a family of four.
Like a carney at a circus sideshow, the Bush administration is asking
the American people to step up to a barrel, and slap down $41,340 to
win a $1,083 tax cut prize. The American people are being lured into
the tent by big promises and folksy talking. In his January 28 State of
the Union address, the President said, ``We will not pass on our
problems to other Congresses, other Presidents, and other
generations.''
What will happen when the carney pulls back the curtain and the
American people realize that they have been swindled? We hear much
rhetoric about providing the American people with tax relief. Yet
nothing is said about debt relief for the American public, which will
be borne by generations to come long after the tax refund checks have
been cashed.
So when the administration tells the American people that this debt
increase was brought on by factors beyond its control, the American
public should also realize that the administration, with eyes wide
open, has chosen to strap this crushing debt burden to their backs. No
matter how fair and equitable this administration claims its tax cut
proposals to be, the tax refund checks will do nothing to save Social
Security, and to cover the costs of the debt burden that American
families will be paying for decades to come.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, since December 2002, the Treasury
Department has made three requests to Congress for an unspecified
increase in the debt limit. Last year, the administration asked for a
$700 billion increase, but Congress wisely trimmed it to $450 billion.
The $984 billion increase we will pass today will be the largest
increase in the debt limit ever, and it is twice as high as the average
for the last five increases. This level of increase represents about
$3,400 for every man, woman and child in the United States--or more
than 17 times what the median American family will receive in tax cuts
under the conference agreement passed earlier today by one vote.
We need to be clear about a few things here in the Senate. The
economy is growing very slowly, and every American has experienced the
current slowdown in very personal ways: 2.5 million jobs have been
lost, long-term unemployment has skyrocketed; lifetime savings have
been wiped out by greed, bad judgment, and criminal activity; personal
debt has increased and bankruptcies are up; and the stock market has
plunged more than 30 percent. Record budget surpluses have turned into
deficits as far as the eye

[[Page S7092]]

can see--nearly $500 billion this fiscal year alone when Social
Security is excluded, the largest deficit in history. We have seen the
weakest level of economic growth and business investment in 50 years.
We are spending the entire Social Security surplus in every year of the
President's budget plan and failing to make necessary investments in
education, infrastructure, and homeland security. Yet we have the money
to drastically cut the tax on stock dividends, giving millionaires an
average annual tax cut of about $90,000. It makes no sense given the
current state of the economy and the world. We are governing based on
ideology rather than pragmatism.
President Bush, who inherited large and rising surpluses totaling
$5.6 trillion over 10 years, likes to say that the change in the budget
picture--and frequent requests for increases in the statutory debt
limit--are a result of a slow economy and September 11. Those factors
undoubtedly play a role, but every single independent analysis shows
that the largest factor behind the long-term change in the budget
outlook is the President's tax policies. The rising deficits and debt
that will result in higher taxes on our children can be laid squarely
at his feet, because most Republicans in Congress are too afraid to say
no to this President.
If there are any doubts, just add up the numbers. Not including
interest, President Bush has proposed nearly $3 trillion in tax cuts
over 13 years since taking office. It is worth pointing out that more
than half of this total--$1.63 trillion--was proposed this year, after
the budget returned to perpetual deficits. Adding interest, the total
jumps to $3.8 trillion. What happened to the promise not to spend the
Social Security surplus? We are borrowing from our children for every
dollar of these tax cuts--tax cuts that will go predominantly to those
earning more than $200,000 per year. And the tax cut we passed today,
because of its gimmicky phase-outs that future Congresses may not allow
to happen, is really a trillion-dollar tax bill. The Speaker of the
House admitted as much. When do we admit that we are cutting taxes too
much? What happened to the Republican Party of the 1980s, that railed
against deficits and insisted on balanced budgets? What happened to the
true conservatives, those who look to cut spending and taxes in order
to stand for ``less government''? Where is the principle, when almost
every Republican in the Senate votes for every spending increase and
every tax cut? We should call it what it is: borrow-and-spend
economics. And our kids will pay for it for decades to come.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about
the pending legislation, which raises the Federal debt limit by almost
$1 trillion. In my view, this legislation shows very clearly that the
fiscal policies the President has pursued over the last 2 years are
imprudent and reckless.
We are considering today an increase of $984 billion in the Federal
debt ceiling, which is expected to carry the Government through to
September 2004. In other words, the Treasury Department will need to
borrow almost $1 trillion more than is currently authorized--some $6.4
trillion--over the next 16 months to fund Government operations. This
would be the largest single increase in the debt limit ever. We are
really talking about an increase of historic proportions in our Federal
debt.
It is enlightening to look back at where we were when President Bush
took office. In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected
that our net debt to the public would decline to $36 billion by 2008.
At that time, the President claimed that his budget would allow us to
achieve ``maximum possible debt retirement.''
Now, only two years later, the President is seeking to increase the
debt limit. In fact, under the President's policies, publicly-held debt
will rise to $5 trillion in 2008--a staggering 36.4% of GDP. Gross
Federal debt, which includes our commitments to Social Security and
Medicare, will nearly double from $6.7 trillion this year to $12
trillion 10 years from now. Instead of achieving ``maximum possible
debt retirement,'' the President is asking for historically high debt
increases.
It is critically important to understand how seriously our economic
situation has deteriorated under this administration. When the
President took office, he inherited a 10-year surplus estimated at $5.6
trillion. Now with the policies that he has enacted and the policies
that he is proposing--in particular, this very heavily weighted tax cut
for the benefit of upper-income people--we will go from projecting a
$5.6 trillion surplus to projecting a $2.1 trillion deficit over that
same period. That is a seismic shift in our position.
I want to underscore one other thing that has happened. Twenty years
ago, the United States was a creditor nation, internationally, to the
tune of about 10 percent of our GDP. So we were in a strong economic
position internationally.
Now, because of the deterioration of our position over those
intervening two decades, we are a debtor nation, to the tune of about
25 percent of our GDP. Again, a seismic shift in our international
position, which places us very much in the hands of others. Because we
are running these huge deficits year-in and year-out, we have become
enormously, inordinately dependent on the influx of capital from abroad
in order to sustain ourselves.
I am reminded of Tennessee Williams's Blance Dubois in ``A Streetcar
Named Desire,'' where she had that wonderful line: ``I have always
depended on the kindness of strangers.'' That is what has happened to
the United States in the international economic scene. We have
deteriorated into this debtor status so that we are now dependent upon
the kindness of strangers. That is not where the world's leading power
should find itself.
Of course, the years since President Bush took office had been
difficult. The economic downturn, combined with the attacks of
September 11 and the war with Iraq, have contributed to the decline in
Federal revenues that have led to the need to increase the debt limit.
Another cause of that decline as the massive tax cut the President
pushed through in 2001. As many of us said at the time, enacting such a
large tax cut based on optimistic projections of a surplus that may
never appear was the height of recklessness.
But the recklessness we saw in 2001 may actually be exceeded by what
we are seeing today. Now, we are facing massive deficits, not
surpluses. In fact, CBO's most recent projection is for a deficit of
over $300 billion this year, the largest one-year deficit in our
Nation's history. The Treasury Department recently reported a deficit
of over $200 billion in the first 7 months of fiscal year 2003, more
than three times the level at this point last year. We are so deeply in
debt that we are being called upon to raise the debt limit by almost a
trillion dollars. This increase comes on top of a $450 billion increase
just last year. Our debt is skyrocketing with no end in sight.
Despite the change in our fiscal circumstances, the President is
pushing for exactly the same economic policy he put forward in 2001:
yet another round of massive tax cuts skewed toward the wealthy. Our
colleagues across the aisle have been in such a hurry to enact this
large tax cut that they chose to pass it through the Senate ahead of
consideration of the debt limit, as if trillions of dollars in Federal
debt is irrelevant to the decision to cut taxes.
Our economy is facing serious difficulties. Over the past six months,
we have grown at an average rate of only 1\1/2\ percent, far less
growth than what we ought to experience. Unemployment is up to 6.0
percent; it has not been higher since July 1994.
Despite these realities, the administration has not yet supported
sensible economic programs, but has continued to push for massive new
tax cuts, skewed towards the very wealthiest Americans, which will
leave us with record deficits and debt. The increase in Federal debt
that we are considering today will have a real impact on our economy,
putting upward pressure on interest rates, and siphoning off resources
that could be used for other purposes simply to pay the interest on our
debt.
What we need is responsible approaches to put our economy back on
track, not another round of massive tax cuts to benefit the wealthiest
among us. Senator Daschle and other Democratic leaders have offered a
responsible package that would create twice as many jobs as the
President's package over the remainder of this year, extend
unemployment insurance

[[Page S7093]]

benefits, and provide aid to State and local governments to forestall
devastating program cuts and tax increases on millions of Americans.
This alternative would provide over one million jobs at only a fraction
of the cost of the President's proposal or those put forth by
Congressional Republicans. It would create real jobs and economic
growth without mortgaging our future through tremendous increases in
deficits and debt.
The fact that the President is pushing for massive tax cuts at the
same time the Congress is being asked to add almost a trillion dollars
to the Federal debt ceiling is beyond reckless--it places in jeopardy
our future economic strength and the economic security of all
Americans.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is ironic that on the same day that the
Republican majority passed a huge tax cut package that will cost,
without the gimmicks, up to a trillion dollars over the next 10 years,
they also are asking us to raise the limit on the national debt by $984
billion, which would be the largest increase in our Nation's history.
Just 2 years ago, the President asserted that passage of his massive
$1.4 trillion in tax cuts would still allow us to eliminate our
publicly held debt by 2008. Under the budget resolution that was passed
recently, it's estimated that our publicly held debt will be over $5
trillion by 2008. So, under this Administration's fiscal policies, we
have gone from an estimate of zero in publicly held debt in 2008 to an
estimate over $5 trillion in publicly held debt in 2008. That's an
astounding reversal by any measure.
The President also said that his past tax cuts would create jobs.
That doesn't jibe with the fact that we've lost 2.7 million private
sector jobs since President Bush took office, many of those since his
last tax program was adopted.
We need to increase the debt limit, but we need to do it in a
fiscally responsible way. Instead of increasing it by a trillion
dollars, let's make the increase more reasonable, like the $350 billion
increase that Senator Baucus is advocating. This will give us the
opportunity to assess our fiscal policies sooner rather than later, to
review our economic situation prior to making significant decisions
which could harm us down the road. In light of our struggling economy
and the huge deficit ditch that we find ourselves in, an opportunity
for review sooner rather than later is essential to the economic and
fiscal health of our Nation.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the vote that
just took place to increase the debt ceiling.
The national debt is growing larger and larger, and yet just several
hours ago the Senate passed another massive irresponsible tax cut that
will add to our debt and lead this Nation down a fiscally perilous
path.
Two years ago, the President assured the Nation that if we adopted
his tax cut, we would see job growth, and we would still be able to
eliminate the publicly held debt by 2008. The result was far from this.
In the more than 2 years that he has been President, 2.7 million jobs
have been lost, and we are now having to increase the debt to $7.384
trillion, an increase of $984 billion--almost $1 trillion. This is the
largest debt increase in the history of our country.
The debt limit was last increased on June 28 of last year by $450
billion. Prior to that increase, the limit had not been raised since
August 1997.
The administration's request to raise the debt limit by almost $1
trillion confirms that it is unwise to make long-term commitments to
tax cuts based on shaky projections and gimmicks. I truly think this
increase is a mistake, and for that reason I voted against the debt
limit increase.
Just several hours ago, the Senate approved a $350 billion tax cut
that will further deteriorate our fiscal outlook. It will worsen the
already skyrocketing deficit and our national debt.
Increasing deficits will decrease national savings and increase long-
term interest rates, which effectively lowers the incomes of working
Americans. Also, the national debt is not free. The hard working men
and women in this country have to pay interest on the debt for decades,
and when the deficit is high, it requires so much Federal borrowing
that it displaces private investment and pushes up interest rates on
mortgages, consumer credit, business borrowing, and capital investment.
This in turn leads to less private investment, which reduces the size
of the economy and future standards of living in the long run.
There are consequences to our actions, and yet the administration and
the majority of this Congress are turning a blind eye to these
consequences.
We unfortunately are in a position where we have to increase the
debt, because we do not want to see the country in default. But we
should be doing it in a responsible manner which is why I voted in
support of an amendment which would have increased the debt limit by
$350 billion.
An amendment was also proposed today that would have prohibited the
Treasury Department from disinvesting the Social Security trust fund to
stay under the debt limit. This amendment would have kept the Social
Security trust fund safe for our retirees, and yet it was defeated by
this body under the leadership of the majority party.
I believe we have a responsibility in the Senate to always do what is
right for future generations. I think that the tax cut that was passed
earlier today, and the debt increase that was passed several moments
ago, fails to take the needs and hopes of future generations into
consideration.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, President Bush inherited the strongest
economy in history and has run it into the ground. When he took office
in January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, was forecasting
a cumulative, 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now, the CBO is
forecasting a 10-year deficit of $2.1 trillion.
You can't mangle the economy that badly by accident; it has to be by
design.
The design is something that President Bush's father once called
``voodoo economics.'' The theory behind ``voodoo economics'' is that
massive tax cuts for the wealthiest among us will somehow ``stimulate''
the economy.
The theory should be discredited by now. It certainly didn't work in
2001. Since the 2001 tax cuts, unemployment has risen by nearly 50
percent. Two point seven million Americans have lost their private
sector jobs under the Bush administration; that is about 3,100 people
each and every day since he took office, 129 people each and every
hour, or more than 2 people each and every minute.
And yet, as Ronald Reagan would say, ``there you go again.'' Just a
short while ago, the Republicans passed another ill-advised tax cut
skewed to the rich, this one costing $318 billion over 10 years.
The only people who will get jobs under the reconciliation bill the
Republicans just adopted are lawyers and accountants. As Warren Buffett
put it the other day in the Washington Post, ``Overall, it's hard to
conceive of anything sillier than the schedule the Senate has laid out.
. . . The manipulation of enactment and sunset dates of tax changes is
Enron-style account-
ing . . .''
Mr. Buffett went on to point out that ``giving one class of taxpayer
a `break' requires--now or down the line--that an equivalent burden be
imposed on other parties.''
That brings us to H.J. Res. 51. Apparently without embarrassment, the
Republicans are willing to vote for another tax cut at a time when we
are looking at record budget deficits, and then--on the very same day--
vote for the biggest debt ceiling increase in history, $984 billion.
The Republicans' strategy has been to back up the consideration of
H.J. Res. 51 so that it is the only thing standing between us and the
Memorial Day recess. They want to pass it with as little debate and as
quickly as possible.
They certainly don't want to amend it. That would send it back to the
House, which would be a problem. House Republicans didn't have the
courage--and probably didn't have the votes--to pass H.J. Res. 51. So,
in a bit of legerdemain that would make President Bush's close friend
Ken Lay proud, they ``deemed'' themselves to have passed it as part of
the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution.
Let me try to put this debt ceiling increase in perspective.
President Bush wants $984 billion. That is more than the total debt
outstanding when Ronald Reagan took office. In other words,

[[Page S7094]]

it took this country 200 years to get its debt up to the amount that
President Bush wants to add in the 11 months since the last debt
ceiling increase.
Because of the disciplined economic policies that congressional
Democrats and the Clinton administration enacted between 1993 and 2000,
the debt ceiling stayed at $5.95 trillion from 1997 to 2001. Debt held
by the public actually declined from $3.7 trillion to $3.3 trillion.
President Bush's ``voodoo economics'' necessitated a debt ceiling
increase for the first time in 5 years to $6.4 trillion last June and
now he is back for another $984 billion.
In essence, President Bush inherited a ``credit card'' with a $5.95
trillion ``limit.'' He wanted to borrow more to pay for his first round
of tax cuts, so he went to the ``bank''--which I call the Bank of Our
Children's Future--and got a credit increase last June. But it wasn't
enough, so he is back again, asking for another, bigger credit
increase.
But here's the rub: we all get stuck paying his bill. Right now, that
bill is over $22,200 for every man, woman, and child in America.
President Bush wants to add another $3,400 to your share of the bill in
one fell swoop. For a family of four, that is a total of $102,400.
And don't forget: when you run up charges on your credit card and
don't pay the balance in full, you get stuck paying interest, too. For
that family of four, the interest cost would add another $33,000 over
the next 10 years.
President Bush just can't wait to get that credit increase so he can
pay for his newest tax cuts. That is why I think we should stamp credit
card ``Over the Limit.''
I think it is important that each and every American understand what
is at stake here.
Each year, when Americans get their Social Security account
statements, I think those statements ought to include, in plain
language, information about the public debt, each person's share of
that debt, and the extent to which the Social Security trust fund is
being raided.
Then, they can make an informed decision about whether they want tax
cuts that do nothing to help the economy but do contribute to budget
deficits ``as far as the eye can see'' and put a knife to the throat of
Social Security, Medicare, and other vital programs.
I don't have the time today to discuss why the President and his
Republican allies in Congress are pushing policies that deliberately
cause deficits; suffice it to say, for now, that it is part of their
grand strategy to cripple government permanently.
I will have more to say about that on another day.
In the interim, I urge my colleagues to vote against bailing out the
Bush administration and its allies here in the House and Senate. They
have mishandled our economy in a monumental way. People ought to be
informed.

Amendment No. 833

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment
numbered 833.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To reduce the amount by which the statutory limit on the
public debt is increased)

Strike ``7,384,000,000,000'' and insert:
``6,750,000,000,000''.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment is simple. This amendment
would reduce the amount by which we are raising the debt limit to $350
billion. That is $634 billion less than the underlying bill.
The legislation the House sent to us would raise the debt limit by
$984 billion. That would be the largest debt limit increase in history.
The previous record was $915 billion in 1990, under President George
Herbert Walker Bush.
The average of the five debt ceiling increases since 1990 has been
$450 billion. Plainly, the debt limit increase in the bill before us is
out of proportion with recent precedent.
We should not raise the debt limit by so much. We should increase it
by an amount significantly smaller than $984 billion.
It is very easy to explain why we have a smaller increase. It is
because we are living in uncertain times, unpredictable times. I have
sort of a pet theory that increases in technology, particularly
communications technology, which makes our society much more complex
and uncertain--not only for the U.S. but for the world--and we are
experiencing the effects of actions in the world, from terrorism and
SARS--make it difficult for the U.S. to rely on the best of
projections.
The best of projections indicate that the fiscal condition of the
country is unhealthy for both the current year and future years. This
is especially troubling because the baby boom generation will begin to
retire in a few short years. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
expenditures will soar, putting enormous strains on the Federal budget.
And new projections of even the short run keep showing conditions
worsening, even when only a short time has elapsed since the previous
estimate. Most recently, the CBO increased its forecast of the current
year deficit by more than $55 billion. That is over just 2 months. If
you project that out, that means in a year--6 times 55--that is about a
$330 billion difference.
Under these circumstances, Congress should reexamine the fiscal
situation later this year. To ensure that this occurs, the size of the
debt limit increase must be significantly smaller than $984 billion. We
cannot wait until next year--late next year or in the summer of next
year as contemplated by the underlying proposal--to examine and
reexamine our budgetary problems. A $984 billion debt limit increase is
just not responsible.
I made the credit card analogy a couple of times. I will say it once
again. A $984 billion debt limit increase is like a family that wants
the credit card bill to come only once a year. If the credit card bill
came only once a year, the family might well not talk about the family
budget quite so often. As a result, they would probably not maintain as
good control of the budget as they would with a monthly statement.
There is reason the bank sends bills more frequently, sends statements
out monthly. It ensures more frequent review of the debt limit. That is
all my amendment would require. I urge my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the fact is, it is great to talk about all
the options, but the Treasury faces a payment obligation in late May.
That cannot be met without an increase in the statutory debt limit. If
we amend the resolution, we will have to go back to the House of
Representatives and possibly require a conference that would delay it
until June. We cannot wait until June. The Secretary made it clear. He
has taken all prudent and legal steps to avoid reaching the statutory
debt limit. Treasury will only provide room until May 28, as I have
said, next Wednesday, in the middle of the Memorial Day recess period
when Congress will be out of town. Failure to act puts in jeopardy over
$40 billion in Social Security and Medicare benefits the first week in
June. I repeat, we have no choice. We must act today.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 29 seconds.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to make clear that I have not heard
one substantive reason against this, not one. Rather, the argument
against this is the House is gone. We all know the House has gone
because they do not want to vote on this issue. They planned to have
the Senate bring the debt limit up at this time. The House planned to
leave before the debt limit came up. They planned that so they do not
have to vote on the issue. The other side plans to vote down all
amendments so they do not have to go back to the House. It is a
gimmick. It is a game.
There is not one word of substance as to why we should not have a
smaller

[[Page S7095]]

debt ceiling rather than a full year. I think it is time to call it as
it is and explain what has happened here. What I explained is what is
happening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have one comment. The fact that the
Secretary of the Treasury cannot meet the bills before we come back is
pretty good evidence, and I hope we vote that way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do Senators yield back their time?
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield back my time. I believe the yeas
and nays have already been ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. I yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 833. The clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd),
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--52

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Byrd

The amendment (No. 833) was rejected.
Mr. BAUCUS. These are important amendments. I believe Senators should
listen to debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will take a couple of minutes and enter
into a colloquy on a very important subject with the senior Senator
from Connecticut.
I yield to him for that purpose.

Asbestos Lawsuits Legislation

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday there were reports in the stock
market that companies facing asbestos-related lawsuits had falling
stock prices, some of them rather precipitously, in the New York stock
exchange. USG fell more than $2, 17 percent; Georgia Pacific, Crown
Holdings, R.W. Grace, and on and on, companies that have the potential
of significant lawsuits.
The Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Utah and the Senator
from Nebraska, as well as the Senator from Delaware, are trying to pull
a bill together. We have not done that yet.
I thought it important before we leave on this break to express to
our colleagues that we are working very hard to come up with a
compromise proposal on the asbestos issue. We have taken major steps in
that direction, working with organized labor, with the insurance
industry, with the insured, and many others that have a stakeholding in
the outcome of this particular effort. It is a critically important
effort.
We say to those out there wondering whether or not we will be able to
get a bill, we believe we will. It will take time. It is hard work to
pull this together properly. It is a lot of detailed work that needs to
be done. We thought it was important to send a message to those
interested in the subject matter that we are confident it can be done.
We will have to work very hard in the coming days, particularly over
this break, to try to resolve the differences that exist, and they are
not insignificant. We believe there is such good will on the part of
all to resolve this matter that it is in our interests to spend the
time and effort.
I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, who has
been tremendously helpful and productive in working with us. I yield to
him for any comments he may want to make. We are all determined to get
a bill. We believe we can get that done. It will take hard work.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Connecticut
for his words. We need to come together to craft effective legislation.
If we do, we will resolve this asbestos litigation crisis.
The senior Senator from Connecticut has done yeoman service in
bringing together the affected industries--the insurance companies,
labor, and others--in meeting after meeting. I convened the first
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last September on asbestos
litigation. We wanted to begin a bipartisan dialog about the best way
to provide fair and efficient compensation, both to current victims and
those yet to come.
Since last fall we have learned a lot about the harm wreaked by
asbestos exposure. The victims continue to suffer, the numbers continue
to grow, but the businesses involved in the litigation, along with
their employees and their retirees, are suffering from the economic
uncertainty surrounding this issue.
More than 50 companies have filed for bankruptcy because of asbestos-
related bills. We have a lose-lose situation. The victims who deserve
fair compensation do not receive it, and the bankrupt companies cannot
create new jobs or invest in the economy. That is why Senator Dodd and
I have been working for months with Senator Hatch, Senator Carper,
Senator Nelson, Senator DeWine, and others trying to bring together
industry and labor and others for a national trust fund solution. The
summit Senator Dodd had last month of all the stakeholders is bringing
them closer together to find common ground.
We have made great progress since that summit. I have heard from all
the parties involved since Senator Dodd brought them together. They
found that some of the differences they had started to go away.
Chairman Hatch has worked hard drafting asbestos legislation. He put in
a draft yesterday.
I agreed to take all these cases, if we can, out of the tort system,
and establish a national trust fund. I agree the national trust fund
has to contain medical criteria to quickly compensate legitimate
victims and weed out frivolous claims. Our effort is so unprecedented
that we have to work closely together.
I close with this: The only kind of legislation that will pass
through here this year or next is going to be consensus legislation. If
we are going to have consensus legislation, we must all continue to
work on a final plan. We are not there yet. We are getting closer. We
are still not there.
I commend the Senators on both sides of the aisle. We will work
together throughout the recess in the hopes we can get back to that.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, if I may just conclude, I thank again the
Senator from Vermont for his comments. He has outlined this very well.
It must truly be a no fault system. It must be truly no fault so both
industry as well as victims have certainty. Medical criteria, medical
monitoring--a variety of other provisions must be part of the effort.
Those are major agreements that have already been struck. Getting
down to the details is the hard part. We are confident it will happen.
It will require a lot of work. It can't be done on the fly, if we are
going to take the unprecedented step dealing with the asbestos issue.

Amendment No. 834

Mr. DASCHLE. I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) proposes an
amendment numbered 834.

[[Page S7096]]

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Social Security cost-
of-living adjustments should not be reduced)

At the appropriate place add the following:

SEC.   . PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARIES FROM COLA
CUTS

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that:
(1) Social Security provides a relatively modest insurance
benefit for seniors--many of whom rely on Social Security for
part or all of their monthly income. Without Social Security,
forty-eight percent of beneficiaries would be in poverty
today.
(2) In order to protect benefit levels against inflation,
Social Security beneficiaries receive an annual cost-of-
living adjustment (COLA) based on Consumer Price Index for
Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W).
(3) The January 2003 COLA provided only a 1.4 percent
increase in Social Security benefits, increasing the average
monthly benefit for all retired workers by only $13 (from
$882 to 895).
(4) Annual growth in Medicare premiums and out-of-pocket
health care costs for retired individuals on fixed incomes
far exceeded the small COLA increases provided to Social
Security beneficiaries.
(5) Reducing COLAs will disproportionately harm low-income
Social Security beneficiaries and push millions of seniors
into poverty.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that Social Security cost-of-living adjustments should not be
reduced.

Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that there be a 10-minute
timeframe, equally divided, with no second-degree amendments.
Mrs. BOXER. I cannot hear the unanimous consent request.
Mr. THOMAS. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator restate his unanimous consent
request?
Mr. DASCHLE. I asked first that the amendment be considered as read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMAS. Are we talking about the time limit? I objected to the
time limit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. We
dispensed with the reading of the amendment.
Mr. Daschle. I then asked that the amendment be considered under a
time limit of 10 minutes, equally divided, with no second degrees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection?
Mr. GREGG. I object.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order so we can
hear all Senators who request to speak.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I just want to ask my leader if he can
give me 60 seconds in the debate to speak in favor of the amendment.
Mr. DASCHLE. Since we are not working under a time agreement, I will
be happy to provide whatever time the Senator may require.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for his generosity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we all understand how critical the
Social Security Program is to senior citizens. It is now estimated that
48 percent of all seniors today would live in poverty were it not for
Social Security. It is a critical program for all of us and for our
parents.
It is a program of extraordinary import to people in rural and urban
areas alike. Obviously, over the course of the years, the Social
Security Administration has seen fit to offer cost-of-living
adjustments in order to ensure that the purchasing power of our seniors
is not eroded. Every year, that cost-of-living adjustment is based on
the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers.
Unfortunately, over the last couple of years, that index has been
very low. As a matter of fact, in 2003 the cost-of-living allowance
provided only a 1.4 percent increase in Social Security benefits. That
amounts to an average monthly benefit of about $13, from $882 to $895.
The growth in the Medicare premiums and out-of-pocket health care costs
for retired individuals on fixed incomes far exceeded that meager cost-
of-living adjustment.
So we find ourselves in a situation where a number of our colleagues
have suggested that perhaps one way to deal with what they call Social
Security reform is to reduce the cost-of-living adjustment; in fact, in
some cases to eliminate the cost-of-living adjustment.

That is the purpose of this amendment. As we consider increasing the
debt limit by $894 billion, as we consider all of the different
approaches to how we are going to reduce that debt, there is a growing
number of those who are suggesting that perhaps one way to do it is to
limit benefits under the Social Security Administration.
This amendment simply says, as we consider all of the options, let us
at least agree on one thing. Let us at least agree that we are not
going to touch the cost-of-living allowance for seniors when that
allowance is only $13, on average, if we look at the last couple of
years.
It is a simple amendment. It is a reaffirmation, however, of the
importance of Social Security, our affirmation of the importance of
maintaining the Social Security purchasing power, our affirmation of
the importance of a cost-of-living adjustment. That is all it is.
Certainly it is directly relevant as we consider the implications of
raising the debt limit by some $894 billion.
I hope we can get unanimous support for an amendment of this kind,
and I yield the floor and yield such time as the Senator from
California may require--I yield the floor and, since we are not working
under a time agreement, I recognize I cannot yield the floor for a
certain time so I just yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I will not be long at all, but I just
want to support this amendment by my leader, Senator Daschle. It is
really simple. It says it is the sense of the Senate that Social
Security recipients should not be denied their cost-of-living
adjustment.
We have just, unfortunately, passed the tax break for the wealthiest
few in this country. It is astounding to me, it is sad to me, to think
that those in this country who work hard every single day, the average
American family, maybe will get $100--but, by the way, probably might
not even get that much--whereas the millionaires, the people who seem
to touch the heartstrings of the Republicans, are going to get
thousands of dollars every single year. And by some magic--magic--this
is going to create jobs.
We have been there and we have done that. What do my Republican
friends say now? Oh, my God, we just did the tax break for the wealthy
few. We had better increase the debt burden on all Americans so we can
really come through with our promise. This debt, this additional debt
is almost $1 trillion more.
What is my leader saying? He is saying: At least, at the minimum,
there are a few things we should hold dear. One of those is a
commitment to the people who are on Social Security. If my colleagues
vote no against this--and, by the way, what an excuse they have: The
House has gone home.
Well, too bad. Let the Speaker of the House bring back the people of
the House. Let the Republican Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert,
bring back the people of the House to vote for the people of this
country. What an excuse. They are going to vote no, and they are going
to go home and say: I was really for you, but I had to vote no because
if I voted yes, then Denny Hastert would have had to bring back the
people who represent you in the House.

It is time we stood up here for the people, not the wealthiest, the
millionaires, and giving excuses as to why what you are doing here is
good for the people.
I support my leader, and I will support a number of amendments here
to keep a commitment to the average working families, and to seniors,
and the children of this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, the amendment offered by the
distinguished Senator from South Dakota has merit. I support the
amendment. However, the adoption of the amendment to the resolution
will require it to be sent back to the House, which

[[Page S7097]]

would delay the increase in the statutory debt ceiling and jeopardize
the payment on time of benefits such as Social Security and Medicare,
as well as meeting Government obligations. Ironically, it probably has
more threat to payments on Social Security than not doing it.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn,
that upon the passage of H.J. Res. 51, the withdrawn amendment be
considered offered as an original resolution, that the Senate proceed
to immediate consideration of the resolution, that it be deemed to have
been read three times and, without intervening debate or motion, the
resolution be deemed agreed to and the motion to reconsider be deemed
to be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DASCHLE. I object.
Madam President, if I could be heard on the objection, we have no
objection to taking up the legislation freestanding. But because of the
intricate relationship between Social Security and increasing the debt
limit, we see no reason to separate these. This should be an amendment
on debt limit. I believe the House ought to take up this matter. There
is no reason why they can't vote on it this morning. There is no reason
why this can't be addressed prior to the end of the week. We hope we
can have a vote, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I move to table the amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I make a point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is not a sufficient second.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask for a count.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I make a point of order that a quorum is
not present.
Mr. NICKELS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
Mr. NICKLES. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. GREGG. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, a vote in favor of the amendment offered
by my colleague, Mr. Daschle, would prevent timely enactment of H.J.
Res. 51. Swift passage of a clean bill allows the measure to move as
quickly as possible to the President for his signature. Any delay will
lead to a default on the national debt and the inability of our
government to meet its financial obligations, including its obligation
to pay Social Security checks on time.
With the House adjourned for the Memorial Day recess, I am concerned
that any further delay in enactment of the debt limit bill will cause
Social Security beneficiaries to receive their monthly checks much
later than scheduled. While I agree with Senator Daschle that the COLA
should not be reduced, ironically, his amendment would immediately hurt
those seniors for whom Social Security is a lifeline by delaying
receipt of their checks. I would never vote to cut or tax Social
Security benefits. With far too many seniors on limited budgets, I
cannot support adoption of an amendment that could lead to a delay in
the delivery of these vital benefits.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I have just a couple of comments.
This resolution says please don't cut cost-of-living adjustments on
Social Security. No one in either House--either body--contemplated
cutting COLAs. Our colleague from Wyoming said we are willing to pass
this but pass it freestanding--not as an amendment to the debt limit.
Just so we know what the facts are, the House worked really late last
night--until 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning, and they have left
town. So we have to pass a debt limit clean. If we don't pass it clean,
you are jeopardizing Social Security. You are jeopardizing Medicare.
We should do exactly what the Senator from Wyoming said. Let us pass
this freestanding and not as an amendment to the debt limit.
The Senator from Wyoming asked unanimous consent to pass this
separately from the debt limit. That was objected to by the Democrat
leader.
I will just tell our colleagues that it is our intention to table
this amendment at this point, because for whatever reason--political
purposes--they want a rollcall vote. Just to tell our colleagues, when
we conclude passage of the debt limit, we will pass this freestanding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I move to table the amendment, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: I thought the
yeas and nays had already been ordered on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays were ordered on the
underlying amendment. That does not preclude a motion to table.
Is there a sufficient second?
Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a sufficient second.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. May I state an inquiry? Would it be possible under the
rules of the Senate to hear from our leader for 1 minute since this
tables his amendment and he has not had a chance to say why it is being
tabled.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is possible by unanimous consent.
Mrs. BOXER. I would so move.
Mr. NICKLES. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is objection.
The clerk will call the roll on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 198 Leg.]

YEAS--52

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Byrd

The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.

Amendment No. 832

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 832.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 832.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S7098]]

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To extend the Temporary Unemployment Compensation Act of
2002, to provide additional weeks of temporary extended unemployment
compensation for individuals who have exhausted such compensation, and
to make extended unemployment benefits under the Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Act temporarily available for employees with less than 10
years of service)

At the end add the following:

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION ACT OF 2002.

(a) In General.--Section 208 of the Temporary Extended
Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147;
116 Stat. 30), as amended by Public Law 108-1 (117 Stat. 3),
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``before June 1'' and
inserting ``on or before December 31'';
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``May 31, 2003'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2003'';
(3) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``may 31, 2003'' and
inserting ``december 31, 2003''; and
(B) by striking ``May 31, 2003'' and inserting ``December
31, 2003''; and
(4) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``August 30, 2003''
and inserting ``March 31, 2004''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 21).

SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL WEEKS OF TEMPORARY EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION FOR EXHAUSTEES.

(a) Additional Weeks.--Section 203 of the Temporary
Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-147; 116 Stat. 28) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Increased Amounts in Account for Certain
Exhaustees.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of an eligible exhaustee,
this Act shall be applied as follows:
``(A) Subsection (b)(1)(A) shall be applied by substituting
`100 percent' for `50 percent'.
``(B) Subsection (b)(1)(B) shall be applied by substituting
`26 times' for `13 times'.
``(C) Subsection (c)(1) shall be applied by substituting `7
times the individual's average weekly benefit amount for the
benefit year' for `the amount originally established in such
account (as determined under subsection (b)(1))'.
``(D) Section 208(b) shall be applied--
``(i) in paragraph (1), as if ``, including such
compensation payable by reason of amounts deposited in such
account after such date pursuant to the application of
subsection (c) of such section'' were inserted before the
period at the end;
``(ii) as if paragraph (2) had not been enacted; and
``(iii) in paragraph (3), by substituting ``October 18,
2003'' for ``March 31, 2004''.
``(2) Eligible exhaustee defined.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `eligible exhaustee' means an
individual--
``(A) to whom any temporary extended unemployment
compensation was payable for any week beginning before the
date of enactment of this subsection; and
``(B) who exhausted such individual's rights to such
compensation (by reason of the payment of all amounts in such
individual's temporary extended unemployment compensation
account, including amounts deposited in such account by
reason of subsection (c)) before such date of enactment.''.
(b) Effective Date and Application.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
apply with respect to weeks of unemployment beginning on or
after the date of enactment this Act.
(2) TEUC-X amounts deposited in account prior to date of
enactment deemed to be the additional teuc amounts provided
by this section.--In applying the amendment made by
subsection (a) under the Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 26),
the Secretary of Labor shall deem any amounts deposited into
an eligible exhaustee's (as defined in section 203(d)(2) of
the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002,
as added by subsection (a)) temporary extended unemployment
compensation account by reason of section 203(c) of such Act
(commonly known as ``TEUC-X amounts'') prior to the date of
enactment of this Act to be amounts deposited in such account
by reason of section 203(b) of such Act, as amended by
subsection (a) (commonly known as ``TEUC amounts'').
(3) Redetermination of eligibility for augmented amounts
for all eligible exhaustees.--The determination of whether
the eligible exhaustee's (as so defined) State was in an
extended benefit period under section 203(c) of such Act that
was made prior to the date of enactment of this Act shall be
disregarded and the determination under such section, as
amended by subsection (a) with respect to eligible exhaustees
(as so defined), shall be made as follows:
(A) Eligible exhaustees who received and exhausted teuc-x
amounts.--In the case of an eligible exhaustee whose
temporary extended unemployment account was augmented under
such section 203(c) before the date of enactment of this Act,
the determination shall be made as of such date of enactment.
(B) Eligible exhaustees who exhausted teuc amounts but were
not eligible for teuc-x amounts.--In the case of an eligible
exhaustee whose temporary extended unemployment account was
not augmented under such section 203(c) as of the date of
enactment of this Act, the determination shall be made at the
time that the individual's account established under section
203 of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act
of 2002 (Public Law 107-147; 116 Stat. 28), as amended by
subsection (a), is exhausted.

SEC. 4. TEMPORARY AVAILABILITY OF EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS UNDER THE RAILROAD UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE ACT FOR EMPLOYEES WITH LESS THAN 10
YEARS OF SERVICE.

Section 2(c)(2) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act
(45 U.S.C. 352(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(D) Temporary availability of extended unemployment
benefits for employees with less than 10 years of service.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), in the case of
an employee who has less than 10 years of service (as so
defined), with respect to extended unemployment benefits,
this paragraph shall apply to such an employee in the same
manner as this paragraph applies to an employee who has 10 or
more years of service (as so defined).
``(ii) Application.--Clause (i) shall apply to--

``(I) an employee who received normal benefits for days of
unemployment under this Act during the period beginning on
July 1, 2002, and ending on November 30, 2003; and
``(II) days of unemployment beginning on or after the date
of enactment of this subparagraph.''.

Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the Senator from Massachusetts has agreed
to 15 minutes equally divided on this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. We would like to have 12 minutes on our side.
Mr. GREGG. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, this is an issue with which this body
should be familiar, the whole issue of unemployment compensation. Let
me tell you exactly what this proposal does. It has two parts. First of
all, it extends the current program of 13 weeks of benefits until
December 31, just as the House did last night by a vote of 409 to 19.
That is what the House passed last night. That is one of the two
provisions.
The second provision is it provides 13 weeks of benefits to the long-
term unemployed who have exhausted their benefits and still cannot find
a job. That is $2.5 billion. The total cost is $9 billion.
Madam President, just to review very quickly, we have 8.8 million
unemployed. We have 2.8 million job openings. These are the figures
from the Department of Labor. So, obviously, it has been very difficult
for millions of Americans who have held unemployment compensation to
continue to be able to find any jobs, so they have exhausted their
benefits. This particular proposal will provide those benefits for
about a million of the unemployed.
Madam President, I just draw the attention of the Senate to the
actions that were taken on a similar issue by Presidents Dwight
Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter,
Ronald Reagan, both Presidents Bush and Bill Clinton. Every one of
those Presidents signed extended unemployment compensation--most
included the individuals who had exhausted their unemployment
compensation. Every one of those Presidents has done that. That is
exactly what we are proposing to do here in a modest program, to reach
those who have already exhausted their unemployment.
I will not take a great deal of time to talk about the hardship many
unemployed are facing. These are the facts: More than half of the
unemployed adults have had to postpone medical treatment--57 percent--
or cut back on the spending for food--56 percent; 1 out of 4 have had
to move out of their house and move in with friends and relatives; 38
percent lost telephone service or are worried about losing their phone;
and more than a third have had trouble paying their gas or electric
bills.
These are real American families who have worked hard, paid into the
fund, and are in hard times. The fund itself is in surplus. It can
afford this kind of a commitment.
Finally, when you look at what the Senate has done a few hours ago--
given some $350 billion in tax breaks, primarily to the wealthiest
individuals--we are asking for fairness for workers

[[Page S7099]]

in this country who need this helping hand. Other Republican and
Democrat Presidents have found reasons to do that. That is simply what
this amendment is about.
The point has been raised: Senator, you have had your vote on this.
You have had your vote once, twice, or three times. That is right. We
are going to have a vote on it four times, five times, six times, or
seven times until we are able to get this passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, the decisions we are making in the Senate
today say a lot about our values, who we are, what we care about.
Earlier today, the Vice President cast the tie-breaking vote that
enabled wealthy investors to cut their taxes by tens of billions of
dollars. It does virtually nothing for ordinary Americans.
If you look at this bill, for the next 5 years, the very little help
working people get gets smaller and smaller, while the help for people
who live off of their wealth gets bigger and bigger.
So this bill values wealth over work. It is just that simple. Now we
have an amendment from the Senator from Massachusetts that is about
helping people who are hurting today. This is not an abstraction. I
have been all over this country. Anywhere you go in America, you meet
people who are looking for work, and they cannot find it. These are
good, salt-of-the-earth people. They want to work. They have worked all
their lives. There is no job available for them. They are trying to
feed their families, trying to pay the rent. These are people who
cannot find a job because this administration--President Bush's
administration--has killed over 2 million jobs. They are going from
factory to factory and store to store trying to find work--whether it
is at a textile mill, drycleaner, or McDonald's. They cannot find work.
They have been looking for months.
So the question for the Senate is very simple: Will we help a million
people who are unemployed, through absolutely no fault of their own--
good, working people who have worked all their lives? The Senate has
already proven today that it cares about the wealthy. Now the question
is, Do we care about people who have spent months looking for work, who
have worked all their lives, who want to take care of their families,
put food on the table, pay the rent but they cannot find a job? That is
the question presented by this amendment. The response will show the
values of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in supporting the
Kennedy amendment. We are trying to help over 1.1 million Americans who
exhausted their benefits. These are hard-working Americans who paid
into the unemployment trust fund. Now is our opportunity to help them.
I believe it is our obligation. Here is an interesting point on this
recession. In the 20th century, the average bottoming out of
unemployment comes within 15 months of the beginning of the recession,
but we have seen 25 months of continuing unemployment. This, indeed, is
the longest in terms of the persistence of long-term unemployment that
we have seen since the 1930s.
These people need our help. The trust fund has the resources. We
should vote today to give these people benefits. As Senator Kennedy
pointed out, in every other recession every other President has done
it. There should be no exception today. If we want to help 1.1 million
Americans, just as we helped lots of fortunate Americans today, we
should support this amendment.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REED. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. What are the people to do? They have exhausted their
unemployment insurance benefits in a labor market that, instead of
opening up so there are opportunities for jobs, is actually closing
down. The unemployment rate has now risen to 6 percent. The number of
long-term unemployed is at a near 20-year record. The other side is
talking about doing some kind of an extension, but as I understand it,
they will not cover exhaustees; is that correct? Is that the Senator's
understanding?
Mr. REED. Yes. It is my understanding that 1.1 million Americans have
exhausted their benefits, and they are still looking. They are well-
trained, well-skilled people. The jobs are gone. They want to work. We
are ignoring them--we are not, but the other side's proposal totally
ignores them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. I think it is imperative to focus on the fact that we
have people who have exhausted their benefits for the time period given
to them, and they are not able to get a job. The argument is always
made that they ought to get out and find a job. That is one of the
premises of the system. But the job market is getting worse, not
better.
Where are they going to find these jobs? How are they going to
support their families? Furthermore, money has been paid into the
unemployment insurance trust fund to build up a balance in order to
make payments when we hit hard economic times.
Those surpluses that have been paid in are now about $20 billion. The
purpose of paying them in to the fund is to draw on them when we hit
economic times such as we are now confronting. This economy remains
soggy. It is not picking up. We have the very human problem of people
who have worked that are now left out. You do not collect unemployment
insurance benefits unless you have built up a work record. In order to
get the benefits, you must have an established work record. So we are
not talking about nonworkers. By definition, we are talking about
workers, people who have an employment record.
Through no fault of their own hard-working people have lost their
jobs because the economy has gone soft. If you are at blame, you do not
get unemployment; that is another provision of the system. They have
drawn unemployment insurance benefits for a limited period of time.
They then exhaust them. What are they to do?
The answer, ``You ought to go find a job,'' might be an answer in a
time when the job market is opening up, but the job market is closing
down. The unemployment rate is rising, and the proposal of the able
Senator from Massachusetts which would encompass these exhaustees is
extremely important.
Furthermore, it would provide an impetus to the economy in providing
some stimulus to get the economy moving again.
Ms. CANTWELL. Will the Senator from Maryland yield for a question?
Mr. SARBANES. Certainly, I yield for a question.
Ms. CANTWELL. I am interested in your----
Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has the floor and
has yielded for a question.
Mr. SARBANES. I yield for a question.
Ms. CANTWELL. The Senator's understanding of Senator Kennedy's
amendment. I am concerned with the point you are making because just
today the Boeing Company has announced it is sending warrant notices to
another 1,150 employees. We have already had thousands--5,000--bringing
the total to 3,000 employees laid off, and now we are hearing about
another 1,100 today who will receive layoff notices probably in June or
July.
This amendment would cover both employees--those who have already
exhausted their benefits and employees who, in the next several months,
will run out of benefits; is that your understanding?
Mr. SARBANES. That is my understanding, but the Senator makes a very
important point in the context in which she presented it. Typically,
after the earlier layoffs that the Senator talked about at Boeing, the
economy would have picked up again. Boeing would have resumed work and
would have started hauling people back in off of the unemployment rolls
and putting them back to work.
The fact that they are now laying off additional people confronts us
with providing for them, which the extension the other side is talking
about may do, but it does not provide for going back and picking up the
previous people who were laid off and who have exhausted their
benefits.
The economy is not working the way it has traditionally worked. It is
a very serious concern. The earlier people, instead of being called
back because

[[Page S7100]]

Boeing's job orders are picking up, in fact confront a situation in
which Boeing is now laying off even more people.
Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator for that clarification because that
is the point.

Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.
Ms. CANTWELL. We have to take care of those who have lost their
benefits. The reason we should do that is your very point in your
clarification that it is not getting better. I thank you for your
clarification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may only yield for questions.
Mr. SARBANES. Have we answered the able Senator's question, I hope,
in the course of this discussion?
Mrs. CLINTON. Will the Senator from Maryland yield for an additional
question?
Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.
Mrs. CLINTON. As I look at the proposal of the Senator from
Massachusetts and the specific financial hardships of unemployment, is
it the position of the Senator from Maryland that in the absence of
extending unemployment benefits to those who have already exhausted
their benefits, there is no opportunity on the horizon for them to have
income because the jobs are just not there?
Mr. SARBANES. Exactly. These people, in effect, will fall off the
cliff, and they are hard-working people. They would not have gotten the
unemployment benefits to begin with if they had not had a job record, I
say to the able Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Does the Senator from Maryland have any idea how many
of the people who have exhausted their benefits have children in their
homes?
Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.
Mr. SARBANES. I do not.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is yielding for a question.
Mrs. CLINTON. Would it surprise the Senator from Maryland that the
number of parents who have been unemployed for 6 months or longer has
increased 245 percent?
Mr. SARBANES. I think that is consistent with the economic slowdown--
--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. Senators are
reminded to address questions through the Chair.
Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, if I can continue in this line of
questioning with the Senator from Maryland. Is the Senator from
Maryland aware that in the year 2000, there were approximately 176,000
long-term unemployed parents but that last month there were 607,000?
Mr. SARBANES. I did not know the exact figures but I knew there has
been a very significant increase. That reflects the broader fact that
the number of the long-term unemployed has now risen, not just parents,
which was the thrust of the Senator's question, but the number of long-
term unemployed has risen to just under 2 million. These are the
highest numbers we have had in almost 10 years.
Mrs. CLINTON. Is it correct that the Senator from Massachusetts----
Mr. NICKLES. Regular order.
Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, a further question to the Senator from
Maryland: Is it correct that in previous years with previous Presidents
and Congresses, the concern about long-term unemployment has let us, as
a nation, provide benefits for those people who have exhausted their
source of income and cannot find a job?
Mr. SARBANES. That is my understanding, and it is further my
understanding that the extensions which have been done thus far in this
recession compare very poorly with what was consistently done in
previous economic downturns under both Republican and Democratic
administrations. It is a very marked contrast that the response this
time to the unemployed problem falls far short of what occurred in
previous economic downturns.

Mrs. CLINTON. Finally, Madam President, to the Senator from Maryland,
is the Senator from Maryland aware that the rate at which people are
exhausting their unemployment benefits, without finding a job in this
jobless economy that we are currently experiencing, was at its highest
level ever recorded in February and its second highest level ever
recorded in March, and that for 23 straight months the private sector
has lost jobs, the longest stretch since World War II; is the Senator
from Maryland aware of that?
Mr. SARBANES. That is a very dramatic statement of what is happening
out there in terms of the shrinking of the job market and the
incredibly difficult situation in which the unemployed find themselves.
As the Senator has emphasized in particular, those who are parents are
confronted with how they are going to provide for the needs of their
families. The Senator is absolutely correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to, if I can, ask the Senator a question as
well. Is the Senator aware that there are 18,000 members of the Armed
Forces who have left the military and are now unemployed?
These are men and women who were serving in the military in recent
times, are now unemployed, are now depending upon unemployment
compensation, brave men and women who served this country gallantly and
are now dependent upon unemployment compensation. They will be at risk
as well.
Mr. SARBANES. In response to the Senator's question, that is just
another dimension with respect to this problem. This problem really
reaches throughout our society. As the able Senator from North Carolina
stated earlier, he is encountering it all across the country. The
former military personnel bring another dramatic dimension to this
problem and the necessity, in my view, to enact the amendment the
Senator from Massachusetts has offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. This has been a very interesting dialog, but it has
absolutely nothing to do with this bill. Yesterday we made a unanimous
consent request to pass a clean extension of unemployment compensation.
The House has now passed a bill. We will ask unanimous consent again to
pass a clean extension of unemployment compensation.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. NICKLES. I will not yield. We have voted on this three times
already this year. Some people on the other side say this is such a
great issue, we are just going to get to vote on it a lot, and so now
they offer it on a debt limit bill. Incidentally, they happen to know
the House has already left. They know we have to pass a clean debt
limit bill. They know a budget point of order lies against it. They
know it is nothing but political gamesmanship.
I told our colleagues yesterday that they jeopardized passing a clean
extension of unemployment comp. We could have done it yesterday. I hope
we can do it today. Instead, they do not want to pass just a clean
extension, they want to increase the program.
This amendment we are looking at today is a little different than the
amendment we looked at last time. It has not had a hearing. It has not
been vetted. It is not the bill that passed the House. The House has
already left town. So if my colleagues want to do something to help
people who are losing their unemployment compensation, they have to
pass the House bill--and they are not in session, they have left. So
we----
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. NICKLES. No, I am not yielding.
If we take this modification, this change, on the debt limit bill, it
will complicate the debt limit bill. If we amend unemployment comp that
we are going to try to pass later by unanimous consent, that will not
pass. We want to provide assistance to them, and we can pass a clean
extension for the next 7 months. That happens to be nearly the same
thing the Senator from New York and I did in January. It happens to be
nearly the same thing the Senator from New York and I did last
November.
So if my colleagues want to help people who have lost their
unemployment benefits, we can pass a clean extension. We are not going
to pass a major expansion, as this amendment would propose. This
amendment would allow some people to receive 59 weeks of benefits--of
unemployment comp. We are not going to do it. I will tell my colleagues
that right now. So they can make all the speeches they want, but some
of us want to pass this bill and move on.
I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page S7101]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Byrd) would vote ``nay''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--49

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Byrd

The motion was agreed to.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask before the next vote that we have
10-minute votes in the future. I ask unanimous consent the following
votes be 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. The next amendment we have in order is that offered by
Senator Feingold, but Senator Kennedy is here, wishing to present a
unanimous consent request.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, just for the information of our
colleagues, I think we stated this before, but I want to repeat it. It
is our intention to ask unanimous consent to pass the House-passed bill
on unemployment compensation upon completion of the debt limit
extension. It is also our intention again to ask unanimous consent to
pass the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the Senate would not
curtail COLAs. No one was planning on doing it, but because we had an
amendment earlier I think we want to clarify that. We will pass both of
those on freestanding items upon completion of the debt limit
extension.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, having listened to the leader, I ask
unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of the House
unemployment compensation bill, H.R. 2185, which the House passed last
night by a vote of 409 to 19, that the bill be read a third time and
passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and the
preceding all occur without intervening action or debate.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I
will object, we are in the process, I think the Senator from
Massachusetts knows, of trying to clear that on this side of the aisle.
The Senator from Oklahoma has indicated we expect to be able to pass
the House-passed unemployment extension later in the day. We cannot,
however, clear it at this particular moment. Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Just to repeat, I tried to do that yesterday, and the
Senator from Massachusetts objected--or somebody from the other side of
the aisle objected. I just want to make that point as well. Some of us
tried to pass a clean extension yesterday and I urged my colleagues to
do it and it was objected to. Now we have had a couple of votes. I hope
we can clear it and will pass the House-passed bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, the objection is
coming from the Republican side to the bill that passed last night in
the House of Representatives 409 to 19. We are prepared. We believe it
should include exhaustees. But we want to find the earliest time to let
those people who are unemployed know that the Senate is going to be
responsive. It passed last night. We are asking now that it be passed
right now.
If there is going to be an objection by the Republican leadership,
the Record ought to reflect that. We are prepared.
This is our first priority--to say to those who are receiving
unemployment compensation that they will continue to receive it.
Do I understand there has been an objection by the Republican
leadership?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was.
Mr. KENNEDY. Otherwise, I renew the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection was heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the majority be willing to enter into a
time agreement on the amendment offered by Senator Feingold in relation
to pay-go? He has agreed to 15 minutes on our side. I ask that in the
form of a unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, 15 minutes on that side.
How much on this side?
Mr. REID. Whatever you want--15 minutes.
Mr. NICKLES. Ten minutes on this side would be more than sufficient.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for a
question?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield for the purpose of a question.
Mr. REID. The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma wouldn't yield for
a question that I wanted to ask earlier but he said the reason we can't
amend this bill even a little bit is because the House was not here. I
ask my friend from Wisconsin: Does he think it would be a good idea to
ask the House leadership to call on Governor Ridge to send all the
airplanes he has available to see if they can return?
Mr. FEINGOLD. It sounds like a good plan. I hope that is done while I
offer my amendment.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate so much the concerns of my
friend and colleague from Nevada about being able to find legislators
who have wondered afar from the legislative field. We did have a slight
invasion in our State by a few Democrat legislators who were somewhat
fretting but I am happy to report they returned safely to the State of
Texas, much to the appreciation of both States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

Amendment No. 835

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr.
Carper, Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. Cantwell, proposes an
amendment numbered 835.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To extend the current-law pay-as-you-go requirement)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC.  . EXTENSION OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO.

(a) In General.--Section 275(b) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control

[[Page S7102]]

Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 note) is amended by striking
``2006'' and inserting ``2008''.
(b) Extension of Pay-As-You-Go.--Section 252 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2
U.S.C. 902) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2008''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2008''.
(c) Application.--Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902), as
amended by this section, shall not apply to direct spending
and receipts legislation enacted prior to the enactment of
this section.
(d) Effective Date.--the amendments made by this section
shall take effect September 30, 2002.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator
from Delaware, Mr. Carper, the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell,
and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, in offering this
straightforward amendment. Our amendment would simply extend the pay-
as-you-go law that has been in force in one way or another since 1990.
On October 16 of last year, Senators Conrad, Domenici, Gregg, and I
joined to offer an amendment to extend the budget process. The Senate
agreed to our amendment, but with a modification that limited the
extension to April 15.
During debate on the budget resolution, a number of us offered an
amendment to extend the critical budget process rules, known as pay-go,
and I was pleased that the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr.
Nickles, accepted our amendment.
I regret that this absolutely critical budget rule was dropped in the
final version of the budget resolution. In its place, the conference
committee approved a far weaker set of rules. In fact, instead of
acting to restrain the fiscal appetites of Congress, the rules
established in the budget resolution actually whet those appetites.
They carve out an enormous exception in the pay-go rules, exempting
over one-and-a-half trillion dollars in tax cuts and spending increases
from the sensible restraints we had long imposed on ourselves.
The result is that we are currently legislating in an environment
that is almost completely unconstrained by any budget discipline at
all.
Were our budget position stronger than it is, the lack of budget
restraint would be troubling enough. But given the extremely serious
fiscal challenges we face, the inadequate budget rules adopted in the
budget resolution are simply and grossly irresponsible.
The last two years have seen a dramatic deterioration in the
government's ability to perform one of its most fundamental jobs--
balancing the nation's fiscal books.
In January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected that in
the 10 years thereafter, the government would run a unified budget
surplus of more than $5 trillion.
With the adoption of the budget resolution, we are now facing unified
budget deficits of $1.7 trillion through 2013. That is a dramatic swing
of nearly $7 trillion, just in the space of a little more than two
years.
And without counting Social Security, we are expected to run deficits
of $4.5 trillion through 2013 under the policies outlined in the budget
resolution. And many have noted that the assumptions on which those
projections are based are overly optimistic, that in particular they
assume spending levels that Congress is unlikely to observe.
This kind of budgeting is absolutely reckless. There is no other word
for it. And the lack of adequate rules compound the damage.
We must stop running these debilitating deficits.
We must stop running deficits because they cause the government to
use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other
government purposes, rather than to pay down the debt and help our
nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation.
We must stop running deficits because every dollar that we add to the
Federal debt is another dollar that we are forcing our children to pay
back in higher taxes or fewer government benefits.
When the government in this generation chooses to spend on current
consumption and to accumulate debt for our children's generation to
pay, it does nothing less than rob our children of their own choices.
We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle our kids with
debts that they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work.
And that is not right.
That is why I am offering this amendment to reinstate the budget
statute under which we operated for many years. We need a strong budget
process. We need to exert fiscal discipline.
This amendment would simply return us to the pay-go budget discipline
that was in effect until September of last year. It would reinstate the
across-the-board sequester law that imposed some useful budget
discipline during the 1990s.
That is what this amendment would do. It is the least that we should
do to ensure fiscal responsibility and sound budgeting.
We must stop using Social Security surpluses to fund other government
programs. We must stop piling up debt for our children to pay off. We
must continue the discipline of the budget process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I express my gratitude to Senator Feingold
and join with him and Senators Cantwell and Feinstein in offering this
amendment today.
The budget enforcement requirements first established in the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990 were important factors in the successful
bipartisan effort over the course of the 1990s to bring our Federal
budget deficit under control.
At a time now when our deficit is again growing rapidly, it is most
unfortunate that these budgetary constraints have been allowed to
lapse.
One of the most important of the 1990 controls was the so-called pay-
go law. The pay-go law requires the Congress to live under the same
constraints as most typical American families.
American families--at least most of us--understand very well that if
they want to spend more lavishly, they must find some way to bring in
more income. Similarly, if one parent decides to leave the workforce to
stay at home, then the family must find a way to make do with less.
Put simply, pay-go required that we acknowledge these same simple
realities of life. It required the Congress come up with the revenues
to pay for any new entitlement spending or else find ways to
accommodate that new spending by tightening our belts somewhere else.
It required that should Congress decide to reduce the revenues we use
to pay for Federal spending, either we have to cut the spending those
revenues financed or else find new revenues to pay for that same
spending.
The purpose of pay-go is to prevent Congress and the President from
running up the bill on our Nation's credit card, which is exactly what
we are doing today, to the tune of nearly $1 trillion.
The pay-go law expired last fall, as Senator Feingold has said, as
did the discretionary spending caps that were also part of the
successful formula that brought the deficit under control by the end of
the 1990s.
A related pay-go rule that we had here in the Senate was extended
until this April 15. It was then replaced with new rules that are
widely acknowledged to be weak and porous. The statutory pay-go
requirement--the legally binding requirement--has not been renewed at
all. This is a serious mistake.
We cannot undo today all the actions over the last 2 years that have
led us to the point we are, but here we are preparing to raise the
ceiling on the Federal debt by nearly $1 trillion. Today alone, we will
pay $1 billion in interest on our national debt--not on debt service,
not on principal payment--just on interest, $1 billion today alone.
By this time next year, some 20 cents of every revenue dollar we
collect for the Federal Treasury will go to pay just for interest
alone--20 cents of every dollar just to pay for interest alone.
While we cannot today retrace the steps that we need to, to ensure
that all those wrongs will be righted, we can take a step to ensure
that we will not be back here in a few months or a year to charge
lavishly on the Nation's credit card once again.

[[Page S7103]]

Senators Feingold, Cantwell, Feinstein, and myself are proposing a
first step in that direction--restoring one of the most important
constraints that helped instill fiscal discipline in this place in the
1990s.
I hope our colleagues will join us and support this amendment.
I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his leadership and for
yielding time to me.

RESTORING THE PAY-GO RULE

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the
Feingold amendment reinstating the Senate's pay-go rule. The premise
underlying this amendment is that we as a body must return to using the
budget enforcement measures that have helped us be fiscally responsible
in the past.
We have responsibilities to live up to and commitments to fulfill,
but we also must have fiscal discipline as we make budget decisions. We
must have a framework and strict budget enforcement rules to guide
through this difficult, and as we have seen this week, contentious and
politically charged process.
This amendment helps us at a time when we have seen a multitrillion-
dollar surplus turn into a multitrillion-dollar deficit. Perhaps now
more than ever, it is critical that we exercise fiscal restraint.
Reinstating the pay-go rule by approving this amendment is a good first
step.
This amendment would extend the ``pay as you go'' budget rule that
expired on April 15. The pay-go would subject any tax cuts or new
mandatory spending to a 60-vote point of order unless those cuts or
spending increases are fully offset. Pay-go had been in effect from
1990 until just a few weeks ago when our colleagues across the aisle
allowed it to expire, choosing to replace it with a far weaker
provision. The pay-go provision proposed in Senator Feingold's
amendment would restore the stronger rule, which in the past decade has
proven an important tool for the Senate to maintain fiscal discipline
and keep Federal spending within reasonable limits.
The actions of the Senate today made clear the absence of fiscal
discipline in our Government under this administration. I hope the
American people see this morning's tax vote and this subsequent effort
to increase the debt limit by nearly $1 trillion--the largest increase
in our Nation's history--for what it is: A poor decision that will
burden taxpayers with an outrageous debt load for years to come.
We know the current and ever-growing deficit is a direct result of
the 2001 tax cut, the ongoing recession, and the tragic events of
September 11, 2001. For us to enact another poorly targeted tax cut is
a mistake. And it is outrageous that minutes after the tax cuts were
approved, the Senate began the debate to raise the Government debt
limit by more than $900 billion. This is proof that fiscal discipline
is not the guiding principle when making decisions about the country's
future financial health. This is the second time in 2 years we have
been faced with this issue, a clear indication that current fiscal
policies are not improving the economic reality.
One of the most important actions we can take for the Nation's future
economic stability is to pay down the National debt. According to the
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, paying down the
National debt lowers interest rates and keeps the capital markets and
investment going.
I want to make it clear that I do support efforts to provide
hardworking Washingtonians and all Americans with tax relief such as
eliminating the marriage penalty, making college tuition tax
deductible, allowing States with no State income tax to deduct their
sales taxes from their Federal income tax return, and assisting workers
in savings for their retirement. But we must look at all budget
issues--taxes and spending alike--from a total and comprehensive view.
Our total budget must be crafted within a framework that maintains
fiscal discipline, and stimulates economic growth through continued
Federal investment in education and job training, while also protecting
the environment. Furthermore, we need to invest in our Nation's
economic future by making a commitment to public research and
development in science and technology--maintaining our status as a
global leader.
It is a balance. We need to make these investments, but within a
framework that ensures we don't spend beyond our means. If we want our
economy to be strong, if we want revenues, and if we want to make the
right decisions, we need to keep paying down the debt.
We must have fiscal discipline in the budget and appropriations
process. We cannot focus solely on the individual items and programs in
our budget but must look at the whole picture. The budget enforcement
procedures such as pay-go help us do this, and help us keep our
spending under a reasonable amount of control.
Budget enforcement rules like pay-go worked successfully as we
struggled to get out of the deficit spending in the 1990s, and it will
work as we struggle to get out of the recession and deficit financing
we face today. I urge my colleagues to support the Feingold amendment
and reinstate the Senate's pay-go rule.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I inquire of my colleagues--I am going to
make a budget point of order shortly. You have not used all your time.
I will not use all our time. Maybe we can move forward a little
quicker.
Is there anybody else on your side who wishes to speak?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, if Senator Cantwell wishes to speak, I
would want to reserve an opportunity for that.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will proceed. She is not on the floor
right now.
Mr. President, first a couple comments.
I have had the pleasure of working with Senator Feingold in the
Budget Committee and on several occasions on the floor, and we have
shared an interest, at various times, being a coalition, trying to curb
the growth of Federal spending. I say that to my colleague. I
appreciate his work and how sincere he is with this amendment and with
budget process.
As chairman of the Budget Committee, I will tell you, budget process
should come through the Budget Committee. The Senator has an amendment.
It is not perfect. It needs to be improved. It needs to go through the
Budget Committee. Actually, the Budget Act says it should go through
the Budget Committee.
I would like to consult with all Members--Democrats and Republicans--
on budget reform. I think we need budget reform, both in process and in
implementation.
Now, in pay-go, a lot of people get confused, but we actually have
pay-go in Senate rules, and we used to have statutory pay-go. One is in
the statutes of the United States Code. One is in Senate rules. We have
pay-go in Senate rules. We had--past tense--pay-go in the statutes.
I am willing to reinstate pay-go and maybe change the way it is
drafted to some extent. The former chairman of the Budget Committee,
Senator Domenici, is in the Chamber, and he utilized it, but the
statute had not been utilized very often in the past. It was very
seldom. It actually had a sequester. It was hardly ever used. Maybe the
threat of it is worthwhile, but, anyway, it had not been used. We also
have pay-go in Senate rules. That has been used quite frequently.
So I just make the comment that we need some budgetary changes in
rules. I think we certainly do. The way that the budgets are managed
with the vote-aramas--we ended up having 51 votes, most of which were
stacked in the last day or so of the management of the budget--I think
is demeaning to the Senate. The same thing in reconciliation; and that
actually is done under the budget procedure. Again, we had a limited
number of hours for consideration of the reconciliation bill and then a
vote-arama.
Again, maybe it is not the best way to be considering legislation of
such importance. So I am willing to work with my colleagues on both
sides, and I appreciate the interest of the Senator from Delaware and
the Senator from

[[Page S7104]]

Wisconsin in passing budget reform, and I will work with them. If we do
a bill dealing with budget reform, in my opinion, it is going to take
bipartisan support.
I see the former chairman of the Budget Committee. It is going to
take a bipartisan effort or it will not happen. I recognize that. I
realize that. I happen to think there are enough of us around wrestling
with budgets who know that procedures need to be improved.
We also want them to be effective: To have a Budget Act with
enforcement, but not have it be ineffective, i.e, you can waive it on
account of emergency, you can waive it on a lot of things where they
are not effective. We do not want to do that. We want to be effective
in exhibiting some discipline.
I might also mention, just for the information of our colleagues, in
the budget we did pass there is a direction to all the authorizing
committees to report back to the Budget Committee by September 2 for
ideas on curbing wasteful spending, with at least a target of 1
percent.
I mentioned this to some of my colleagues, and I will mention it on
the floor, because some authorizers are going to say: Wait a minute.
What are you doing telling us to come up with some savings? But a lot
of programs have waste or fraud or accounting errors that need to be
stopped. The House actually had a mandatory cut. We ended up saying:
Well, we are going to request the committees to report back to us. We
expect and look forward to their cooperation.
We did not do anything in this last year's budget, frankly, on
entitlements. We probably should. We need to look at all Federal
spending. We need to eliminate waste. It bothers me to look at a
program, such as the earned income tax credit, and have Treasury report
back to us that 30 percent of the program is a mistake--some of it
fraud, some of it a mistake, accounting errors, you name it. We should
not have programs which are that wasteful, that much of a mistake. We
need to improve management of our Government.
I told the former chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad,
that I hope to do a lot of oversight to make Government work better. We
will be doing some of that as well.
I say to my colleagues, I do not believe this amendment on the debt
limit--without going through the committee--is the proper approach.
So, Mr. President, I am going to make a point of order that the
amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, contains
matter--
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
Mr. NICKLES. I am not going to ask for the vote now.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator withhold?
Mr. NICKLES. I will withhold.
I was not going to push for the vote on it until you completed your
time. I will make the point of order. I know Senator Domenici wishes to
speak, as well.
Mr. President, I make a point of order that the amendment offered by
the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, contains matter within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget, and the underlying bill
was not reported from the committee. Therefore, I raise a point of
order against the amendment under section 306 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
I make that point of order, and I now wish for the Senator to
complete his time. I also ask that----
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, is it necessary for me to move to waive
the point of order at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may use his time first.
Mr. NICKLES. I say to the Senator, you can use your time. You can
move to waive, and we can still debate.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, even though the motion by my friend from
Oklahoma has been made too early, I ask unanimous consent that when
Senator Feingold completes all the time he has been allotted, the
request made by the Senator from Oklahoma be valid, and then Senator
Feingold could move to waive.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask to
modify that request, and that the Senator from New Mexico be entitled
to speak for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is still time remaining for debate on
the amendment.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, those of us who came here in the early
1990s found an incredible fiscal mess in this country. And we
believed--so many of us worked on both sides of the aisle; and it was
bipartisan--that without these kinds of budget rules, we never would
have been able to get the deficit eliminated and actually have a
surplus by the early part of this decade.
That is why it is so important that we restore this statutory
language and move in the direction of fiscal discipline.
I do appreciate the words and the actions of the chairman of the
Budget Committee. He has shown a genuine interest in trying to get
these rules in place. I appreciate his commitment to work with us on a
bipartisan basis to do it. I can tell you that this is not the first
effort in this regard. I worked all last year with Senators from both
sides of the aisle to try to figure this out. Senator Gregg, Senator
Phil Gramm, and others tried every approach we could to make sure these
rules would be in place. Unfortunately, it did not work. So there is no
lack of willingness on this side of the aisle to work together to
restore these budget rules. I think a good chance to do that is right
now, on this amendment today, on a bipartisan basis to get some fiscal
discipline to return.
I thank the Senator from Delaware. He has been absolutely determined
since he came to the Senate to help us restore these kinds of rules and
have some kind of fiscal discipline.
Finally, as I yield time to the Senator from North Dakota, who in my
view has been the leading advocate for fiscal discipline in this body
over many years, I am grateful to his leadership and commitment to have
these rules in place. Even though it is possible that we won't prevail
on this amendment today, I do believe there is a bipartisan interest in
trying to resolve this problem.
I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. I
especially commend him for his leadership on this issue. It has been
over an extended period of time that he has tried to remind our
colleagues repeatedly of the need for fiscal discipline.
The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 first established what we called
pay-go. Pay-go has two separate enforcement mechanisms: a 60-vote point
of order in the Senate, and sequestration. The majority extended the
pay-go point of order but they included a huge loophole for all of the
policies assumed in this year's budget resolution, including its tax
cuts. So we have pay-go, but we are closing the barn door after the
cows have all left. They did not extend sequestration, which expired on
September 30 of last year. Therefore, we are currently operating
without the key tools that have been used to help enforce budget
discipline over a dozen years.
Given the huge loophole that now exists in the pay-go point of order,
we need pay-go sequestration all the more.
Under sequestration, mandatory spending and tax legislation that
reduced surpluses or increased deficits had to be fully offset with
mandatory savings or revenue increases in order to avoid across-the-
board cuts in mandatory spending at the end of a fiscal year. The
threat of these cuts helped prevent the enactment of costly and
fiscally irresponsible legislation that was not paid for, such as
today's tax bill that just passed that is going to dramatically deepen
the deficit and debt of this country.
I support the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin. I urge my
colleagues to do so as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. NICKLES. How much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, if this amendment were adopted, it would
more than complicate the debt limit extension. We have already
mentioned that. Senators are aware of that.
I have already said I will work with members of the committee. I will
work

[[Page S7105]]

with other Members for budget process reform. I welcome ideas and
input. We can do a better job. Under present law, if this passed, for
those people who have an interest in passing a prescription drug bill,
it won't happen. The budget resolution says we can have a prescription
drug bill within $400 billion reported by the Finance Committee. A
budget point of order would not lie against it. If this amendment
passed, every penny of it would have to be paid for with either revenue
increases or cuts, presumably in Medicare or Medicaid. My guess is you
would not have it.
I yield the balance of my time to the Senator from New Mexico, who
was chairman or ranking member of the Budget Committee for 25 years.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I want to say my congratulations
to the other side for attempting to tighten up the Budget Act,
particularly Senator Feingold. On the other hand, this is not the way
to do it nor the time to do it.
The motion that has been made by the distinguished chairman that this
amendment must fail is not a frivolous one. To have this kind of a
change in the Budget Act requires hearings. That is what this is about.
The statute says before you change this law--and we thank the Lord all
the time that they put this in this law--on the floor, you have to send
it to the committee. That is kind of new around here but it is very
good stuff. So that you know the ramifications before you do the
amending. The ramifications of this amendment are so farfetched that it
is not farfetched to say you are voting against prescription drug
reform if you vote for this amendment or to override the motion by the
chairman who says we should not do this.
Secondly, I want to offer an explanation. Today there is much talk
about the tax bill, and people are saying that the tax bill, since many
of the tax proposals do not go on forever, is jiggering the Tax Code. I
should remind everyone that the tax bill we have done is done under the
Budget Act. In turn, it is done under a reconciliation instruction. It
is not done under the ordinary law of the Senate. Therefore, we are
bound by the law not to pass permanent tax law changes. So it is not
anybody trying to play with the Tax Code. It is the law that says, if
you want the benefit of the Budget Act under reconciliation, which
means no filibuster and minimal amendments, then you cannot make the
tax changes permanent. In other words, it gives you a benefit, and it
is a safeguard of permanency not being available at the same time.
That is the explanation for those who are writing and talking about
the fact that these tax provisions are not permanent.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to make a point. Of course, my
amendment does not prevent the prescription drug benefit. It just means
that we have to actually pay for it. It seems to me that is reasonable.
The amendment in no way prevents a paid-for prescription drug benefit.
I would not support such an amendment if I were given that.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 40 seconds.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me again thank not only the current chairman but
the previous chairman of the Budget Committee. They have sincerely
shown an interest--I am a member of the committee--in trying to get
these budget rules back in place. I understand why this motion is being
made. The point is, the chairman has indicated a willingness to move
forward. I understand he will hold those hearings the Senator from New
Mexico was just referring to that are a part of the process. I want
them to know I sincerely would like to see us come together on this in
the coming months.
It was absolutely essential for the American people to have the
confidence that we cared about the deficit issue, that we finally gave
the American people that wonderful sense of confidence that it mattered
to us that we were running deficits. It helped everybody's mood. It
helped the economy. It was a terrific thing for this country.
That confidence is now gone. The way you rebuild it is by getting
these rules in place so people can point to those rules and say: We
can't go beyond these limits.
That is what we need. I think we need it in statute as well as in the
rules of the Senate.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we yield back our time.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield back my time, Mr. President. I assume this
would be the appropriate time for me to move to waive the point of
order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for
purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, can we make sure people know this is a 10-
minute vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds Senators this is a 10-minute
vote.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 200 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--52

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Kennedy

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are
52. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained, and the amendment falls.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. At this time, I renew the unanimous consent request on
unemployment insurance earlier offered by the Senator from
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. I did not hear the Senator.
Mr. REID. Earlier today, Senator Kennedy asked that the Senate
approve the unemployment insurance legislation which was sent from the
House to the Senate early this morning. I have asked to renew the
request of the Senator from Massachusetts that that be adopted by the
Senate.

[[Page S7106]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I do object simply because there may be
somebody on this side of the aisle who may want to make that motion. So
if we could go ahead and process another amendment, we will have
further discussions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The Senator from
Nevada.
Mr. REID. I certainly understand, and that would be satisfactory. We
do not need to make the request, but we would hope that it would be
made very quickly.
In the interim, the next amendment we would ask to be considered is
that of the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings. He has agreed to
20 minutes for himself. We ask if there would be a like time agreed to
by the majority? That would be 40 minutes equally divided, with no
second-degree amendments in order. There have not been any offered so
far. I ask that in the form of a unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I have an amendment at the desk and ask the clerk to
report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] proposes an
amendment numbered 836.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SECTION 1. APPLICABILITY OF PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT TO SOCIAL
SECURITY TRUST FUNDS.

(a) Protection of Social Security Trust Funds.--
(1) Delay or failure to invest.--No officer or employee of
the United States shall--
(A) delay the deposit of any amount into (or delay the
credit of any amount to) any social security trust fund or
otherwise vary from the normal terms, procedures, or timing
for making such deposits or credits; or
(B) refrain from the investment in public debt obligations
of amounts in any such fund.
(2) Early redemption.--No officer or employee of the United
States shall redeem prior to maturity amounts in any social
security trust fund which are invested in public debt
obligations for any other purpose other than payment of
benefits or administrative expenses from such fund.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``public debt
obligation'' means any obligation subject to the public debt
limit established under section 3101 of title 31, United
States Code.

SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

Subsections (j), (k), and (l) of section 8348 and
subsections (g) and (h) of section 8438 of title 5, United
States Code, are repealed.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this merely stops the Secretary of the
Treasury from looting the Social Security trust fund in order to make
the national debt appear smaller than it actually is. On Sixth Avenue
in New York, they have a debt clock showing, day to day, the increase
of the national debt.
On March 5 of this year, that debt clock stopped, courtesy of the
Secretary of the Treasury, who immediately started using trust funds,
particularly Social Security trust funds--Enron accounting--to make the
debt appear smaller.
I ask unanimous consent that the daily history of debt results be
printed in the Record.

THE DAILY HISTORY OF DEBT RESULTS--HISTORICAL RETURNS FOR 3/4/2003
THROUGH 5/22/2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date                                Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/4/2003.......................................    $6,445,657,357,431.67
3/5/2003.......................................     6,460,621,838,679.66
3/6/2003.......................................     6,460,801,790,956.35
3/7/2003.......................................     6,460,766,227,729.85
3/10/2003......................................     6,460,659,531,541.01
3/11/2003......................................     6,460,621,340,512.27
3/12/2003......................................     6,460,585,777,680.29
3/13/2003......................................     6,460,744,895,144.64
3/14/2003......................................     6,460,709,229,897.82
3/17/2003......................................     6,460,602,930,313.42
3/18/2003......................................     6,460,568,106,011.18
3/19/2003......................................     6,460,533,569,239.51
3/20/2003......................................     6,460,712,491,314.69
3/21/2003......................................     6,460,674,090,486.67
3/24/2003......................................     6,460,570,026,872.52
3/25/2003......................................     6,460,535,345,690.24
3/26/2003......................................     6,460,500,338,259.08
3/27/2003......................................     6,460,683,851,496.24
3/28/2003......................................     6,460,649,275,186.23
3/31/2003......................................     6,460,776,256,578.16
4/1/2003.......................................     6,460,741,982,363.11
4/2/2003.......................................     6,460,707,711,622.02
4/3/2003.......................................     6,460,883,083,990.99
4/4/2003.......................................     6,460,848,478,613.52
4/7/2003.......................................     6,460,744,653,570.51
4/8/2003.......................................     6,460,697,206,431.50
4/9/2003.......................................     6,460,664,200,138.40
4/10/2003......................................     6,460,828,617,061.12
4/11/2003......................................     6,460,792,544,188.95
4/14/2003......................................     6,460,686,804,499.03
4/15/2003......................................     6,460,651,308,615.55
4/16/2003......................................     6,460,617,585,976.91
4/17/2003......................................     6,460,780,111,309.05
4/18/2003......................................     6,460,747,047,775.30
4/21/2003......................................     6,460,647,854,361.95
4/22/2003......................................     6,460,605,341,148.70
4/23/2003......................................     6,460,572,277,868.61
4/24/2003......................................     6,460,743,188,902.46
4/25/2003......................................     6,460,710,818,047.88
4/28/2003......................................     6,460,613,708,360.89
4/29/2003......................................     6,460,581,338,149.98
4/30/2003......................................     6,460,380,745,789.28
5/1/2003.......................................     6,460,544,146,581.37
5/2/2003.......................................     6,460,512,105,716.15
5/5/2003.......................................     6,460,415,978,242.13
5/6/2003.......................................     6,460,377,391,988.34
5/7/2003.......................................     6,460,345,350,371.45
5/8/2003.......................................     6,460,497,884,145.02
5/9/2003.......................................     6,460,466,362,233.10
5/12/2003......................................     6,460,371,786,677.29
5/13/2003......................................     6,460,340,581,249.18
5/14/2003......................................     6,460,308,855,091.23
5/15/2003......................................     6,460,444,642,526.75
5/16/2003......................................     6,460,414,110,545.71
5/19/2003......................................     6,460,322,505,519.43
5/20/2003......................................     6,460,276,922,875.71
5/21/2003......................................     6,460,247,153,270.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The debt is published each business day. If there is no debt value
for the date(s) you requested, the value for the preceding business
day will be displayed.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague, the Senator
from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, raised this particular point back in 1995.
He cosponsored a bill along with Senator Santorum, Senator Shelby, and
Senator Thomas. I refer my colleagues to page S. 18819 of the Record of
December 18, 1995, at the introduction of S. 1484, a bill to enforce
the public debt limit and to protect the Social Security trust funds.
It is just the darnedest thing you have ever seen. We are using Enron
accounting. We are looting the Social Security funds, and the debt goes
up, up, and away.
The Congressional Budget Office already reports, Senator Domenici,
where we had a $428 billion deficit last year. We are running $138
billion ahead, so it is up to $566 billion this minute.
Let's understand what we are all about. This week, the Republicans
are asking the Congress to casually vote to raise the limit on the
national debt by $984 billion, from $6.4 trillion to $7.384 trillion. I
say casually because the seriousness of this move is passed over and
barely discussed. It took us 200 years of our history and the cost of
all of the wars to ever get to a trillion-dollar debt. Today, by a
vote, we are going to add $1 trillion to the debt.
It was not always this way. Just over 2 years ago, in his first
speech to Congress, President Bush bragged he wanted to pay down $2
trillion in debt. Earlier, there was a crowd standing on the Capitol
steps hailing their Contract with America to stop deficit spending.
There was the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution cry-out
that went so far as to forbid deficits.
Some Republicans may not realize the reason for this 180-degree turn,
but Carl Rove knows. It is about getting rid of the Democratic Party.
Republicans hope this increase in the debt limit is large enough so
that any further increase will not be needed until after the 2004
Presidential election. In the meantime, the Government will be able to
borrow money for all the tax cuts the President wants to get reelected.
Borrow, we will. This is the first installment of the Republican-
passed budget that increases the debt from $6 trillion to $12 trillion
over the next 10 years. That is an average of $600 billion deficit each
and every year for a decade. It took 38 Presidents and 192 years to
reach $1 trillion in debt. It took Ronald Reagan 4 years, and it has
taken George W. Bush just halfway through his term.
The Bush policy takes Reaganomics to the extreme. If it means getting
rid of the Government at the same time, so be it.
I hesitate to add that the President is not alone in his mission. The
Democratic Party is in lockstep with him. When President Bush says, we
need not pay for the war, the Democrats agree. This is the first time
we have sent GIs to fight a war and then want them to hurry back to pay
the bill. We in Congress are not going to pay for it. We need a tax cut
to get elected next year.
When the President says, increase the debt, we Democrats say, yes,
that is what the country needs, just not as much as the President
wants.
The President calls for fast-track trade negotiating authority to
export America's jobs faster and the Democratic leadership says, right
on. Both parties triangulate, so, as George Wallace used to say, there
is not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties. We
are bogged down in the needs of the campaign rather than the needs of
the country.

[[Page S7107]]

The country needs fiscal discipline, and we are getting it at the
State level. Fourteen Republican Governors are increasing taxes to
provide for the States' needs, but the cost of the war does not move
Washington. We already are spending $500 billion to $600 billion more
than we are taking in. Alan Greenspan, Paul Volcker, and Robert Ruben
believe this is enough stimulus.
The President's tax cut merely increases the debt which will increase
the interest costs, which increases waste. Before long, all the
Government will be able to afford is defense, Social Security, health
care, and interest costs that must be paid.
Karl Rove knows the more we spend on interest charges, the less there
is for programs. The Democrats thrive on programs and their
constituencies. Less programs equals less supporters, which equals less
Democratic Party.
Already the Democratic Party is in a fix. Labor, its main supporter,
is being shipped overseas. And money, the main support of the
Republican Party, is flourishing. The only thing to save the Democratic
Party and the country is the free press.
But the free press is worse than both parties. The media is charged
with telling the truth but they avoid it. The other day, when the
Congressional Budget Office reported the government would hit a record
in deficit spending for the year, the Washington Post buried the news
on the bottom of page A5; but it gave front page billing to President
Bush's tax cuts, which the President claims has no impact on those
record deficits. Recently, when I offered an amendment to stop tax cuts
and limit the explosion of the debt, nobody in the press wrote a story.
James Fallows in his book, Breaking the News, tells of the debate for
a democracy between Walter Lippman and the educator John Dewey. Lippman
allowed that the way to provide for a strong democracy is to gather
around the table the experts in defense, health, highways, foreign
policy, and the economy. Let them hammer out the needs of the country
and give it to the congress for enactment. ``No'', said Dewey. Let the
free press report the truth to the American people and the people will
reflect these truths and needs through their representatives in
Congress.
The press avoids the truth. They are completely bemused by politics,
promoting conflict between the candidates and the parties. The increase
in the debt before us reflects the true national debt, but hereafter
the press will obscure the national debt by Ernon accounting, making
the debt and deficit look smaller than they are.
The press will report the ``on-budget deficit'', ``unified deficit'',
and ``public debt'' as separated from the ``government debt''--numbers
that do not take into account what the government loots from Social
Security and other trust funds, which is the true deficit and debt. The
taxpayers can't follow this, they can't know. Little do they realize
the deficit last year exceeded the sum total of 30 years of deficits
during the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford years.
We are spending and cutting taxes like drunken sailors.
Europe's fiscal discipline requires a nation's debt not to exceed 60
percent of its gross national product before it can become a member of
the European Union. Our national debt exceeds 60 percent, and is
rising. We don't even qualify to enter the European Union.
Today interest costs are almost $1 billion a day, and with $600
billion deficits it will exceed $400 billion a year. Without this waste
we could double the defense budget or give everybody in America the
best health care. But with this waste, the dollar drops in value,
interest costs rise, and the Nation is impoverished.
For the first time in history our generation will leave a lesser
nation for the next generation. But rather than report on the state of
the Union, all the free press can report is that Gary Hart is not
running.
In the interest of time, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record the budget realities demonstrating the state of the Union.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

HOLLINGS' BUDGET REALITIES
[In billions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
U.S. budget   Borrowed trust      Unified     Actual deficit                   increases in
Presidents and fiscal years                   (outlays)         funds       deficit with    without trust   National debt   spending for
trust funds        funds                         interest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman:
1947................................................            34.5            -9.9             4.0           +13.9           257.1  ..............
1948................................................            29.8             6.7            11.8            +5.1           252.0  ..............
1949................................................            38.8             1.2             0.6            -0.6           252.6  ..............
1950................................................            42.6             1.2            -3.1            -4.3           256.9  ..............
1951................................................            45.5             4.5             6.1            +1.6           255.3  ..............
1952................................................            67.7             2.3            -1.5            -3.8           259.1  ..............
Eisenhower:
1953................................................            76.1             0.4            -6.5            -6.9           266.0  ..............
1954................................................            70.9             3.6            -1.2            -4.8           270.8  ..............
1955................................................            68.4             0.6            -3.0            -3.6           274.4  ..............
1956................................................            70.6             2.2             3.9            +1.7           272.7  ..............
1957................................................            76.6             3.0             3.4            +0.4           272.3  ..............
1958................................................            82.4             4.6            -2.8            -7.4           279.7  ..............
1959................................................            92.1            -5.0           -12.8            -7.8           287.5  ..............
1960................................................            92.2             3.3             0.3            -3.0           290.5  ..............
Kennedy:
1961................................................            97.7            -1.2            -3.3            -2.1           292.6  ..............
1962................................................           106.8             3.2            -7.1           -10.3           302.9             9.1
Johnson:
1963................................................           111.3             2.6            -4.8            -7.4           310.3             9.9
1964................................................           118.5            -0.1            -5.9            -5.8           316.1            10.7
1965................................................           118.2             4.8            -1.4            -6.2           322.3            11.3
1966................................................           134.5             2.5            -3.7            -6.2           328.5            12.0
1967................................................           157.5             3.3            -8.6           -11.9           340.4            13.4
1968................................................           178.1             3.1           -25.2           -28.3           368.7            14.6
Nixon:
1969................................................           183.6             0.3             3.2            +2.9           365.8            16.6
1970................................................           195.6            12.3            -2.8           -15.1           380.9            19.3
1971................................................           210.2             4.3           -23.0           -27.3           408.2            21.0
1972................................................           230.7             4.3           -23.4           -27.7           435.9            21.8
1973................................................           245.7            15.5           -14.9           -30.4           466.3            24.2
1974................................................           269.4            11.5            -6.1           -17.6           483.9            29.3
Ford:
1975................................................           332.3             4.8           -53.2           -58.0           541.9            32.7
1976................................................           371.8            13.4           -73.7           -87.1           629.0            37.1
Carter:
1977................................................           409.2            23.7           -53.7           -77.4           706.4            41.9
1978................................................           458.7            11.0           -59.2           -70.2           776.6            48.7
1979................................................           504.0            12.2           -40.7           -52.9           829.5            59.9
1980................................................           590.9             5.8           -73.8           -79.6           909.1            74.8
Reagan:
1981................................................           678.2             6.7           -79.0           -85.7           994.8            95.5
1982................................................           745.8            14.5          -128.0          -142.5         1,137.3           117.2
1983................................................           808.4            26.6          -207.8          -234.4         1,371.7           128.7
1984................................................           851.9             7.6          -185.4          -193.0         1,564.7           153.9
1985................................................           946.4            40.5          -212.3          -252.8         1,817.5           178.9
1986................................................           990.5            81.9          -221.2          -303.1         2,120.6           190.3
1987................................................         1,004.1            75.7          -149.8          -225.5         2,346.1           195.3

[[Page S7108]]

1988................................................         1,064.5           100.0          -155.2          -255.2         2,601.3           214.1
Bush:
1989................................................         1,143.7           114.2          -152.5          -266.7         2,868.3           240.9
1990................................................         1,253.2           117.4          -221.2          -338.6         3,206.6           264.7
1991................................................         1,324.4           122.5          -269.4          -391.9         3,598.5           285.5
1992................................................         1,381.7           113.2          -290.4          -403.6         4,002.1           292.3
Clinton:
1993................................................         1,409.5            94.2          -255.1          -349.3         4,351.4           292.5
1994................................................         1,461.9            89.0          -203.3          -292.3         4,643.7           296.3
1995................................................         1,515.8           113.3          -164.0          -277.3         4,921.0           332.4
1996................................................         1,560.6           153.4          -107.5          -260.9         5,181.9           344.0
1997................................................         1,601.3           165.8           -22.0          -187.8         5,369.7           355.8
1998................................................         1,652.6           178.2            69.2          -109.0         5,478.7           363.8
1999................................................         1,703.0           251.8           124.4          -127.4         5,606.1           353.5
2000................................................         1,789.0           258.9           236.2           -22.7         5,628.8           362.0
Bush:
2001................................................         1,863.9           268.2           127.1          -141.1         5,769.9           359.5
2002................................................         2,011.0           270.7          -157.8          -428.5         6,198.4           332.5
2003................................................         2,137.0           222.6           246.0           468.6         6,667.0           323.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Historical Tables, Budget of the US Government; Beginning in 1962, CBO's The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2004-2013.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
another article from the Financial Times today that the U.S.
administration throws prudence out the window.

[From the Financial Times, May 23, 2003]

Tax Lunacy

President George W. Bush declared victory yesterday in the
long-running congressional wrangle over his tax proposals.
``This is a Congress which is able to identify problems
facing the American people and get things done,'' he said
after House and Senate Republicans struck a deal on a $350bn
tax cut over 10 years. If only that were true.
The long-run costs of financing huge US fiscal deficits,
which stretch far into the future, will weigh heavily on
future generations. With little of the tax cut having an
immediate effect, the necessary short-run economic stimulus
will be negligible.
Democrats are prone to exaggerate the culpability of the
current administration in the deterioration of the US public
finances from a surplus of 1.4 per cent of gross domestic
product in 2000 to a projected 4.6 per cent deficit this
year. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only a
third of this deterioration is due to legislative changes,
the rest being either due to the cyclical downturn or
excessive optimism in previous tax forecasts. The fiscal
loosening over the past few years has mitigated the economic
slowdown. But those caveats aside, on the management of
fiscal policy, the lunatics are in charge now of the asylum.
Including ``sunsetting'' provisions to cut the 10-year cost
of the tax measures is an insult to the intelligence of US
people. Anyone who genuinely believes that in 2007 Congress
will automatically reverse these tax cuts needs therapy. Much
of Mr. Bush's 2001 tax-cutting package was also deemed
temporary, only for the measures to be made permanent later.
Long-run US fiscal forecasts are still based on unrealistic
assumptions of spending restraint that have not been met,
either by this administration or by its predecessor.
And the latest wheeze in Republican circles is to dismiss
forecasts of fiscal deficits because they rely on ``static''
forecasting techniques. ``Dynamic scoring'' which takes
account of the effect of tax cuts on economic growth would
transform the picture, they insist. But the evidence is not
so kind to these assertions. The 1990s, when taxes were
raised, was one of the more dynamic in US history; and fiscal
deficits raise the cost of capital, reducing growth.
Never mind these facts, more extreme Republicans often say,
big deficits are in our interests. Proposing to slash federal
spending, particularly on social programs, is a tricky
electoral proposition, but a fiscal crisis offers the
tantalizing prospect of forcing such cuts through the back
door.
For them, undermining the multilateral international order
is not enough, long-held views on income distribution also
require radical revision. In response to this onslaught,
there is not much the rational majority can do: reason cuts
no ice; economic theory is dismissed; and contrary evidence
is ignored. But watching the world's economic superpower
slowly destroy perhaps the world's most enviable fiscal
position is something to behold.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I draw the attention of my colleagues to
an article in the Wall Street Journal of May 23, 2003 by J.D. McKinnon
entitled ``Get Ready for Era of Budget Deficits.'' It says it better
than I can.
Finally, as has been related in David Hale's column in today's
Financial Times, what we have is those who were telling the truth like
Lawrence Lindsey and Paul O'Neill. They have gotten rid of them. For
those who avoid the truth or get tired of trying to avoid it, like
Mitch Daniels and Ari Fleischer, they are on the way out.
As the Financial Times reported here yesterday, the Secretary of the
Treasury is merely a salesman and the true Secretary of the Treasury is
Carl Rove. Mr. Hale writes:

``Economic policy appears to be under the control of the
political advisers. The White House will not be able to
encourage a dollar rally until Carl Rove holds a press
conference on the subject.''

I ask unanimous consent to have this printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Financial Times, May 20, 2003]

Washington's Weak Dollar Policy

(By David Hale)

The circumstances now confronting the US economy are unique
in the modern era. The Federal Reserve has warned about the
risk of deflation after a year in which the US dollar has
fallen by nearly 30 per cent against many leading currencies.
Despite the weakness of the currency, US Treasury bond yields
have fallen to 45-year lows and are 37 basis points under the
yields of German government debt.
The dollar's decline has been painless for US financial
markets because investors are complacent about inflation. The
failure of bond yields to rise has also produced a policy of
benign neglect in Washington. Federal Reserve officials say
the falling dollar is a European problem, not a US one. John
Snow, the US Treasury secretary, effectively abandoned the
previous administration's strong dollar policy over the
weekend by issuing his own definition of what constitutes a
strong currency. It does not include market prices.
The dollar began to weaken more than a year ago but its
decline has accelerated during recent weeks for three
reasons.
First, the markets are concerned that the Bush
administration's fiscal policy could boost the federal budget
deficit to $400bn-$500bn and create a domestic savings
imbalance that will expand the current account deficit to
$600bn.
Second, the markets are alarmed that the US is embarking
upon an imperialist foreign policy that will have unknown
consequences for its fiscal position, foreign trade and
relationship with other countries. In the heyday of empire,
the UK ran large current account surpluses. There is no
precedent for a country playing the role of global superpower
with a large external payments deficit. During the cold war,
the US was able to finance its defence spending in part
through offset programmes with other countries. The
Bundesbank, for example, stockpiled dollars as a quid pro quo
for US defence spending in Germany. During the 1991 Gulf war
the US received large subsidies from Japan, Saudi Arabia and
other countries. With the US pursuing a more unilateralist
foreign policy it will have to absorb all of the costs
without help from traditional allies.
Last, the markets perceive a vacuum at the centre of US
economic policymaking. In this administration power is highly
centralised at the White House. The only highly visible
cabinet ministers are at the departments of state and
defence. The Treasury's stature and influence declined during
the tenure of Paul O'Neill because of his caustic comments
about many issues and his poor relationship with Congress.
Mr. Snow has worked hard to improve ties with Congress but
the markets see him as a salesman, not an architect of
policy. Larry Lindsey and Glenn Hubbard, the people who
created the administration's economic policy, have resigned.
The other institutions of economic policy are also weak.
The new director of the national economic policy council is
focused on internal administration rather than influencing
markets. Mitch Daniels, director of the Office of Management
and Budget, is leaving to pursue a political career in
Indiana. The Council of Economic Adivsors is

[[Page S7109]]

being evicted from the White House. Economic policy appears
to be under the control of White House political advisers,
not the traditional institutions of government. In fact, the
White House will not be able to encourage a dollar rally
until Karl Rove holds a press conference on the subject.
As Mr. Snow's recent comments have made clear, Washington
will do nothing to stabilise the dollar until there is a big
correction in bond prices that might jeopardise the boom in
the US housing market. But in the absence of a threat to the
US housing market, the burden of adjustment will fall
elsewhere. Asia will resist dollar depreciation through
large-scale market intervention. China's foreign exchange
reserve will expand from $280bn to $330bn this year. Japan's
foreign exchance reserves will mushroom from $500bn to $600bn
this year and reach $1,000bn by 2008.
If Asia is able to stablise its exchange rates, the US will
have to reduce its current account deficit through larger
devaluations against other currencies. This pressure for
devaluation will set in motion a process of competitive
monetary reflation with the eurozone, Britain, Canada, South
Africa and other countries with variable exchange rates.
These countries will be compelled to cut interest rates to
prevent their currencies from appreciating against the
dollar.
The Bush administration is prepared to pursue aggressive
fiscal and monetary policies to ensure a healthy recovery in
the run-up to the 2004 presidential election. Its new weak
dollar policy is designed to put pressure on other countries
to reinforce this domestic growth agenda. During the late
1980s Japan created a bubble economy with rocketing prices
for land and equities by pursuing a monetary policy designed
to stabilise the dollar. The coming round of competitive
monetary reflation is also likely to force central banks to
pursue far more aggressive interest rate cuts than they
expect. If it does, President George W. Bush will not win re-
election. There could be Bush bubbles in many asset markets
during late 2004 and 2005.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the floor.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of
extending the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC)
program. Congress created this program in March of last year to provide
federally funded unemployment benefits for millions of Americans who
have exhausted their regular State-funded benefits after falling victim
to our weakening economy. This vital program is nearing expiration and
now millions of Americans need our help.
If Congress and the President do not act before May 31, 2003, nearly
4 million long-term unemployed workers will lose benefits, including
almost 14,000 West Virginians. These unemployed workers and their
families need and deserve an extension--every one of them. Unless
immediate action is taken, American workers who have lost their jobs
through no fault of their own will be left vulnerable to economic
hardship, and without a safety net. How will these families pay their
mortgages and provide for their children? During these difficult
economic times, how can we turn our backs on 4 million Americans?
Earlier this month, the Department of Labor announced that the
Nation's unemployment rate had risen to 6 percent, representing 8.79
million Americans out of work. This is the highest national
unemployment rate we have witnessed in nearly a decade. When President
Bush released his growth and stimulus package, he maintained that
creating jobs was his No. 1 priority. Yet, despite rising
unemployment--500,000 more Americans in February and March alone--and
unprecedented fiscal crises in our States, the President's proposal
fails to provide assistance for unemployed workers, adequate State
fiscal relief, and neglects Americans who need help the most.
West Virginia families will soon be faced with some very difficult
choices. Choices between paying their mortgage or defaulting; between
having health insurance or going without; between sending their
children to college or dipping into their pensions to cover everyday
living expenses while ruining their retirement. These are West
Virginians who want to work--who are trying to work--but simply cannot
find a job in the current economy. I urge my colleagues to act swiftly
so that American families aren't forced to make these kinds of
decisions so this dire situation is not further exacerbated.
I feel strongly about this issue because of the very real impact
inaction could have on my constituents. Just recently, I was contacted
by Janice Walters from Mercer County in my home state of West Virginia.
She called my office searching for help. Ms. Walters truly epitomizes
the American worker that we must help.
In September of last year, Ms. Walters was laid off from a
communications company. As a 49-year-old single mother of two with many
cost-of-living expenses, she now has no income and no health insurance
coverage, forcing her to face some of the stark choices I discussed
earlier. To support her family, she began collecting unemployment
insurance. In addition, she took a part-time job and began taking
classes in computer sciences at a local college to learn new skills
that she could apply to a new career. Unfortunately, she will not
exhaust her State benefits until the week after the current TEUC
program expires, leaving her ineligible for TEUC benefits. If the TEUC
program is permitted to expire, Ms. Walters, and millions like her,
will be left unemployed and unassisted.
Fortunately, such a tragedy is preventable. If we act on an extension
today, Ms. Walters will get an extension and she will receive benefits.
This is progress. It is good to pass an extension for 2.5 million
workers, including about 9,000 West Virginians. This is good news for
families in need.
One particular extension leaves out and leaves behind the long-term
unemployed families. A simple extension, which is all that the majority
will consider, excludes 1.1 million unemployed workers, and 3,900 of
those people live in West Virginia. They face real hardship, and they
too deserve help.
Throughout this debate, I have supported the efforts of Senator
Kennedy and others to provide comprehensive unemployment benefits to
all 3.6 million unemployed workers. If we can enact a huge tax cut
targeted to the wealthiest Americans, shouldn't we also help every
unemployed worker?
Providing unemployment benefits helps the unemployed, and it also
helps our economy as a stimulus. History tells us that unemployment
benefits are spent quickly, and every $1 of such benefits generates
$1.73 in economic activity. This is a real and an immediate stimulus
for local economies. There is no certainty about how changes in
corporate dividends will affect the economy. This administration should
recognize the urgent needs of all unemployed workers.
I am pleased that we are taking action to help many unemployed
workers, like Ms. Walters. I also believe we should help the 1.1
million long-term unemployed. This is the definition of real economic
stimulus and real compassion.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today the Senate passed up yet another
opportunity to extend and expand unemployment benefits. Instead we
passed a necessary, but inadequate, 13-week extension of eligibility
for extended benefits. Unfortunately, this extension will not help the
1.1 million long-term unemployed workers in this country who have
already exhausted 26 weeks of unemployment. Senator Kennedy's attempt
to give these hard-working folks who have not been able to find a job
for over 6 months additional benefits has been voted down once again by
the other side of the aisle.
The Congress has been talking for weeks and months about the
importance of stimulating the economy and putting money into the hands
of consumers. It is clear, however, that the Republicans are not
interested in giving all consumers a little extra money but only those
who have high paying jobs. What can be more stimulating to the economy
than putting money in the hands of people who need it tomorrow, instead
of waiting months or years for tax cuts to have an impact? Why can't
the Congress give the same benefits to unemployed workers today that
they have received in the past? Benefits that these workers have paid
for by paying into the unemployment insurance fund? Not only have
today's workers earned these additional benefits but they have paid for
them as well. The unemployment trust fund can afford an extension of an
additional 13 weeks of benefits for those who have exhausted the 26
currently provided, and Congress should do it again as we have in the
past.
I do not understand the priorities of those who are willing to let
working families lose their benefits and go into debt while handing out
tax cuts to people who do not need them. It is a shame to turn our
backs on the people who helped fuel the strong economy in the

[[Page S7110]]

1990s. We owe them more for making this country successful and
prosperous. We owe them a strong secure safety net when they lose their
jobs through no fault of their own. Thirteen additional weeks of
unemployment benefits is only a small tribute to the strength and
perseverance of the American worker, and I am disappointed that this
Congress has once again denied them the respect they deserve.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation to
extend Federal emergency unemployment benefits to the millions of
Americans who have exhausted their regular benefits.
I strongly believe that, given the state of the economy, Congress has
an obligation to extend the Federal Temporary Extended Unemployment
Compensation, TEUC, program before we leave for the Memorial Day
recess. This is especially urgent when considering the U.S. Department
of Labor has estimated that by the end of 2003 more than 2.1 million
workers will have exhausted their State unemployment compensation
benefits without finding work. In my State of Maine, almost 11,000
unemployed Maine workers are projected to exhaust their State and
Federal unemployment benefits in the next 6 months and more than one-
quarter of these workers, 26 percent, will have exhausted all benefits
available under the extension and still be unable to find work.
The bill before us today is similar to Senator Murkowski's
legislation, S. 1079, of which I am a cosponsor, and is an extension of
the current Federal TEUC program due to expire at the end of May. H.R.
2185 will extend TEUC for an additional 7 months, to December 31, 2003,
and will provide benefits to an estimated 2.1 million Americans.
But we must think of these many millions of unemployed Americans as
more than just numbers. In Maine, they live in towns like Millinocket,
Old Town, and Sanford, where large, established employers have either
closed their doors or downsized, and in the process forced longtime
workers onto the unemployment rolls. If the program is not extended,
according to the Maine Department of Labor, 6,000 Maine workers will
exhaust their State unemployment benefits without ever receiving any
Federal benefits. Extending temporary Federal benefits is particularly
important for hard-hit mill towns like Millinocket, where every store
and every landlord has been affected by the layoffs. The TEUC program
can get help to those individuals and those communities that need it
most.
In closing, Mr. President, I believe that it is critical for Congress
to continue to provide the temporary support to families who have been
hurt by the economic downturn, and give these families access to the
resources they need to stay afloat until they can find new, gainful
employment. As such, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Senate version
of H.R. 2185, and urge my colleagues to join me in support of this
effort.

____________________