Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.

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

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.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

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

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.

Mr. President, I yield back my time. I believe the yeas and nays have already been ordered.

These are important amendments. I believe Senators should listen to debate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

I object.

Regular order.

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.

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----

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.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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.

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.

Reserving the right to object, 15 minutes on that side. How much on this side?

Ten minutes on this side would be more than sufficient.

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.

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. 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

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.

I am not going to ask for the vote now.

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----

I say to the Senator, you can use your time. You can move to waive, and we can still debate.

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.

How much time do we have remaining?

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

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.

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

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.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

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?

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.

Certainly, I yield for a question.

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

Boeing's job orders are picking up, in fact confront a situation in which Boeing is now laying off even more people.

Have we answered the able Senator's question, I hope, in the course of this discussion?

Certainly.

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.

I do not.

I think that is consistent with the economic slowdown-- --

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.

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.

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.

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.

Will the Senator yield?

I yield for the purpose of a question.

It sounds like a good plan. I hope that is done while I offer my amendment.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. President, if Senator Cantwell wishes to speak, I would want to reserve an opportunity for that.

Will the Senator withhold?

Mr. President, is it necessary for me to move to waive the point of order at this point?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.