Citizens' Protection in Federal Databases Act

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.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Dodd and other colleagues in introducing the Head Start Coordination and School Readiness Act. Our goal is to reauthorize Head Start and continue this very successful federal program to prepare low-income children for school.

For nearly four decades, Head Start has enabled vulnerable, young pre-kindergarten children to enter school ready to learn. It provides a balanced educational curriculum to see that children develop early skills in reading, writing, and math, and positive social skills as well. It provides visits to doctors and dentists, and nutritious

meals to see that children are healthy. It provides outreach to parents to encourage them to participate actively in their child's early development.

It is clear that Head Start works. A federal evaluation found that Head Start children make gains during the program itself, and the gains continue when the children enter kindergarten. Once Head Start children complete their kindergarten year, they are near the national average of 100 in key areas, with scores of 93 in vocabulary, 96 in early writing, and 92 in early math.

In this legislation, we build on Head Start's proven track record and expand it to include thousands of low-income children who are not yet served by the program. We provide for better coordination of Head Start with state programs for low-income children. We strengthen Head Start's focus on school readiness and pre-literacy. We increase the education requirements and compensation for Head Start teachers. We provide greater accountability, including a high quality assessment of each Head Start program.

To strengthen Head Start, we have to begin by providing more resources for it. The need for Head Start is greater than ever. Child poverty is on the rise again. Today, only 60 percent of children eligible for Head Start participate in it. Over 312,000 three- and four-year-olds are left out because of the inadequate funding level of the program. Early Head Start serves only 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers. It is shameful that 97 percent of the children eligible for Early Head Start have no access to it. It's long past time for Congress to expand access to Head Start to serve as many infants, toddlers, and preschool children as possible.

Throughout the 1990's, we tripled our investment, and Head Start expanded by 52 percent. But this year, the President's budget fails to reach out to a single new child. It provides only $148 million in additional funding for the coming year--only a quarter of the increase that Head Start received in recent years, and barely enough to cover inflation.

The bill that we introduce today will set a goal of fully funding Head Start over the next 5 years, in order to reach all eligible preschoolers. Each year, an additional 62,000 three- and four-year-olds would be served by the program. Funding will rise from $6.7 billion in the current fiscal year, to $8.5 billion in fiscal year 2004, and $16.3 billion in fiscal year 2008.

Early Head Start is an especially important lifeline for needy infants and toddlers. Research clearly shows its benefit to infants and toddlers and their families. Early Head Start children have larger vocabularies, lower levels of aggressive behavior, and higher levels of sustained attention than children not enrolled in the program. Parents are more likely to play with their children and read to them.

This bill will double the size of Early Head Start, providing resources to serve an additional 29,000 infants and toddlers each year, at an estimated cost of $1 billion in fiscal year 2004, and $3.2 billion in fiscal year 2008.

The current Federal-to-local structure of Head Start enables it to tailor its services to meet local community needs. Performance standards guarantee a high level of quality across all programs. Yet each program is unique and specifically adapted to the local community. Head Start is successful in serving Inuit children in Alaska, migrant- workers' children in Tennessee, and inner-city children in Boston. It is essential to maintain the ability of local Head Start programs to tailor their services to meet local community's needs.

To strengthen this coordination with local programs, our bill creates a Head Start Quality Improvement and Collaboration Office in every state to maximize services to Head Start children, align Head Start with kindergarten classrooms, and strengthen its local partnerships with other agencies. These offices will also work to expand training and technical assistance to Head Start grantees to better meet the goal of preparing children for school.

States will also have an active role in coordinating their early childhood programs and increasing their quality. Our bill designates an Early Care and Education Council in each State to conduct an inventory of children's needs in the state, develop unified data collection and make recommendations on coordination, technical assistance and training.

Over the past four decades, Head Start has built up quality and performance standards to guarantee a full range of services, so that children are educated in the basics about letters and numbers and books, and are also healthy, well-fed, and supported in stable and nurturing relationships. Head Start is a model program, and we can enhance its quality even more.

One way to do that is to strengthen Head Start's current literacy initiative. We know the key to later reading success is to get young children excited about letters and books and numbers. Our bill emphasizes language and literacy, by enhancing the literacy training required of Head Start teachers, by continuing to promote parent literacy, and by working to put more books into Head Start classrooms and into children's homes.

At the heart of Head Start's success are its teachers and staff. They are caring, committed persons who know the children they serve and are dedicated to improving their lives. They help children learn to identify letters of the alphabet and arrange the pieces of puzzles. They teach them to brush their teeth, wash their hands, make friends and follow rules. Yet their salary is still half the salary of kindergarten teachers, and turnover is high--11 percent a year.

Because a teacher's quality is directly related to a child's outcome, our bill sets a goal that every Head Start classroom has a teacher with a bachelor's degree within 8 years. It provides an additional $650 million over the next 5 years to see that teachers have the means to go back to school to earn a bachelor's degree, and it guarantees $3 billion over that period to see that teachers earn adequate wages to keep them in Head Start once they obtain their degree.

Finally, accountability is a cornerstone of excellence in education and should start early. Head Start should be accountable for its promise to provide safe and healthy learning environments, to support each child's individual pattern of development and learning, to cement community partnerships in services for children, and to involve parents in their child's growth.

Head Start reviews are already among the most extensive in the field. Every 3 years, a Federal and local team spends a week thoroughly examining every aspect of every Head Start program. They check everything from batteries in flashlights to how parents feel about the program. Our bill promotes even stronger monitoring of Head Start programs. It calls for periodic visits to programs, and strengthens annual reviews and plans for improvement.

Assessing outcomes for children is vital in promoting accountability and ensuring that the gains promised for Head Start children are actually achieved. But these steps have to be taken the right way.

Instead of rushing forward, as the Administration suggests, with a national assessment for every four-year-old in Head Start this fall, our bill calls on the National Academy of Sciences to guide the development and implementation of a high-quality assessment for Head Start children over the next four years. That assessment will be valid and reliable, fair to children from all backgrounds, balanced in what it measures, and assess the development of the whole child.

Unfortunately, the Administration and House Republicans have presented plans that would turn Head Start into Slow Start or No Start. It makes no sense to turn Head Start into a block grant to the states. To do so would dismantle the program and undermine Head Start's guarantees that children can see doctors and dentists, eat nutritious meals, and learn early academic and social skills. It would undermine the role of parents, who are better parents today, strong advocates, and enthusiastic volunteers as a result of Head Start.

The Head Start Coordination and School Readiness Act we are introducing today will keep Head Start on its successful path. I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in continuing and strengthening this program, and give children the head start they need and deserve to prepare for school and for life.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support and statement from the National Head Start Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Harkin and other colleagues on this legislation to protect the right to overtime pay for millions of working men and women across America. The Bush administration has just announced new regulations that would deny overtime protections to more than 8 million hard-working men and women, including an estimated 200,000 workers in Massachusetts. Firefighters, police officers, military reservists, nurses, retail clerks, medical technicians, tech workers and many others would be harmed by the new rules.

In the current failing economy, these workers depend more than ever on overtime pay to make ends meet and to pay their bills for housing, food, and health care. Overtime pay often constitutes as much as a quarter of their total pay, and the administration's proposal will mean an average pay cut of $161 a week for them.

Our bill states clearly that no worker currently eligible for overtime protection can be denied overtime pay as a result of the new regulations.

We know that overtime protections make an immense difference in preserving the 40-hour work week. For over half a century, the Fair Labor Standards Act has discouraged employers from requiring longer hours of work, by making overtime more expensive. Instead of relying on fewer workers forced to work longer hours, employers are likely to hire additional workers to meet the employer's needs. That result creates more jobs, and reduces the unfair exploitation of workers.

The Bush administration is the first administration in 70 years in which the number of private sector jobs has declined. Not since President Hoover have we been hemorrhaging jobs like this. How could any fair administration possibly adopt regulations that will increase overtime working hours, and reduce the need to hire additional workers?

According to the Congressional General Accounting Office, employees exempt from overtime pay are twice as likely to work overtime as those covered by the protection. Americans are working longer hours today than ever before--longer than in any other industrial nation. At least one in five employees now has a work week that exceeds 50 hours, let alone 40 hours.

Clearly, workers are already struggling to balance their families' needs with their work responsibilities. Requiring them to work more hours for less pay will add an even greater burden to this daily struggle. Protecting the 40-hour work week is vital to protecting the work-family balance for millions of Americans in communities in all parts of the nation.

Sixty-five years ago, President Roosevelt signed into law the Fair Labor Standards Act to establish a minimum wage and maximum work hours. It was the midst of the Great Depression and President Roosevelt told the country that ``if the hours of labor for the individual could be shortened . . . more people could be employed. If minimum wages could be established, each worker could get a living wage.''

Those words are as true in 2003 as they were in 1938. The economy has lost more private sector jobs during this economic decline than in any recession since the Great Depression. What can the administration be thinking, to come up with this shameful proposal to weaken the overtime protections on which millions of workers rely? Is the administration so desperate to prop up business profits that it's willing to punish workers to do it?

As Senator Harkin says, the President's policy is economic malpractice. Democrats will not sit idly by and watch Americans lose their jobs, their livelihoods, their homes, and their dignity. We will continue the fight to restore jobs to the economy, provide fair unemployment benefits, and raise the minimum wage. And we will do all we can to preserve the overtime protections on which so many Americans families depend. I urge my colleagues to support this essential legislation to keep the faith with the Nation's working families.

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.

I have an amendment at the desk and ask the clerk to report.

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

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

I yield the floor.

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?