[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 78 (Friday, May 23, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7089-S7110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           INCREASING THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT

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

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

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

[[Page S7090]]

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

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

[[Page S7091]]

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

[[Page S7092]]

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

[[Page S7093]]

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

[[Page S7094]]

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


                           Amendment No. 833

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S7095]]

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

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


                     Asbestos Lawsuits Legislation

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


                           Amendment No. 834

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

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


[[Page S7096]]


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

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

       At the appropriate place add the following:

     SEC.   . PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARIES FROM COLA 
                   CUTS

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

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

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

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

[[Page S7097]]

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 198 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--47

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

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


                           Amendment No. 832

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

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

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

[[Page S7098]]

  The amendment is as follows:

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

       At the end add the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S7099]]

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

[[Page S7100]]

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

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

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

[[Page S7101]]

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 199 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--49

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

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


                           Amendment No. 835

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

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

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

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

[[Page S7102]]

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

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

[[Page S7103]]

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

                       RESTORING THE PAY-GO RULE

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

[[Page S7104]]

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

[[Page S7105]]

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 200 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

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

[[Page S7106]]

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

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

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

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

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

[[Page S7107]]

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

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

[[Page S7108]]

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

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

                [From the Financial Times, May 23, 2003]

                               Tax Lunacy

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

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

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

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

                [From the Financial Times, May 20, 2003]

                    Washington's Weak Dollar Policy

                            (By David Hale)

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

[[Page S7109]]

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

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

[[Page S7110]]

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

                          ____________________