[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 78 (Friday, May 23, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7110-S7115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      INCREASING THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT--Continued


                           Amendment No. 836

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from South Carolina, the Senator from 
Iowa will speak for a very brief period of time and then he is going 
to, I understand, move to table your amendment.
  I wonder, is the Senator going to yield back his time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I am happy to yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will yield back my time.
  I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Hollings amendment would prevent the 
``disinvestment'' of the Social Security Trust Fund. What that means is 
if we did not increase the debt limit, the Social Security Trust Fund 
could not be used to pay Social Security benefits. We need to defeat 
this amendment and pass a clean debt limit bill so Social Security 
checks can go out on time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 836.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 201 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--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Edwards
     Kennedy
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


           SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI'S TWELVE-THOUSANDTH VOTE

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, may I have the attention of the Senate. On 
the last rollcall vote, No. 201, the one we just completed, the 
distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico, current chairman of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the former long-serving 
chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Pete V. Domenici, cast his 
twelve-thousandth vote in this Chamber--12,000 votes.

[[Page S7111]]

  (Applause, Senators Rising.)
  Senator Domenici now joins a very historic and select club of 
Senators who can claim this distinction. Senators now cast more votes 
in each Congress than they did in the past. So while historical records 
are not perfect, our Senate Librarian says we are safe to conclude that 
among all Senators who have served since the beginning of the Republic, 
Senator Domenici is in a class of only ten.
  Since the beginning of the Republic, only Nine other U.S. Senators 
have similarly cast more than 12,000 votes in their careers in the 
Senate. Five of them are serving today. The Club of Nine now becomes 
the Club of Ten with Senator Domenici's last vote today.
  The Club of Nine has been: Senator Claiborne Pell; Senator William 
Roth; Senator William Proxmire; the current President pro tempore, 
Senator Ted Stevens; Senator Edward Kennedy; Senator Daniel Inouye; 
Senator Ernest Hollings, Senator Strom Thurmond; and--with over 16,685 
votes--the all-time record, Senator Robert C. Byrd.
  Senator Domenici, I know I speak for all of your colleagues, all of 
your fellow Senators, when I say: Congratulations on this achievement. 
But, more importantly, thank you for your tremendous service over the 
years to New Mexico, to your country, and, most importantly, to the 
U.S. Senate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  I thank you very much. I know people are ready to catch airplanes, 
and we are on a time schedule, and I should say only a couple of words, 
if any. So I will say that sometimes it seems as if I am just starting. 
Sometimes late at night, it seems as if I have been here forever. I 
don't know how my wife, who is watching, is taking this. It may be that 
she might be thinking it is going to come to an end soon and perhaps we 
will not be here any longer. I hope not.
  But let me say to all of you: Thank you for your kind words. But, 
most of all, thanks to the Senate. It did not take 12,000 votes to 
learn how to be a Senator but it took some time. Once you get there, 
you know you are. Once you are a Senator, there is just nothing like 
it. Once you know what the Senate is, you know there is nothing like 
it. I have been given enough time for both.
  I believe I know how to be a Senator, and I believe I know what the 
Senate is. Both have been heralded and written about. Whatever it is 
that has been said is all true. It is a rather fantastic place. You 
cannot serve with a greater group of people. There is no conceivable 
way that I, as an American, could spend time with 100 men and women of 
the caliber that we have here, whatever that is in terms of their 
variety of skills, measures, and attributes; and that is for sure.
  With that, and for that, I thank all of you. In particular today, for 
doing this, I thank our distinguished majority leader.
  Thank you very much.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in the interest of time--I want to turn to 
the Democratic leader for his comment--but I have asked all of our 
colleagues to withhold further comments on this celebration, to submit 
them for the Record or to give them after we complete the voting today. 
We are trying to keep the bill moving.
  Again, I want the Democratic leader to comment but then I do ask our 
colleagues to wait to speak on this celebration. They will have an 
opportunity to do so later.
  Mr. REID. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. FRIST. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all Senators 
wishing to make statements regarding Senator Domenici be allowed to do 
so, and at such time as they are completed, that they be put in a 
proper cover and given to Senator Domenici.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I add my heartfelt congratulations, as 
well, as we celebrate this special moment in the distinguished career 
of our friend and colleague, Senator Domenici.
  It was Teddy Roosevelt who once said: Life has no blessing like that 
of the ability to work hard at work worth doing. No one knows that 
better than Senator Domenici. He has worked hard at work worth doing 
now for all of these years.
  I remember I was a young staff person in 1973, and he was a newly 
elected Senator from New Mexico, formerly the mayor of Albuquerque. 
Even back then many of us recognized--because of his intelligence, his 
good will, and the way he was able to demonstrate his ability to work 
across the aisle--that we would have the good fortune to work with him 
for a long, long time.
  He has now cast more votes than 1,877 of our colleagues, including 
most of us on the Senate floor.
  As we mark this occasion--knowing he has many more years to go, 
knowing he has many more thresholds to break--we congratulate him, we 
wish him good fortune, and we recognize this extraordinary achievement 
today.
  I yield the floor and, again, congratulate him heartily.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very much.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have three Senators who are seeking 
recognition to offer amendments. Senator Dorgan has an amendment that 
will take 10 minutes; Senator Harkin, 10 minutes; and Senator Durbin, 5 
minutes. They will all ask for a voice vote on their amendments. 
Following that, we will be ready to go to final passage.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, could I ask unanimous consent those be the 
only amendments in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ROBERTS). Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The distinguished Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me also congratulate my colleague from 
New Mexico: A hearty congratulations to you.


                           Amendment No. 837

  Mr. President, I know airplanes are waiting and jet engines are 
idling, and there are some Members wishing to leave this Chamber 
quickly.
  Let me, in a matter of a couple minutes, say a word about the 
national debt and then about the trade debt.
  We worry a lot about the national debt, as a result of budget policy 
in the Congress. So we actually come to the Congress, and we come to 
the floor of the Senate, and we vote on putting a limit on Federal 
debt. We have a debt limit. However, there is another debt, and there 
is no limit on that debt. I am referring to the foreign debt--the debt 
that results from trade deficits.
  We have a Federal budget deficit this year that is expected to be 
somewhere around $317 billion. That is the current estimate. But if 
last year's figures are any guide, our trade deficit this year will be 
much higher than the federal budget deficit, well over $435 billion. 
And that trade deficit means an increase on our foreign debt.
  There is no limit on the foreign debt. Whatever it is, it is. 
Wherever it goes, it goes. That is just the way we, apparently, have 
decided to live with it as country, for as long as we can get away with 
it.
  Well, in my judgment, we ought to have some basic limitation with 
respect to trade debt, or at least some mechanism that triggers actions 
if the trade debt exceeds a certain level.
  My amendment, which I have at the desk, would say that when U.S. 
foreign debt exceeds 25 percent of GDP, or the trade deficit exceeds 5 
percent of the GDP, it triggers the following: USTR will be required 
to, within 15 days of such a breach, convene an emergency meeting of 
the Trade Policy Review Group, and within 45 days present to Congress, 
from that group, a report detailing the Trade Policy Review Group's 
trade deficit reduction plan.
  My feeling is we ought to have some basic limitation on what we are 
doing with respect to international trade. I do not suggest we put 
borders around this country or we, in any way, inhibit trade. But trade 
needs to be fair trade--and it is not.
  As shown on this chart, this is what has been happening to our trade 
deficit. The ink is all red and it is escalating at a very serious 
rate.
  Let me use one example to show the absurdity of what is happening in 
international trade. It involves the country of South Korea.
  I just picked this but I could pick China, Europe, Japan, Canada, 
Mexico. I just happen to pick South Korea.

[[Page S7112]]

  In 2001, Korea shipped 618,000 vehicles into our country--Hyundais, 
Daewoos, etc.--all around our country. Do you know how many cars we 
were able to ship to South Korea? We shipped 2,800 American cars to 
South Korea.
  Why is that the case? South Korea does not want our cars sold in that 
country. They put up every kind of imaginative trade barrier you can 
think of.
  We just had an example in the first part of this year with the Dodge 
Dakota pickup. Daimler-Chrysler started to sell the Dodge Dakota pickup 
in Korea. They were actually fairly successful. They had 60 orders in 
February and they had 60 orders in March. They don't make a pickup that 
is equivalent to the Dodge Dakota in South Korea. So at an annualized 
rate, that would have been almost a 50-percent increase in U.S. car 
imports alone in that country just with the Dodge Dakota pickup.
  Guess what happened.
  In March, an official from the Ministry of Construction and 
Transportation decided: Enough of those Dodge Dakotas. He said people 
were going to put optional cargo covers on them and that might make 
them dangerous if passengers rode in the back. He announced that cargo 
covers on pickups and Dodge Dakotas are illegal. South Korean 
newspapers had big headlines: ``Government Ministry Finds Dodge Dakota 
Covers Illegal.''
  Guess what happened. Immediately, Korean customers cancelled their 
orders for Dodge Dakotas. And all of a sudden, we were not selling 
Dodge Dakota pickup trucks in Korea anymore. So here we are, 618,000 
cars headed to the United States, and we only get to sell 2,800 in 
Korea.
  I could talk about China and wheat, Europe and beef, Canada and 
durum. I could talk about Mexico. I don't have the time today because 
several of you want to leave. I respect that. But I do want to at least 
offer this amendment. I will accept a voice vote.
  I will come back with this amendment because this country ought to 
have the spine to stand up for fairness in trade. One of the reasons we 
are hemorrhaging in red ink is that trade circumstances with our major 
trading partners are simply not fair to American producers and to 
American workers. We need to change this.
  We can attempt to ignore this forever, but we do it at our peril. You 
can make a case that budget deficits we owe to ourselves, and we will 
repay ourselves. You cannot make a similar case with the trade deficit. 
We inevitably will repay a trade deficit with a lower standard of 
living in the United States. This country should be about the business 
of having fair trade, requiring fair trade, and requiring enforcement 
of existing trade agreements.
  I have a lot more to say. I will say it at some future time.
  I ask that the amendment be called up. It is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 837.

  Mr. DORGAN. 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 impose limits on United States foreign debt)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. FOREIGN DEBT CEILING.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States has become the world's largest net 
     debtor Nation, having run up massive trade deficits in the 
     1990s.
       (2) At the end of 2001, the net United States foreign debt 
     stood at over $2,300,000,000,000.
       (3) The United States foreign debt position worsened in 
     2002, when the United States had a record trade deficit of 
     over $436,000,000,000, equivalent to 4.1 percent of the 
     United States GDP that year.
       (4) The large and growing United States foreign debt 
     represents claims on United States assets by foreign 
     nationals, which will eventually have to be repaid. If 
     unchecked, the foreign debt could seriously undermine our 
     children's future standard of living.
       (5) Moreover, the growing accumulation of foreign claims on 
     United States assets, including nearly $1,200,000,000,000 in 
     United States Treasury securities, makes the United States 
     economy vulnerable to the whims of foreign investors.
       (6) Congress presently places a ceiling on United States 
     public debt, but does not place a ceiling on United States 
     foreign debt.
       (7) Just as Congress recognized the importance of placing a 
     ceiling on the United States public debt, it is appropriate 
     that Congress place a limit on the United States foreign 
     debt.
       (b) Actions Triggered by United States Foreign Debt.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than the 15th day of the second 
     month after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 3 
     months thereafter, the United States Trade Representative 
     shall determine if--
       (A) the net United States foreign debt for the preceding 
     12-month period is more than 25 percent of United States GDP 
     for the same period; or
       (B) the United States trade deficit for the preceding 12-
     month period is more than 5 percent of United States GDP for 
     the same period.
       (2) Action by ustr.--Whenever an affirmative determination 
     is made under paragraph (1) (A) or (B), the United States 
     Trade Representative shall--
       (A) within 15 days of the determination, convene an 
     emergency meeting of the Trade Policy Review Group to develop 
     a plan of action to reduce the United States trade deficit; 
     and
       (B) within 45 days of the determination, present to 
     Congress a report detailing the Trade Policy Review Group's 
     trade deficit reduction plan.
       (c) Measurement of Foreign Debt.--
       (1) Statistical sources.--For purposes of the calculations 
     described in subsection (b)(1), the United States Trade 
     Representative shall rely on the most recent period for which 
     the following data, published by the Department of Commerce, 
     is available:
       (A) In the case of United States foreign debt, the United 
     States Trade Representative shall use the net international 
     investment position of the United States, with direct 
     investment positions determined at market value, as compiled 
     by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
       (B) In the case of the United States trade deficit, the 
     United States Trade Representative shall use the goods and 
     services trade deficit data compiled by the United States 
     Census Bureau.
       (C) In the case of the United States GDP, the United States 
     Trade Representative shall use the nominal gross domestic 
     product data compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
       (2) Adjustment.--The United States Trade Representative may 
     adjust the data described in paragraph (1) to ensure that the 
     determination is made for comparable time periods.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does any Senator wish to speak to the 
amendment? The distinguished Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to speak in opposition to the 
amendment. I think the information the Senator from North Dakota wants, 
and wants in one document or one report, is a very legitimate bit of 
information, not just a small bit but a legitimate amount of 
information that he wants, and it is a reasonable request. I think a 
lot of it exists in the Department of Commerce and maybe it is just a 
case of bringing it all together. But that can't be the issue today. 
The issue today is, if we amend this bill, it goes back to the House, 
and then we are in a situation where we are not able to operate 
Government. We can't wait until the month of June to get a conference 
with the House on this issue. The Secretary of Treasury has made it 
very clear that he has taken all prudent and legal steps available to 
him to avoid reaching the statutory debt limit.
  I urge everybody to vote against the amendment regardless of the 
merits.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will take a voice vote and say, this 
amendment will be visiting the floor of the Senate again soon on 
another matter. I appreciate the comments from the Senator from Iowa. I 
believe this is an important issue. I hope my colleagues will support 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
837.
  The amendment (No. 837) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 838

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The other distinguished Senator from Iowa is 
recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the debt resolution that we have before us 
raises the debt limit by $984 billion--a record, the biggest ever in 
the history of the United States. What does that mean for the average 
American family? It means we are adding the equivalent of $3,500 to the 
credit card of every man, woman, and child in America. For a family of 
four, you just got $14,000 added to your family's debt. These are

[[Page S7113]]

new charges. That is just what we are about to vote on here. This is 
the new debt on top of the old debt. Now that is the debt.
  How about the interest charges? Under the President's budget, we will 
see interest on the debt rise from an estimated $240 billion this year 
to $514 billion in 10 years under the assumptions of the budget pushed 
through by the majority that closely followed the President's plan in 
many respects. That is $1,800 a year for every person in the country. 
That is just on the interest, $7,200 a year for a family of four in 
2013 and higher sums thereafter. The ranking member of the Finance 
Committee, the Senator from Montana, said it right: We are imposing, 
No. 1, a debt tax on our children and grandchildren. But we are also 
imposing an interest debt tax on our families.
  We just went through this whole thing about this tax bill that skews 
everything to the wealthy. We all know that. Yet what about our 
families? I am sure they will say: We got some good things for 
families. We got a little marriage penalty thing there; we have a child 
credit, all that. But in 10 years, the interest just on the debt we are 
voting on today will be $7,200 a year for a family of four, right out 
of their taxes, $7,200 a year. Tell me about how much we have helped 
our families with this crazy tax bill we just passed this morning?
  And right now, I think the vote we are about to take on this debt 
bill says it all. Tax cuts for those at the top, a few little things 
for working families, but we are going to gouge the working families of 
this country by making them pay the interest on the national debt--
$7,200 a year for a family of four, just on the interest.
  More and more every year we go down the pike, more and more of the 
taxes that our hard-working Americans pay will go for what? To pay the 
interest on the national debt. Will we get any more education? No. Will 
we pay our teachers better? No. Will we invest more in medical 
research? No. Will we have better prescription drugs for the elderly? 
No. We won't do all those things because it is going to go to pay the 
interest on the national debt. That is what we are about to vote on 
right here.
  Just the other day I went over to the Cannon House Office Building. 
They had a big demonstration there of fuel cells, renewable energy. 
That is what we ought to be investing in. That is what the Government 
should be investing in to make us energy independent. Guess what. We 
won't put the resources into that important need like we should. We 
will dribble a little bit here and there, but we won't do it right. 
Why? Because we are paying interest on the national debt. And why are 
we raising the debt? Because we have this big tax cut. Why do we have 
this big tax cut? It does please the wealthy contributors of the 
Republican Party. That is a part of it.
  Now we are going to vote to increase the national debt, put it on the 
backs of every man, woman, and child in the Nation.

  Well, there is one other thing. Because of this exploding debt and 
the interest on the debt that we will have to pay, it is a threat to 
the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. The President's tax plan 
is larger, if made permanent, then the entire 75 year estimated 
shortfall in both Social Security and Medicare. Later this year, the 
President says he wants us to work a prescription drug benefit for the 
elderly for $400 billion. He is going to squeeze everybody into HMOs 
type organizations. Why? Because we don't have enough money to pay for 
a good plan because it is going to pay the interest on the national 
debt so we can cover outrageous giveaways to the very wealthy.
  I might talk about Medicare fairness. We voted this week on an 
amendment offered by my colleague from Iowa to take care of some 
Medicare fairness. Eighty-six Senators voted for it. It was not in the 
President's plan. The President said, no, we can't do that now. It is 
squeezing everything out.
  I want to talk about the specifics of my amendment, to provide for a 
true cost of tax bills requirement. The official score or estimate of 
what the tax bill is supposed to cost is $350 billion. But, that is not 
what really occurred. Don't take my word for it, take the word of the 
Speaker of the House. This was in Congress Daily today:

       Although the $350 billion tax cut bill moving toward 
     President Bush's desk is half of the original request, House 
     Speaker Hastert told Congress Daily Thursday that the final 
     package incorporates key features of the House plan. ``The 
     350 billion number takes us through the next 2 years 
     basically,'' Hastert said. ``But also it could end up being a 
     trillion-dollar bill because this stuff is extendable. That 
     is a fight we are going to have to have, and it is not a bad 
     fight to have.''

  There you go. It is not $350 billion. It is closer to $1 trillion. 
The editorial in the Washington Post this morning said the same thing.
  According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, if we keep 
these tax breaks going, the total cost will be a minimum of $815 
billion. And now, after all of that, what are we asked to do? Go to the 
well and vote for the largest increase in the national debt ever held 
paying for this tax break for the wealthy.
  My amendment is very simple. I call it the ``telling the true cost of 
the tax bill'' requirement. The premise is that Congress and the 
American people should know the real cost of major tax provisions--not 
the Enron kind of budgeting we have had for this tax bill.
  My amendment would require the Joint Tax Committee to reveal the true 
10-year cost of provisions in the tax bill that cost over $1 billion a 
year when fully in effect. In other words, to show the full cost, the 
Joint Tax Committee would provide true costs regardless of the variety 
of gimmicks we have seen used in the 2001 tax bill, as well as the tax 
bill being passed this morning.
  If a provision sunsets early, the cost will be provided as if it is 
in place for the full 10-year period. That is what this amendment does. 
I have the amendment here. I will send it to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 838.

  Mr. HARKIN. 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: Requiring estimates of certain decreases in Federal revenues 
               for periods after the decrease is sunset)

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC. ____. TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE LONG-TERM COST OF TAX 
                   CHANGES.

       (a) In General.--If the Joint Committee on Taxation 
     prepares an estimate of any applicable proposed change in 
     Federal revenue law, the committee shall include with such 
     estimate an estimate of the decrease in Federal revenues 
     which--
       (1) in the case of an applicable proposed change described 
     in subsection (b)(1), would have occurred without regard to 
     the reduction or termination described in such subsection 
     during the portion of the period covered by the estimate 
     after the reduction or termination, and
       (2) in the case of an applicable proposed change described 
     in subsection (b)(2), will occur during the 10-fiscal year 
     period beginning with the fiscal year following the first 
     fiscal year in which the proposed change becomes fully 
     effective.
       (b) Applicable Proposed Change.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``applicable proposed change'' means any of 
     the following proposed changes in Federal revenue law:
       (1) Sunset or reduced changes.--Any proposed change which--
       (A) when fully effective will have an estimated decrease in 
     Federal revenues of more than $1,000,000,000 in each fiscal 
     year, and
       (B) provides for the termination of such change, or a 
     reduction in such revenue decrease, on or before the close of 
     the period covered by the estimate which the Joint Committee 
     on Taxation is otherwise preparing for such proposed change.
       (2) Delay in full effect.--Any proposed change which--
       (A) becomes fully effective at any time during the last 4 
     years of the period covered by the estimate which the Joint 
     Committee on Taxation is otherwise preparing for such 
     proposed change, and
       (B) when fully effective will have an estimated decrease in 
     Federal revenues of more than $1,000,000,000 in each fiscal 
     year.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as well intentioned as the amendment is 
to bring information to the Congress from the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, to bring a greater degree of transparency to where we are on 
certain tax legislation, I have to ask my colleagues to vote against 
this amendment because if it were adopted, it would force the bill back 
to the House

[[Page S7114]]

and we would not be able to fund Government. We would also have a 
situation of having to have a conference. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does any other Senator wish to speak on the 
amendment?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, look, one more time. The reason we cannot 
have amendments to this bill is because the House has gone home? We are 
going to have the biggest increase in the national debt this country 
has ever seen and the House went home? That is why we cannot amend it?
  Please explain that to my constituents in Iowa, or anywhere in the 
country, that somehow it makes sense that we cannot amend it because 
the House went home and we are going to have the biggest increase in 
debt in this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 838) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 839

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 839.

  Mr. DURBIN. 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 require a CBO report on any new debt created by a budget 
        resolution upon the reporting of that budget resolution)

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. CBO REPORT ON DEBT IMPACT OF BUDGET RESOLUTION.

       Section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 632) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) CBO Debt Impact Report.--Each budget resolution 
     reported out by the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate shall be accompanied by a 
     report from CBO containing CBO's best estimate of the 
     following:
       ``(1) The amount of new debt subject to limit, in aggregate 
     and divided by the most recent estimate of the United States 
     population, according to the Bureau of the Census, that would 
     be created if the budget resolution is adhered to, assuming 
     reserve funds are spent and reconciliation instructions are 
     fully complied with.
       ``(2) The amount of new debt subject to limit, if any, in 
     aggregate and divided by the most recent estimate of the 
     United States population, according to the Bureau of the 
     Census, that would have been created if the budget resolution 
     simply reflected the CBO baseline without policy changes.
       ``(3) The difference between paragraphs (1) and (2).
       ``(4) Of the amount determined in paragraph (3)--
       ``(A) the amount of new debt subject to limit, in aggregate 
     and divided by the most recent estimate of the United States 
     population, according to the Bureau of the Census, that is 
     attributable to tax changes; and
       ``(B) the amount of new debt subject to limit, in aggregate 
     and divided by the most recent estimate of the United States 
     population, according to the Bureau of the Census, that is 
     attributable to policy changes other than tax changes.''.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the once proud Senate is no longer 
a voice, it is an echo--an echo of a bygone era when giants in the 
Senate strode the halls of this great institution. But not today. On 
amendment after amendment after amendment, we are told that the Senate 
is voiceless, the Senate is powerless, the House has left and there is 
nothing we can do. We have turned into a unicameral legislature before 
your eyes.
  Now a majority of the Senators parade in the halls of this great 
institution with signs that read ``me, too,'' signs that read ``the 
House of Representatives knows best,'' signs that read ``the Senate no 
longer has time to think or to act. We just do what the House tells us 
to do.''
  No matter how good the suggestion or amendment on the floor of the 
Senate today, it has been summarily rejected by the majority. Efforts 
to protect Social Security, rejected; efforts for accountability in 
budgeting, rejected; efforts for accountability of this White House and 
future Presidents, rejected. Why? Because the House told us to take it 
or leave it.
  Well, I have hope for the Senate and the Members. I give you an 
amendment now that you can embrace to show you still believe in the 
Senate as it once reigned on Capitol Hill, embrace because you 
understand that on its face it is so logical, straightforward, so easy 
that you can embrace this amendment with the full knowledge that when 
you vote on final passage and go home, at least once today you stood up 
for the dignity of this great institution; at least once today, you 
thought for yourself; at least once today, common sense prevailed.
  What does this amendment do? It simply calls for accountability. Once 
each year, the CBO will tell us what our actions have done to add to 
the national debt. It will tell us whether tax increases are going to 
create more debt for our children. It will publish that number and put 
it into terms so every single American will know whether we have 
increased the mortgage on America for our children and grandchildren to 
carry. That is it. It is so simple, straightforward.
  My friend from Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, 
from that commonsense bastion in the Midwest, that great State of Iowa, 
I know he believes in accountability, he believes in standing up for a 
report card on Congress, and that he will stand with me shoulder to 
shoulder, bipartisan, proud to tell the American people what we have 
done, proud to admit to the American people if we have added to their 
debt. I know he will be with me on this and he will break the shackles 
of the House of Representatives, and we will finally come together in a 
bipartisan fashion for the future of the Senate. I will applaud him for 
standing in support of the amendment.
  I am only going to ask for a voice vote because I know it is going to 
be unanimous.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does any other Senator wish to speak to the 
Senator's embracing amendment?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to speak the common sense of Iowa 
to the Senator from the political machine of Chicago and to express a 
simple statement of fact: If, in fact, we had adopted the minority's 
budget, the Democrat budget, earlier this year, we would be facing the 
exact same increase in the debt ceiling now and by almost the same 
exact amount of money throughout the rest of the year. So it doesn't 
matter whether you are in the majority or we are, we would be doing 
about the same thing right now. So don't try to fool the people of 
America. You cannot do it even if you are from Chicago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Any other Senators wishing to be heard? The 
Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Chicago can handle itself, whether we are 
playing Iowa in sports or in politics, but I ask my friend from Iowa, 
if you believe the deficits don't count, stand tall, stand proud, and 
admit that to the American people. Just go ahead and tell them once a 
year whether you have added to the national debt by the actions in 
Congress. It is that simple. It is a report card on what we do. I am 
sure the Senator from Iowa is in favor and doesn't want to leave any 
taxpayer behind.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 839) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further amendments to be 
offered, the question is on the third reading and passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 51) was ordered to a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, once again, I thank the chairman of the 
Finance Committee for his hard work yesterday and today. In addition, I 
thank all Members for their patience and cooperation throughout this 
legislative period, a very productive few weeks of session. We have had 
busy days and long nights. It was worth the effort.
  The next vote will be the last vote prior to the Memorial Day recess. 
The Senate will reconvene on Monday, June 2. However, no rollcall votes 
will occur that day. Members can expect the next

[[Page S7115]]

rollcall vote on Tuesday at approximately 12 noon. That vote most 
likely will be in relation to an amendment to the energy bill.
  I wish everyone a safe recess, and I look forward to working with 
everybody following this recess.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question 
is, Shall it pass? The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 202 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Edwards
     Kennedy
     Kerry
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 51) was passed.
  Mr. FRIST. I move to reconsider that vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________