[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3840-3845]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


           INCREASING THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10:30 
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of H.J. Res. 47, 
which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 47), increasing the statutory 
     limit on the public debt.

  Pending:

       Baucus/Lincoln amendment No. 3131, to require a study of 
     debt held by foreigners.


                           Amendment No. 3131

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 3131.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware (Mr. Biden) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--55

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Biden
       
  The amendment (No. 3131) was rejected.
  Mr. GREGG. 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.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the next vote in 
this series be 10 minutes in length; further, that when the votes begin 
at 1:30, all votes after the first vote be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Democratic leader.


                     Senator Sarbanes 11,000th Vote

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we just completed a vote that is a landmark 
for one of our Senators. Senator Paul Sarbanes cast his 11,000th vote.
  It was only a few days ago that we stopped the proceedings of the 
Senate to underline and underscore the voting record of the senior 
Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy.
  Senator Sarbanes has decided not to run for reelection, as we all 
know, but what a legacy he has in the Senate. There is no one with a 
better academic record than Paul Sarbanes: Princeton University, summa 
cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa; a Rhodes scholar; he studied, of course, 
because of that, at Oxford; Harvard Law School.
  Those who have had the privilege of working with Paul Sarbanes know 
that not only does he have this great intellect, he has so much common 
sense. Legislation he works on is detailed, very thorough.
  He, of course, is our ranking member of the Committee on Banking. I 
have

[[Page 3841]]

traveled with the distinguished senior Senator from Maryland. We have 
traveled various parts of the world. I have fond memories of Paul 
Sarbanes and all the things he has done. His wife Chris is a wonderful, 
caring person, just like Paul.
  Even though I have a lot of stories, I share one with the Senate. One 
of the things people do not realize about Senator Sarbanes is his 
athletic ability. He is a great athlete. I was told a story about 
Senator Sarbanes that for me is a classic. I love baseball. I follow 
the history of baseball. In high school, he was a star baseball player. 
He was selected to play on an all-star team. He was a shortstop. He 
comes to the all-star team as the shortstop from the Eastern Shore. The 
manager coach announces the starting lineup and he has Sarbanes at 
second base. Paul went up to the coach and said, I am a shortstop. I 
was selected as an all-star shortstop. The coach ignored him. He went 
back again, and finally the coach said, Kaline is starting shortstop. 
Al Kaline was a better shortstop, at least the coach thought so, than 
Paul Sarbanes. Al Kaline went to the Major Leagues when he was 18 or 19 
years old and is in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
  I know we have a lot of things to do today. People are going to the 
White House. There are a lot of places to go and this is a very 
important bill, but I could not let the time go by without 
acknowledging one of the great Senators in the history of our country, 
Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask to speak not to exceed 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, one of the greatest orations ever uttered 
was the oration on the Crown. And it can be said that the theme of that 
oration was a question: Who least serves the State? Demosthenes 
answered that question: He who does not say what he thinks.
  Socrates was asked which great oration of Demosthenes he liked best. 
Socrates answered, ``The longest.'' In other words, he liked the 
longest oration Demosthenes ever uttered. The Greeks taught the world 
to think.
  This man who is going to leave us after this term, regrettably, and 
to our great loss, has always impressed me as a thinker, one in the 
train of Demosthenes.
  Paul Sarbanes is a great Senator, a great Senator.
  I can remember when he went with me and other Senators to Panama. 
There we talked to Torrijos and the other leaders of Panama, including 
our own people. It was there that I changed my mind about the Panama 
Canal Treaty. Paul Sarbanes was one of those who was there, who walked 
with us, who talked with us, who was on plane with Torrijos.
  Paul Sarbanes has not only been a thinker, he has been a great 
inspiration to those who have served with him. He will be missed. He 
will not be replaced. There are no more Paul Sarbanes. I shall never 
forget him. He leaves a great void when he goes.
  One might say: Whence cometh another?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, much is being said about my dear and 
esteemed colleague, Senator Sarbanes. He has been the longest serving 
Senator in Maryland's history. And I would put to the Senate, he has 
been the best serving Member of the U.S. Senate from Maryland.
  Sure, he cast 11,000 votes, but each and every one of our colleagues 
will know that when those 11,000 votes were cast, they were cast with 
thoughtfulness, with due diligence, with the idea of how would that 
vote serve the Nation and how would it help Maryland.
  If we want to honor Senator Paul Sarbanes, let's make sure every vote 
we cast brings to it the same kind of integrity, the same kind of 
intelligence, and the same kind of devotion and dedication. That is 
what I would like to do as the junior Senator, and say thank you for 
being side by side with me.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I know we want to proceed with our 
business, but if I could just be recognized for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their very 
gracious remarks and all of my colleagues for their expressions of 
respect and affection.
  My colleague, Senator Mikulski, said I was the longest serving 
Senator in Maryland's history. I want you to know, it is a little bit 
like being like Cal Ripken; every day you go to work, you set a new 
record--one more day than the day before.
  It has been, obviously, one of the great focuses and joys of my life 
to be able to work here in the Senate with all my colleagues. I am 
extremely grateful to all of you.
  I will just close with this story, because I am still here until the 
3rd of January 2007. So there is still time to go.
  But I once got an award. My mother was there at this dinner. This was 
a few years ago. And they asked her to speak as well. So she got up to 
speak, and she said how honored she was they had given this recognition 
to her son, and so forth, and how much she appreciated it. And then she 
closed her remarks by saying: He has been a good boy--so far.
  I carry that comment with me.
  Thank you all very much.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I could just briefly say to our good 
friend from Maryland that Republican Senators, too, join in wishing him 
well on this extraordinary accomplishment. And if he would like to 
resign any time before January, that would be all right, too. But in 
the meantime, we are glad to have you around.
  Congratulations, Senator Sarbanes.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt 
problem.
  The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt 
limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. 
Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on 
ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our 
Government's reckless fiscal policies.
  Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 
trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ``trillion'' with a ``T.'' That is 
money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, 
borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And 
over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget 
will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
  Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may 
wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government 
will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest 
on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest 
on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland 
security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more 
money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated 
gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
  And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in 
the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, 
robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure 
like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children 
of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing 
our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
  Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to 
investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a 
significant tax on all Americans--a debt tax that Washington doesn't 
want to talk about. If

[[Page 3842]]

Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we 
would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to 
responsible fiscal policies.
  But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators 
Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to the 
commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules 
applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The 
Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing 
expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and 
now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending.
  As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in 
Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to 
increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and 
more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of 
borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people 
claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in 
Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 
years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and 
continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that 
has worked in the past and can work again.
  Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member 
of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 
Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. 
This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is 
nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must 
remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, 
the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders 
whose interests might not be aligned with ours.
  Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and 
internationally. Leadership means that ``the buck stops here.'' 
Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto 
the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem 
and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
  I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt 
limit.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of 
final passage.
  Raising the debt limit is necessary to preserve the full faith and 
credit of the U.S. Government.
  We cannot as a Congress pass spending bills and tax bills and then 
refuse to pay our bills.
  Refusing to raise the debt limit is like refusing to pay your credit 
card bill--after you've used your credit card.
  The time to control the deficits and debt is when we are voting on 
the spending bills and the tax bills that create it.
  Raising the debt limit is about meeting the obligations we have 
already incurred.
  We must meet our obligations. Vote for this bill.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the spending process in the Congress is 
broken. Some will argue that now is not the time to debate spending 
reform or budget reform. They will say that now is not the time to have 
a debate about our country's spending priorities. They will argue that 
right now we need to just ``pay our bills'' for past transactions and 
discuss reforms some time in the future. Raising the debt limit, 
however, does not count as ``paying the bills.'' We are not paying our 
bills.
  Last fiscal year, the real Federal deficit--the amount by which the 
Federal debt increased--was $538 billion. When we raise the debt limit, 
we are not ``paying our bills.'' We are merely taking out another line 
of credit--another loan--to allow for more spending that we can't 
afford. It is akin to a deeply indebted family getting a loan for a new 
car or getting a new credit card or line of credit without cutting up 
the old credit cards that got them in trouble in the first place.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Government 
spent roughly $2.5 trillion during the last fiscal year. Let's look at 
that amount of spending another way. If the Federal Government spent 
$2.5 trillion last year, that means that on average, $6.8 billion was 
spent each day, or $78,418 was spent per second by the Federal 
Government.
  I believe that it is absolutely necessary to have an open and honest 
debate about our spending priorities. We are getting ready to increase 
this country's debt limit to almost $9 trillion. Over the past 5 years, 
our national debt has increased by $3 trillion, or nearly $9,000 per 
American. That is a lot of money. In 1990, our total national debt was 
about $3 trillion. That means that it took our country more than 200 
years to accumulate that amount of debt--200 years to increase our debt 
by $3 trillion. We just added that much new debt in only 5 years.
  In 2001, the share of Federal debt per person in this country was a 
little over $20,000. That includes everyone--not just those in the 
workforce. According to the Office of Management and Budget and the 
Census Bureau, total Federal debt per American will rise to $29,000 per 
American by the end of 2006. That is an increase of $9,000 per man, 
woman, and child in this country since 2001. But a lot of people are 
quick to dismiss that figure. They will say that it doesn't matter, 
that we only need to worry about how debt and deficits compare to 
economic growth or to the size of the economy. I think a better rule of 
thumb is how Government growth compares to the growth of wages and 
earnings.
  If regular Americans are tightening their belts, the Federal 
Government should do the same instead of engaging in yet another 
spending binge. Since 2001, total Federal debt per American has 
increased by $9,000. But over that same time period, the average wages 
of American workers have only increased by $4,200. Over the past 5 
years, the growth of Federal debt per person has doubled the growth of 
average wages of American workers. What makes this situation even worse 
is that that $9,000 increase in debt per person is just going to get 
bigger and bigger because we are not doing anything to cut spending or 
prepare for the impending fiscal crisis that will result from the 
retirement of the baby boomer generation. Interest on that debt is just 
going to get larger.
  Last year, interest costs--the costs of Federal debt that the 
Government must pay to those who buy U.S. Treasury bonds--were about 8 
percent of the total Federal budget. In contrast, the average American 
spends roughly 5 percent of his or her income on credit card debt and 
car loans according to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Government 
spent close to $200 billion on interest costs alone last year. 
According to the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, interest 
costs will consume 25 percent of the entire Federal budget by 2035. 
Let's put that figure into perspective. Twenty-five percent of the 
Federal budget is a huge amount.
  By way of comparison, the Department of Education's share of Federal 
spending in 2005 was approximately 3 percent of all Federal spending. 
The Department of Health and Human Services was responsible for 
approximately 23 percent of all Federal spending. Spending by the 
Social Security Administration was responsible for about 20 percent of 
all Federal spending. Spending on Medicare was about 12 percent of all 
Federal spending. Spending in 2005 by the Department of Defense--in the 
midst of two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a global war against 
terrorism--comprised about 19 percent of all Federal spending. Thus, if 
we do not change our current spending habits, GAO estimates that as a 
percentage of Federal spending, interest costs in 2035 will be larger 
than defense costs today, Social Security costs today, Medicare costs 
today, and education costs today.
  No family in America would ever be able to manage its finances this 
way. No family would be able to build up insane amounts of debt, 
unilaterally increase all of its credit card limits with no ability to 
ever pay them off, and still be able to spend, spend, spend without any 
accountability. We have some very serious problems to address regarding 
spending priorities in this country.

[[Page 3843]]

  According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress 
appropriated $64 billion in earmarks for 2006, the current fiscal year. 
That doesn't even include the earmarks from the highway bill that was 
passed in 2005. We are going to spend $64 billion on earmarks and pork 
projects across the country this year even though it is estimated that 
the real Federal deficit--including the money that is regularly stolen 
from Social Security--will again surpass half a trillion dollars.
  Earmarks are a serious problem because they put parochial interests 
ahead of national priorities. They put the interests of the next 
election ahead of the interests of the next generation. Some, however, 
argue that earmarks are not really a problem because they comprise a 
small percent of the budget. They argue that entitlement spending is 
the problem and that we ought to address that problem instead of 
focusing on earmarks. These arguments completely miss the point.
  If entitlements are the real problem and earmarks are not a problem, 
then why did entitlement savings passed in the last budget resolution 
for fiscal year 2006 only amount to $5 billion? If entitlements are the 
real problem, why did we spend 13 times more money on earmarks last 
year than we saved in entitlement programs? At that rate, we will solve 
our country's fiscal problems some time after never. The budget 
resolution we passed last year created entitlement savings of about $40 
billion over the next 5 years. We spent more on earmarks in 1 single 
year than we saved from entitlement programs over 5 years. Over the 
past 3 years--since 2004--we have spent nearly $160 billion on earmarks 
and special interest pork projects according to the Congressional 
Research Service.
  Since 1994, the number of individual earmarks has more than tripled, 
increasing from 4,126 in 1994 to 12,852 in fiscal year 2006. Of those 
12,852 earmarks, over 95 percent were not even included in bill 
language. Instead, they were hidden within conference reports. Many 
never even saw the light of day until they were snuck into unamend-
able conference reports that were sure to be rammed through at the last 
minute. Earmarking is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed 
before we can get our fiscal house in order. However, there are also 
other spending issues that this body should address.
  The issue of improper payments by the Federal Government is one that 
can and should be fixed. The subcommittee that I chair--the 
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management--has examined this issue 
in depth. We have uncovered numerous examples of improper payments that 
waste taxpayer money and harm those who aren't receiving the assistance 
they need. An improper payment is basically a payment that was either 
made to the right person in the wrong amount or a payment that was 
given to the wrong person, regardless of the amount. Improper payments 
include payments that were too high and payments that were too low.
  According to estimates by the Office of Management and Budget, 
improper payments last year totaled $37 billion. That figure is larger 
than last year's expenditures by the Departments of Commerce, Interior, 
State, and Environmental Protection Agency combined. The amount of 
improper payments just from last year could have completely funded four 
major Federal agencies. Improper payments are a very serious problem. 
For example, 28 percent of all payments within the earned income tax 
credit program are incorrectly made. Thus, for every dollar we spend in 
that program, 25 cents are completely wasted. Improper payments within 
the Social Security Administration totaled nearly $6 billion. And these 
figures don't even take into account the seven major programs with 
outlays totaling about $228 billion that are not yet even reporting 
their improper payments.
  There are some who wish to make the issue of spending a partisan 
issue, but it is not a partisan issue. Members of both parties are 
guilty of putting short-term interests ahead of long-term priorities. 
Last week, Members of both parties voted to ignore Senate budget rules 
in order to spend an additional $1 billion that is not paid for on 
home-heating costs even though the month of January was the warmest on 
record and winter will be over in less than a week. Both parties appear 
to lack the political courage to make the hard choices to address our 
impending fiscal crisis. This issue has nothing to do with Republicans 
and nothing to do with Democrats--it has to do with what is best for 
the American public.
  Mr. President, the spending process in this body is broken. Our 
priorities are completely out of whack. Earmarking and wasteful 
spending are out of control. It makes no sense to effectively max out 
our credit cards and ask for a higher credit limit when we have no 
intention and no ability to ever actually pay for our debts.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the outcome of today's vote on raising the 
debt ceiling to nearly $9 trillion is not in question, but our future 
economic security will be if we do not change from our current 
disastrous course. We will raise the debt limit today so that the 
United States does not default on its obligations, but we cannot for a 
second think that we have solved the problem or even moved in the right 
direction.
  This will be the fourth time in 5 years that we have had to raise the 
amount the Government is allowed to borrow. This is a direct result of 
the fiscal irresponsibility of this administration. These policies have 
taken the Nation from 2 years of record surpluses just 6 years ago--
when we were paying down our debt--to record deficits and debt. We are 
passing on a crippling burden to our children and grandchildren and 
threatening our economic security.
  Since 2002, we have increased the debt limit by an astounding $3 
trillion. And unless we make a significant change in our fiscal 
policies, there are additional increases in our future. The 
Congressional Budget Office forecasts that our gross Federal debt, 
which includes debt the Government owes to the public plus funds owed 
to Federal trust funds, including Social Security and Medicare, will 
climb from its current level of $8.3 trillion to $12.8 trillion by 
2016. Even this extraordinary estimate does not include either the 
coming costs of military operations in Iraq or the substantial cost of 
fixing the alternative minimum tax, which if left unchanged will impose 
unintended tax increases on middle-income taxpayers, which most agree 
need to be changed.
  The burden this massive debt puts on our children is staggering. 
Today, each American citizen's share of the debt is over $27,000, and 
it will rise to over $39,000 by 2016. Paying off this debt will require 
either extraordinary tax increases or significant cuts in critical 
areas such as defense or Social Security. Tragically, it will mean that 
an increasing number of taxpayer dollars will be spent not on moving 
America forward but simply on treading water by making interest 
payments to our creditors. Even under the CBO's conservative estimates, 
interest payments on the gross debt will rise from $352 billion in 2005 
to $662 billion in 2016. That means over the next 10 years, we will 
spend an estimated $5.6 trillion on interest payments alone. Making 
these interest payments means fewer resources are available for our 
national priorities such as shoring up the Social Security and Medicare 
trust funds as the babyboom generation begins to retire.
  Equally disturbing is what this rampant borrowing will mean for our 
economic security. As we go deeper into debt to foreign countries we 
are losing control of our own destiny. Over 90 percent of our newly 
issued debt is being purchased by foreigners. By the end of 2004, U.S. 
Treasury debt held by foreigners was close to $2.2 trillion, more than 
double the amount that was held at the beginning of this 
administration. This large amount of foreign debt leaves us vulnerable 
to the priorities of foreign creditors. If foreign investors, including 
countries, were to decide, for economic or political reasons, to stop 
financing our debt, the U.S. economy would be in for a severe shock.
  Even without a catastrophic event, our unbridled foreign borrowing 
erodes

[[Page 3844]]

our power by providing other countries with leverage during trade or 
other negotiations. We cannot delude ourselves into thinking we can 
maintain our position in the world if we can't even balance our 
checkbook.
  We need to turn away from this administration's irresponsible fiscal 
policies. One of the best steps we could take would be to reinstate 
pay-as-you-go budget enforcement rules that require tax cuts and not 
just spending to be paid for. This approach worked during the 1990s to 
help bring about the first surpluses in a generation, and it can work 
again.
  We should also revisit this administration's irresponsible and unfair 
tax cuts that have driven us so deeply into this deficit ditch. It is 
unconscionable that middle-class Americans will be paying for years for 
tax cuts that went primarily to the wealthiest among us. In fact, the 
top 5 percent of households in our country, whose average income is 
more than $250,000 a year, received almost half of the President's tax 
cuts.
  Today's action to raise the debt limit will hopefully be a reality 
check on what Republican fiscal policies have wrought. We need to 
change course. We need to return to fiscal responsibility. And we need 
to start climbing out of this deficit ditch before we are buried in it.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent this morning when 
we considered Senator Baucus's amendment to the debt limit increase. If 
I had been here, I would have supported the Baucus amendment.
  The Baucus amendment is clearly needed. The massive scale of other 
nations' accumulation of our debt has added another level of danger and 
complexity to our international economic relations.
  This is a two-way street. The tsunami of debt created by the policies 
of this administration has to go somewhere. China is one of the major 
purchasers of that debt. Japan, Great Britain, and others have major 
holdings, too. In the short term, that has soaked up a lot of our 
bonds, and helped to keep interest rates down. That is a good thing.
  However, that has kept the Chinese currency artificially low, and 
ours artificially high. So they can sell their products at a discount, 
and our exports are more expensive. That is a bad thing.
  Our trade deficit was a record $726 billion last year; $202 billion 
of that was our trade deficit with China alone.
  But as the rest of the world copes with the waves of U.S. debt, we 
are now all in the same leaky boat. There is just so much of our debt 
other nations want to hold. The more of it they accumulate, the closer 
we are to the day when they will not want any more.
  When that happens, slowly or rapidly, our interest rates will go up, 
the value of their U.S. bonds will drop, and we will all have big 
problems. We need both more awareness, and more understanding, of this 
fundamental threat to our economic well being and the global economy.
  But the roots of that threat lie in the disastrous policies of this 
administration.
  Because this massive accumulation of debt was predicted, because it 
was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result 
of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and 
for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against the 
debt limit increase.
  In the 5 years he has been in office, President Bush has added more 
to our foreign debt that the 42 Presidents before him. It took 224 
years to accumulate $1 trillion of debt to other nations. It took 
President Bush just 5 years to more than double it.
  Over $3 trillion in debt, foreign debt and debt held by Americans, 
has been piled up by this administration.
  When he set out on the course that brought us to this sorry state, 
the President was clearly and repeatedly warned that massive tax cuts 
would leave us vulnerable to natural disasters, economic slowdown, or 
threats to our national security. ``Don't worry,'' the President told 
us. ``I know what I am doing.''
  After 9/11, in the face of what he has himself called the moral 
equivalent of the World War II, or the Cold War, he insisted that while 
everything else had changed, he would not change his economic policies.
  Facts had changed. His promise to balance the budget, his promise to 
pay down the debt, were proved to be false.
  But he refused to take responsibility for his policies. He refused to 
admit that a changed world demanded a change of course. His refusal has 
pushed us deeper and deeper into the hole.
  His refusal added $450 billion to the debt in 2002; it added $984 
billion in 2003; it added $800 billion in 2004. And here we are again 
today, adding another $781 billion. With that addition, our national 
debt will be $8.6 trillion at the end of this year.
  The President's budget plans will bring that number to $11.8 trillion 
at the end of the next 5 years.
  This is a record of utter disregard for our Nation's financial 
future. It is a record of indifference to the price our children and 
grandchildren will pay to redeem our debt when it comes due.
  History will not judge this record kindly.
  My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that 
we have incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more. It is 
a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that 
brought us to this point.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Bush administration seeks for the fourth 
time in 5 years to increase the indebtedness of the United States--this 
time by $781 billion. This body's consideration of that increase allows 
us a moment to take stock of the abysmal fiscal health of our country.
  As a Washington Post editorial pointed out yesterday morning, this 
President solemnly pledged upon taking office to payoff $2 trillion in 
debt held by the public over the next decade. It is patently obvious 
that President Bush has not just failed but failed spectacularly to 
deliver on his pledge. He has managed to amass more debt than any 
President in history, with no end in sight.
  By the end of this year, our gross Federal debt is expected to 
surpass $8.6 trillion, or nearly $28,000 for every man, woman, and 
child in America. This amount represents an increase of approximately 
$3 trillion since President Bush took office.
  This dramatic runup in the debt has real costs for America's 
families--both today and for future generations. It puts upward 
pressure on interest rates for things like student loans, home 
mortgages, and automobile loans. It raises the cost of capital for 
business investment. Each of these, in everything but name, represents 
a tax increase on American families and businesses.
  More directly, instead of investing in America's most important 
priorities--like education, health care, and homeland security--the 
taxpayers of today and tomorrow must spend more money paying off 
yesterday's debts. In the late 1990s, interest on the debt represented 
a declining share of our total budget. Today, that share has begun to 
rise once again, a trend that would continue under the budget put 
forward by the administration and the leadership in this body. For 2007 
alone, taxpayers will spend $247 billion dollars on interest on the 
debt instead of American troops and veterans or American families and 
children.
  Our leaders have to be candid with the American public about the 
sources of this unprecedented level of indebtedness.
  The administration is not incurring these debts in order to invest in 
education. They are not supporting States and local communities 
struggling to meet their school funding needs out of property taxes.
  The administration is not incurring these debts to improve our 
infrastructure. States, municipalities, and local communities are 
struggling desperately just to maintain the infrastructure they have--
roads, bridges, ports. They are struggling to maintain a 20th century 
infrastructure, let alone build a 21st century one.
  Certainly, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have had a cost. So have 
the

[[Page 3845]]

terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and natural disasters. Though 
the President has been quick to blame factors like these, the truth is 
the tax policies of his administration have played a far greater role 
in creating the budget deficits accumulated on his watch.
  Under those policies, this administration has spent close to $125 
billion on tax benefits for the few most fortunate households in 
America--those 0.2 percent of individuals making more than $1 million 
per year--while doing little, if anything, for families in the middle 
and those working hard to get themselves in the middle.
  In a time of war and fiscal and economic strain, this administration 
has delivered a tax windfall to the most fortunate. Never before has a 
President made this choice during a time of war.
  Regrettably, this kind of shortsighted leadership has been rubber-
stamped repeatedly by the leaders of this Congress on the other side of 
the aisle.
  I would have hoped, at a minimum, that we as a body could adopt 
measures to restore some semblance of fiscal sanity, such as pay-as-
you-go budget procedures or a smaller debt limit increase. 
Unfortunately, neither of these common sense reforms was adopted. 
Indeed, the majority even rejected an amendment by the Senator from 
Montana to merely study the impact that foreign-held U.S. debt is 
having on our Nation's long-term well-being.
  We cannot erase what has happened in the past, but we can demonstrate 
to the people of our country going forward that the Senate is willing 
to take commonsense steps to put our Nation back on firmer budgetary 
footing. That, regrettably, has not happened in the Senate today. 
However, many of us will continue the effort to place our nation's 
fiscal house on firmer ground.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the third reading of the 
joint resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the 
third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the joint resolution 
pass?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, is there time to speak on the debt limit?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 47) was passed.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________