Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to echo the condemnations of the military rulers of Burma that my colleagues have so forcefully offered. Burma should by all rights be a prosperous country. It has over 50 million people, abundant natural resources, and a population hungry for democracy. Instead, it is an international outcast, ruled by a few military men who finance their country through drug trafficking and forced labor. Perhaps most egregious is the failure of the military rulers to recognize the results of a free and fair election in which the Burmese people overwhelmingly chose Aung San Suu Kyi as their leader. Rather than sitting at the head of a democratic Burmese Government, she is sitting in a Burmese jail, a prisoner of the military rulers. The existence of a democratically elected government-in-waiting makes Burma unique, but that is not all that makes Burma unique. Suu Kyi has consistently supported sanctions against the military rulers of Burma, and 3 years ago, the International Labor Organization, for the first time in its 82-year history, urged the world to impose sanctions against those rulers. The bill we consider today will send a strong message to the illegitimate military regime in Burma that their recent actions in attacking Suu Kyi and her followers and imprisoning Suu Kyi are intolerable. A unanimous passage would send that signal loud and clear. These sanctions would be most effective if the whole world joined us. Unilateral sanctions can send a strong message, but they are rarely effective. In fact, they can even end up unintentionally adding further misery to an already oppressed people while leaving their rulers unscathed. Multilateral sanctions, on the other hand, can have a dramatic effect. I know that others are considering sanctions, including the European Union. I applaud their attention to this issue and urge them to act as we have acted. I also urge the administration to work with our allies, particularly those in the region, to create a united front of sanctions against the military rulers of Burma. We must work toward multilateral support. Importantly, this bill ensures that Burma will never fade from congressional minds. We will not simply impose sanctions now and then forget all about Burma. Every year, we will vote on renewing sanctions. Every year, we will be talking about Burma and how best we can work to aid those working for democratic change in that country. The military rulers of Burma should know that their crimes against Suu Kyi, her followers, and the Burmese people will be neither forgiven nor forgotten. I appreciate the leadership of Senators McConnell and Feinstein on this issue. They deserve our thanks for consistently bringing the important issue of human suffering in Burma to the attention of this body. I would also like to thank Senator Grassley. He and I worked hard to make changes to this bill that, in my view, make it better. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill unanimously today, and I urge the House of Representatives and the President to act soon to pass this bill into law. Let's send the strongest signal possible to the illegitimate regime in Burma.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is obviously a very important matter, and we should address this in a very careful and appropriate way. I might say to Senators, this matter has not been referred to the Senate Finance Committee. The committee has jurisdiction on it. Rather, it is coming straight to the floor with a request that there be no amendments, which I think is a little bit bizarre. I might also point out that in other sanctions areas, for example, China, we had a long, deep, involved debate a few years ago and agreed to how we should address sanctions, particularly trade sanctions against China. I might also inform Senators, I have been in consultation with the chairman of the Finance Committee who agrees with me that it would be inappropriate to proceed at this time, certainly in the manner suggested by the Senator from Kentucky. I might ask the Senator if he will agree to modify his request in a way I think is much more appropriate, particularly even stronger than the resolution suggested by the Senator. And that would be for similar, as was the case with China MFN, annual extensions or annual sanctions, but that the President would suggest that the sanctions be continued and that would be the case unless there is a motion of disapproval passed by both Houses of Congress. I believe the executive branch should be part of this. This is not just a legislative branch issue. When it comes to sanctions, clearly the executive branch should play a very important role. I might ask the Senator if he would agree to modify his request in the nature of an annual request. If the President wants to continue, he certainly could make an annual request, and that would be subject to disapproval by both Houses of Congress. Is the Senator agreeable to make that change?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to support the bill offered by my good friend, the senior Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, and my good friend from Maine, Senator Snowe. Their legislation ensures that our military and low- and middle-income parents will receive a check from the child tax credit. The legislation repairs the damage done by the majority in the tax bill conference. Senator Lincoln was successful in getting this provision included in the $350 billion tax bill that passed the Finance Committee and the Senate. But the provision was specifically stripped out before passage of the final version of the $350 billion tax bill. Let me give you some examples of who does not benefit from the tax bill that was signed into law by President Bush last week. First, a 24-year-old single mom with one child. She works hard every day to put food on the table, buy clothes for her daughter, and ensure adequate childcare for her daughter while she is at work. She makes $15,000 a year. She pays $1,150 per year in payroll taxes. She pays $1,150 in Federal taxes yet gets zero benefit from the recently enacted tax bill. She will not see any check this summer. Taxes are taxes. I would like to see someone tell her that her payroll taxes are less of a burden to her than an equal amount of income taxes paid by Bill gates. Senators Lincoln and Snowe fixed that problem. The fix means $225 in her pocket this summer. She sees a big chunk of her paycheck every week getting paid to the Government. She also pays a lot of other taxes--including sales taxes, excise taxes, and property taxes. She deserves equal treatment. My second example illustrates the impact for military families. The Department of Defense has estimated that there are approximately 192,000 military families who earn between $10,000 and $25,000. And most of those 192,000 military families will not receive any tax relief from the $350 billion tax bill. To make matters worse, the families of military personnel who are stationed in combat zones are really left out of the big tax cut. In my second example, a Marine gunnery sergeant with 8 years service is stationed in Afghanistan for the last 6 months of 2002, and in Iraq from January through March of 2003. She has two children. She receives an annual salary of $32,015 and hazardous duty pay of $150 per month. Because the income earned by our military while they are stationed in a combat zone is not included in taxable income, only $24,000 of her income is subject to tax. Under the bill that was passed last week, the check she gets this summer will only be $150. I am pleased that at least she will see something. But if the Lincoln child tax credit had been preserved in the $350 billion tax bill, this Marine gunnery sergeant and her family would receive a check for $800 this summer just like the President has promised to other middle-income families. Unless we fix the problem, she will not see a dime of this. The Lincoln/Snowe legislation ensures that we count a soldier's combat zone compensation for purposes of the child tax credit, even though that income is excluded for purposes of the income tax. These examples illustrate just how unfair the tax bill was. The big tax bill was not fair to working Americans or our military personnel. Clearly, the benefits were skewed heavily to the elites of this country. One of the beauties of America is that we work to treat people equally. But the $350 billion tax bill did not come close to treating all Americans equally. Simply put, it was not fair. Instead, the choice was made to lower the tax for dividend and capital gain income, rather than extend the child tax credit to hard- working, low-income taxpayers. The bill that returned from conference--the one that was signed into law--also stripped out other provisions to provide tax relief to those serving our country in the armed services--those serving in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and all across the globe. It is disturbing that we can pass this tax bill with all these benefits for the elite of our country. But the conferees specifically stripped out a provision that would exempt $6,000 of death benefit payments from income for our military families. And, they specifically stripped out the child tax credit provision that put money into the hands of our military and lower and middle- income families. There is no way around it. The big tax bill was simply unfair. Senators Lincoln and Snowe are giving us the chance to right one of the wrongs--without increasing the deficit. Enactment of their legislation ensures that 12 million children are helped. Without their legislation, the families of 8 million children will see absolutely no benefit from the increased child credit that was signed into law last week. These families will not receive any check this summer. And, millions more families will see a check much smaller than the $400 promised. In Montana, 54,000 kids--fully one-quarter of the children in Montana--will not benefit from the $350 billion tax bill. But the Lincoln/Snowe legislation would get a check out--this summer--to the working parents of thousands of Montana children. Their legislation gets the child tax credit to millions of parents-- without saddling their children with huge Government deficits--and without robbing the Social Security trust fund. They fix a $3.5 billion problem, and pay for it. Unfortunately, some in the Republican leadership considered using this as an opportunity to spend another $130 billion in tax cuts. That was their idea of a ``fix.'' Moreover, they did not intend to pay for these extra tax cuts. Instead they wanted our children and grandchildren and our Nation's seniors to shoulder more of the burden. In the past couple of days, we have been able to reach an agreement to correct the wrong created with the passage of the recent tax bill. I strongly support the Lincoln/Snowe child tax credit legislation. I urge my colleagues to stand united to get this legislation enacted into law this week. These families should not be asked to wait any longer. They deserve to get their check this summer--just like all of the parents who were taken care of under the $350 billion tax bill. This is the right thing to do. This is the fair thing to do. This is the moral thing to do. Again, I thank the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln. She has done a terrific job highlighting this issue and the need for this child tax credit provision. Second, Senator Snowe, as I have mentioned several times, has been tremendous in championing this cause. And I might say, with regard to the 2001 tax bill, she deserves the lion's share of the credit for the child tax credit provisions that are in that bill. The chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, has been, as usual, just his terrific self in working with the various Senators to try to find an accommodation that makes sense. I also thank Senator Warner who focused on the impact of this bill on military families. In that respect, the bill will permit thousands of military families, especially those serving in combat zones, to benefit from the child credit. Without this provision in this pending measure, those military families would not get the benefit of the credit. Finally--I know time is of the essence here--it is imperative that the House act on this matter within 2 weeks so that the checks can get to the millions of families covered by this bill. Otherwise, two sets of checks would have to be sent out, and I think that would be the height of inefficiency and a waste on the part of Uncle Sam. That would be the consequence of the failure of the other body to act within 2 weeks. So I call on the House to act. I see the Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I yield the rest of any time I have to him.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. BAUCUS. I beg your pardon.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, is it correct that the order provides for 30 minutes equally divided?

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas. I might add, she is the prime mover of this bill. She is the one who made that happen. We are deeply indebted to her.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Santorum, and my other Senate colleagues in introducing legislation to permanently extend and improve upon the Work Opportunity and the Welfare-to-Work tax credits. During this year's debate on the Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act, I voted to extend these tax credits were not included in the final conference agreement, but I continue to strongly support the passage of legislation this year to make these credits permanent and make several reforms in the programs to improve their effectiveness. Over the past seven years, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, WOTC, and the Welfare-to-Work, W-t-W, tax credit have helped over 2.2 million public assistance dependent individuals enter the workforce. Both of these important programs are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2003. These hiring tax incentives have clearly demonstrated their effectiveness in helping to level the job selection playing field for low-skilled individuals by providing employers with additional resources to help recruit, select, train and retain individuals with significant barriers to work. Many vulnerable individuals still need a boost in finding employment, and this is particularly critical during periods of high unemployment. The weak economy and rising unemployment give employers many more hiring options because of the larger pool of experienced laid-off workers. Without an extension of these programs, the task of transitioning from welfare-to-work will become even harder for individuals reaching their welfare eligibility ceiling this year. Because of the costs involved in setting up and administering a WOTC/ W-t-W program, employers have established massive outreach programs to maximize the number of eligible persons in their hiring pool. The States, in turn, have steadily improved the programs through improved administration. WOTC has become an example of a true public-private partnership design to assist the most needy. Without the additional resources provided by these hiring tax incentives, few employers would actively seek out this hard-to-employ population. WOTC provides employers with a graduated tax credit equal to 25- percent of the first $6,000 in wages for eligible individuals working between 120 hours and 399 hours and a 40-percent tax credit on the first $6,000 in wages for those working over 400 hours. The W-t-W tax credit is geared toward long term welfare recipients and provides a 35- percent tax credit on the first $10,000 in wages during the first year of employment and a 50-percent credit on the first $10,000 for those who stay on the job a second year. In my own State of Montana many businesses take advantage of this program, including large multinational firms and smaller family-owned businesses. Those who truly benefit from the WOTC/W-t-W program, however, are low-income families, under the Food Stamp Program and the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, AFDC, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, program, and also low income U.S. Veterans. In Montana, more than 1,000 people were certified as eligible under the WOTC program during the past 18 months, October 2001 through March 2003, including 476 Food Stamp recipients, 475 AFDC/TANF recipients, and 52 U.S. veterans. The bill we are introducing provides for a permanent program extension of the two credits. After seven years of experience with WOTC and W-t-W, we know that employers do respond to these important hiring tax incentives. Permanent extension would provide these programs with greater stability, thereby encouraging more employers to participate, make investments in expanding outreach to identify potential workers from the targeted groups, and avoid the wasteful disruption of termination and renewal. A permanent extension would also encourage the state job services to invest the resources needed to make the certification process more efficient and employer-friendly. The bill also includes a proposal to simplify the programs by combining them into one credit and making the rules for computing the combined credits simpler. This would be accomplished by creating a new welfare-to-work target group under WOTC. The minimum employment periods and credit rates for the first year of employment under present work opportunity tax credit would apply to W-t-W employees. THe maximum amount of eligible wages would continue to be $10,000 for W-t-W employees. In addition, the second year 50-percent credit under W-t-W would continue to be available for W-t-W employees under the modified WOTC. Finally, there are other changes in the bill that would extend these benefits to more people and help them find work. Because of the program's eligibility criteria, over 80 percent of those hired are women leaving welfare. Since men generally are not eligible for TANF benefits, the fathers of children on welfare receive little help in finding work, even though they often face even greater barriers to work than women on welfare. We propose to help absentee fathers find work and provide the resources to assume their family responsibilities by opening up WOTC eligibility to anyone 39 years old or younger in families receiving food stamps or residing in enterprise zones or empowerment communities. Raising the eligibility limits in these two categories will extend eligibility to hundreds of thousands of at-risk men. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to thank Mr. Andrew Harig for his hard work on the Senate Finance Committee. Andy was on the staff of the Finance Committee throughout most of the 107th Congress. He was an integral part of the international trade policy team which, among other things, worked hard to win passage of the implementing legislation for the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement and the Trade Act of 2002. In my estimation, last Congress was the most productive in at least a decade on important international trade legislation. Last year, we finally built a new bipartisan consensus that ended a deadlock that had frozen progress on most new trade agreements for nearly a decade, finally made some real progress on integrating labor and environmental issues into trade negotiations, and revamped the U.S. programs for workers who lose their jobs because of trade. In the press, the credit for these achievements was given to Senator Grassley, Representative Thomas, myself, and other Members of Congress. But as is always the case, the achievements on trade could not have been made were it not for the contributions of people like Andy who toil behind the scenes. Without their efforts there would be no legislation passed. In Andy's case, he cheerfully undertook one of the most thankless tasks on the Finance Committee's list of responsibilities--passage of the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill. This legislation is made up of literally dozens of smaller bills that suspend collection of tariffs on products not made in the United States and address other Customs issues. Passage of this legislation requires a seemingly endless effort to analyze the hundreds of bills submitted and eliminate those that are controversial or have too great a budgetary impact. It requires coordinating with a half dozen administrative agencies, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the other House of Congress, and, of course, 100 Senate offices. As I said, it is a largely thankless task, but one that is critical to hundreds of American companies and thousands of American workers. Andy Harig was the lead staff person on this legislation for the majority and--together with his counterpart on the other side of the aisle, Carrie Clarke--he did the lion's share of this work. Unfortunately, the Senate was not able to pass this important legislation last year, but Senator Grassley and I continue to work on the bill, and I hope we can eventually win passage of it--either as a free standing bill or as part of other legislation. But whether we succeed or not, the Senate, the business community and I all owe Andrew Harig thanks for his efforts on the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill and other international trade legislation. Andy has decided to leave the Senate to pursue an opportunity in the private sector. I wish him all the best. Of course, the Senate will continue to work after Andy leaves, but I think it will be a bit poorer for the loss of another hard-working staff person. Goodbye, Andy, and good luck.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as this debate on the budget reconciliation bill comes to a close, I congratulate the chairman of the Finance Committee, Chuck Grassley. He has done a very good job with a very difficult task. For him, the race has not been easy. Even though some may not have thought it possible, he has come to the finish line today. In some ways, the conference report has responded to the debate in the Senate. For example, the conference report did move roughly three- fifths of the benefits of the package into the first 2 years. That is clearly more stimulative than the structure of the bill that went to conference. I also wish to commend Senator Grassley, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Snowe for doing what they could to restrain the total size of the bill. Senator Voinovich kept his promise and forced the conferees to keep the conference report, on its face, within the $350 billion Senate agreement. Unfortunately, this tax bill busts through the $350 billion with a series of gimmicks to hide the true cost of the bill. In this time of increasing deficits, we must live within limits. This conference report fails to do so. Instead, it uses a series of sunsets to shoehorn large tax cuts into a small budget window. In the words of a conservative tax cut advocate, Stephen Moore, ``It's bigger than it looks.'' The conferees have designed a tax cut that is one big yo-yo. Now you see it, now you don't. Child credit is increased for 2003 and 2004. Then it is taken away. Part of the marriage penalty is eliminated for 2003 and 2004, and then the penalty comes back. The 10-percent tax bracket is expanded for 2003. Then it reverts back. Even the dividend tax cut disappears after 2008. If accounting gimmicks and financial statement manipulations were intolerable for corporate America, then why not for the Congress? Further, this conference report is not fair to working Americans or to our military personnel. The benefits of this bill are skewed heavily to the elite. One of the beauties of America is that we work to treat people equally, but this bill does not treat all Americans alike. We are not being brought together as Americans. The bill lowers the rate for dividends, it lowers the tax on capital gains, and it increases the tax on 1.6 million more Americans by forcing them into the alternative minimum tax in 2005. The bill says it is a priority to ensure that only the people who pay full freight are those hard-working Americans who earn their income in wages. The bill that returned from conference also stripped out provisions to provide tax relief for those serving our country in the armed services--those serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and across the globe. This conference report does less than it could to rebuild the American economy. It misdirects its tax breaks to those more likely to save them and less likely to spend them immediately. The bill increases the budget deficit and lays the bill at the door of our children and our grandchildren, it fails to follow in the American tradition of fairness, and the bill is simply not structured to be effective in rebuilding the American economy. This week, Alan Greenspan expressed his dismay at the lack of budget discipline in Washington, especially with the failure to take seriously the significant budget problems looming because of the aging and baby boom generations. In his words, ``The silence is deafening.'' I will not be part of that silence. I urge Senators to consider what they are doing today. I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report. I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. President.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, before we turn to the debt limit bill, I just have a couple of remarks to make. Putting this tax bill together that was just passed has been a difficult task and made more difficult by the politics involved. Nonetheless, the Finance Committee staff--both Democrats and Republicans--worked very well together, I think in a bipartisan fashion, to help get us where we are. I thank the Finance Committee staff for their counsel and for their hard work. They spent many long hours on this legislation. I appreciate the cooperation we received from the Republican staff, particularly Kolan Davis, Ted Totman, Mark Prater, Christy Mistr, Ed McClellan, Elizabeth Paris, Diann Howland, and Dean Zerbe. I also thank my staff for their hard work and dedication, including Jeff Forbes, Russ Sullivan, Bill Dauster, Matt Jones, Liz Liebschutz, Patrick Heck, Anita Horn Rizek, Jonathan Selib, Lara Birkes, Liz Fowler, Alan Cohen, Tom Klouda, and Kate Kirchgraber. I also thank our dedicated fellows: Alisa Blum, Mark Kirbabas, Rhonda Sinkfield, and Renee Johnson. Finally, I thank our intern, Mike Wiedrick, who joined the Finance Committee the week of the markup of this bill and did not miss a step. Particularly, I thank the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation for their invaluable service. They worked very hard under very difficult circumstances. I know I speak for all Members in commending them.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 30 seconds more to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I commend the chairman for raising this issue at conference. It is a very serious issue; that is, whether corporations that invert should enjoy the privileges of some of the provisions of the bill about to be passed and soon signed by the President. I say to my good friend that I want to work with the chairman in defining what the proper way is to deal with dividends paid by corporations who invert. I hope to find a good solid solution. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAUCUS

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 than 11 cents on every on-budget tax dollar has to go directly to pay net interest before the Government can spend on any current needs. That is a debt tax that every taxpayer has to pay. It is a debt tax that robs this generation and future generations of the ability to make their own fiscal choices. The time has come for us to reassess our budget. This is a time to look to see where we are and how we got here. Not long ago our country was paying down the debt. When the Government ran budget surpluses in the late 1990s and the beginning of this decade, it reduced the Government's demand on the credit markets. From 1998 to 2001, the Government reduced debt held by the public by $448 billion. That is demonstrated by the chart behind me to my immediate left. It shows from 2000 to 2003, about 33.1 percent was the debt ratio to GDP; that is, we were paying down the debt. That is that steep declining solid red line with the debt being paid down. When the Government returned to budget deficits at 2002, it began, once again, to mount up debt held by the public. In 2002, the Government ran a deficit of $158 billion. The deficit this current year will be much higher. In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected surpluses of $5.6 trillion for the next decade. That was 2001. Now CBO projects that the President's budget will result in deficits of $2.1 trillion for the same period. Thus, CBO's projections of the decade to come have changed by almost $8 trillion in just 2 years. Imagine, an $8 trillion difference in just 2 years--from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $2.1 trillion deficit. These are times of great uncertainty for budget projections. The recent budget projections have continued this trend. In its May budget review, CBO made a new larger deficit projection for fiscal year 2003. According to that new review, the most recent, CBO now expects that the Government will end 2003 with a deficit of over $300 billion. That is compared with its March baseline of $246 billion. So the budget resolution projection of $12 trillion debt limit for 2013 may understate the debt we will pass along to future generations. That is certainly clear if we stay on the present course. And all these deficit figures are for the total budget deficit before netting out the surpluses contributed by Social Security. Since the Social Security reforms of 1983, Social Security has been running surpluses. I will never forget Alan Greenspan headed that commission; Senators Dole and Moynihan were on it. They came up with good suggestions for the Congress to pass, and we did. Consequently, since the recommendations, Social Security has been running surpluses. The goal of doing so was to increase national savings in anticipation of the retirement of the baby boom generation starting in the next decades. Senator Moynihan would constantly remind us of that date. If we had balanced the rest of the budget, we would have increased national savings. But the rest of the budget has not been in surplus. It is not in surplus now. So these trust fund surpluses have masked the size of Government deficits. The Government's deficits are thus much larger than they appear. As the baby boom generation begins to retire, Social Security's annual surpluses will eventually turn into deficits. Moreover, CBO projects deficits for the rest of the Government will continue as far as the eye can see. So the true larger size of the Government's budget deficits will become all too apparent in the next decade. This debt limit bill is very much related to our budget deficits and the coming budget pressure from the retirement of the baby boom generation. Think of our children and our grandchildren trying to make ends meet in their lives. When this generation piles up debt, it is imposing a tax on them. It is raising their taxes. We have a moral obligation, I believe, to act as good stewards of what we have been given, whether it is in the environment or the economy. We have an obligation to leave things for our children and grandchildren in at least as good shape as we found them. This is a great country of which we can be proud. We have weathered many storms in the past--economic and otherwise. We live in times of great uncertainty and great challenges. A good steward would not tempt the fate. A good steward would ensure that we do not add to the challenges our children will have to face. In too many spheres, there has been too much seeking after rewards for this generation, for now. Rather, we should exercise responsibility. We should ensure that we act as guardians of future generations. After all, we are not all going to be here forever. It is time to reassess. It is time to change course. First, we need to stop making the deficits and the debt worse. We need to put the brakes on the size of spending increases and tax cuts. This debate is very much related to the one just concluded on the tax bill. We need to limit the size of future tax cuts. And wherever possible, we need to pay for tax cuts, as we did with the CARE act and the military tax bill. Stop the gimmicks. Be honest about long-term costs. Second, we need to extend and strengthen our budget process constraints. The pay-as-you-go rule and the appropriations caps contributed to the fiscal responsibility of the 1990s. We need to follow the rules. Third, the debt limit itself should provide a much needed brake on fiscal irresponsibility. We should not increase the debt limit by the large amount that the House of Representatives proposes. Rather, we should force the Government to reassess its fiscal situation again later this year--not next year as the House contemplates--when we will have a clearer picture of how the economy and budget are faring. Returning to the analogy of the family credit card, the credit limit on the credit card is a check on future spending. Similarly, with the debt limit, a smaller increase now will ensure that we in Congress address the Government's fiscal policy again later this year. So this is an important debate. It may not be a glamorous issue, but it is a very important one. We have a weighty responsibility. This is an issue that the Senate should debate. Certainly, we should not hide behind the rules to avoid votes, as the House of Representatives has done. Certainly, we should not flee from the issues, and to a recess, without full consideration of this issue. We will address it best if we do not simply approve this bill without amendment. Rather, we need to debate and understand why we are here. We need to scale back this too large amount. If the Senate doesn't reduce the size of the debt increase, I will oppose it. And we should add procedures to ensure greater fiscal responsibility in the future. Only by taking these steps will we be meeting our responsibility. I urge my colleagues to join me in that effort. At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment to reduce the increase in the debt limit.

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

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

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

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

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

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.