[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 162 (Wednesday, November 28, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12075-S12096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   COMPREHENSIVE RETIREMENT SECURITY AND PENSION REFORM ACT OF 2001--
                      MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I support the motion to take up H.R. 10 
so we can consider the retirement bill as an amendment. Let me explain 
why this bill is necessary and then I will respond to some of the 
criticisms that were made yesterday.
  By way of background, the Federal railroad retirement system has 
served railroaders and their families for 65 years. Its roots reach 
back to the 1930s, in a struggle to find answers to the hardships that 
resulted from the Great Depression. Today, the system provides benefit 
payments to more than 673,000 retirees and other beneficiaries.
  The railroad retirement system actually has two components. Tier 1 is 
largely equivalent to Social Security. Tier 2 provides additional 
benefits and is equivalent to a private pension plan. Both are funded 
by taxes that are paid entirely by railroad companies and railroad 
workers.
  Let me stop here and stress a critical point. Every single change 
that we make in this bill applies only to tier 2. Again, tier 2 is 
equivalent to a private pension program. In other words, we are only 
addressing how railroad retirement operates as a private pension plan. 
We are not making any changes to the part of the program that is 
largely equivalent to Social Security.
  So where do things stand? At one point, the Railroad Retirement 
system was in deep trouble. Just like the Social Security system. In 
fact, in 1983, we had to permanently cut benefits and increase taxes, 
in order to get the system back on its financial feet.
  But there's good news. Today, the Railroad Retirement system is 
fiscally strong. There's a surplus, of $19 billion.
  On top of that, the most recent report by the Chief Actuary concludes 
that no cash-flow problems are expected to arise over next 75 years. In 
other words, the system is solvent. I'll say it again. The system is 
solvent. Over the short term, and over the long term.
  That's good news.
  Among other things, it gives us the opportunity to consider some 
basic improvements in the operation of the railroad retirement program. 
That's what this bill is all about.
  After years of careful deliberations between railroad companies and 
railroad unions, the bill is designed to make two basic reforms.
  First, the bill improves the investment returns of the Railroad 
Retirement Account. Currently, the taxes collected in the Railroad 
Retirement Account can only be invested in U.S. government securities. 
Actuarial projections assume an annual return of 6 percent on these 
investments.
  This bill would allow a portion of the assets to be invested in a 
diversified investment portfolio that includes private-sector 
securities. In other words, the portion of assets attributable to 
private industry contributions could be invested in the same way that 
the assets of private sector retirement plans can be invested.
  Over the long run, this would increase the rate of return on the 
investment of railroad retirement assets. I grant that this proposal 
may have

[[Page S12076]]

seemed like an even better idea a year or two ago, when the stock 
market was on a roll.
  But that's short-sighted. As we all know, equity investments result 
in higher returns over the long term. In this case, the shift from 
Treasury bills to a mixed portfolio is estimated to increase the long 
term rate of return from six percent to eight percent.
  That's not some pie-in-the sky projection. That's the estimate of the 
chief actuary, who is charged by law with making objective estimates of 
these matters.

  In any event, I note that this provision would apply only to the 
portion of the program that is similar to a private pension plan, and 
that is funded entirely from industry sources.
  That's the first change that we make. Over the long run, it will put 
the system in even better shape than it is today.
  The second change is a needed adjustment in benefits and taxes. We 
have room to make these changes, because the system now is taking in 
significantly more in taxes than is necessary to pay current and 
projected benefits.
  Let me describe each set of changes, in turn.
  With respect to benefits, we reform survivor benefits, the retirement 
age, and vesting. With respect to survivor benefits, each month, about 
700 new widows and widowers begin receiving Railroad Retirement 
survivor benefits. That's an average of one every hour, day and night. 
As it now stands, while a retired employee is alive, a couple receives 
a tier 2 benefit equal to 145 percent of the benefit for a single 
retiree. When the retiree dies, the spouse is left with a tier 2 
benefit of only 50 percent of the retiree's benefit. That's a reduction 
of almost two-thirds.
  Under the bill, the surviving spouse would receive a tier 2 benefit 
equal to the benefit received by a single retiree. As a result, we 
would avoid a drastic reduction in the income of the survivor.
  Next, we lower the minimum retirement age, at which employees with 30 
years of service are eligible for full tier 2 benefits, from age 62 to 
60. This would return the age at which a railroad employee can retire 
with full benefits to what it was prior to 1984.
  It also moves the railroad retirement system closer into line with 
many private sector pension plans, particularly those in hazardous or 
physically demanding occupations. Even with this change, many private 
plans will still have earlier retirement ages than the railroad 
retirement system.
  Finally, we lower the vesting requirement for employees from 10 to 5 
years. This aligns Railroad Retirement with current private industry 
pension practices.
  Those are the reforms to railroad retirement benefits. We also 
address the taxes paid by railroad companies.
  To put this in perspective, tier 1 and tier 2 benefits are funded 
primarily through payroll taxes on employers and employees. Taken 
together, the payroll tax rate is more than 36 percent. As a result, 
railroads and railroad workers pay disproportionate costs, compared to 
other industries, for retirement benefits. This, in turn, imposes a 
major financial burden and discourages employers from hiring new 
employees.
  In the bill, we reduce the taxes on railroad employers, over three 
years, to bring them a little closer to comparable private pension 
plans and bring them more in line with the actuarial needs of the 
system.
  Now, I understand that some have criticized the changes. They argue 
that the system will not be secure. Therefore, they continue, by 
improving benefits and reducing taxes, we reduce the overall surplus 
and increase the chances that the system will eventually go broke. 
There are two simple responses.
  First, again, the system is solvent, over both the short and the long 
terms. We have a $19 billion surplus right now, and the chief actuary 
projects that the system will take in more than it pays out, under both 
current law and this bill, over the next 75 years.
  But what if the projection is wrong? What if there are unforseen 
developments that increase benefit payments, reduce revenue, and drain 
away the surplus? Won't taxpayers, in effect, be left holding the bag?
  No, they won't. Under the explicit terms of the bill, employer taxes 
will be automatically adjusted in the future so that always will they 
fully cover benefits. In effect, the taxpayers are not put at risk.
  Pulling all of this together, we have a carefully balanced package 
that makes straightforward reforms. We allow the private portion of the 
fund to be invested the same way a private pension plan can be 
invested. We modernize benefits and we reduce taxes. We do this within 
the framework of a fully solvent system.
  One final point. Some colleagues may question why we are seeking to 
take up the railroad bill as an amendment to a House bill. In the first 
place, the majority leader sought consent to discharge the House bill 
from the Senate Finance Committee. There was an objection. In the 
second place, we need to move quickly. Passage of this legislation is 
long overdue.
  It has extraordinary support. Last Congress, the bill passed the 
House and was reported by the Senate Finance Committee. This Congress, 
the House bill received 384 votes. The Senate bill has 74 cosponsors.
  In light of this overwhelming bipartisan support, railroad retirees 
across the country are wondering why we don't get our act together, 
pass this bill, and get it to the President. They are right. In fact, 
every time I return home to Montana--I was there just a couple of days 
ago--I am asked: When is the Senate going to take up the railroad 
retirement bill?
  At this point, late in the session, there is only one good answer. 
Let's put all of the procedural maneuvering aside. Let's take up the 
bill. If Senators have serious amendments related to this bill, let's 
consider them. But let's vote. Let's do the people's business. They 
want us to work through these measures, take votes, and come up with 
the result, because that is what this process is all about. That is 
what people want.
  I will have some further comments in response to arguments that have 
been made against the specific provisions of the bill as this debate 
goes on. But at this point, I urge my colleagues to support cloture so 
that we can debate this important bill. Let's get going. The 10,000 
railroad employees, retirees, widows, and survivors in Montana, and 
tens of thousands more across the country, are counting on us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, you would think that in a proposal where 
you have had government bonds mandated as the basis for your retirement 
program--and, quite frankly, we have this in railroad retirement 
because railroad retirement has never been self-sustaining. It has 
received and does receive today huge Federal subsidies. You would 
think, taking $15 billion out of that trust fund and investing it in 
interest-earning assets, that the value of the trust fund would rise 
over time; wouldn't you? You have $15 billion you are going to invest. 
You are investing it right now in government bonds. They are really 
IOUs to the same people who are paying the interest. They are not even 
real assets. It is like an IOU that you put in one pocket and count it 
as an asset.
  But in any case, you would think since they are assuming an 8 percent 
rate of return after inflation, that this wonderful idea--in fact, I 
will read the quote from the chief executive of the Association of 
American Railroads.
  He says:

       What we hope to get out of it--That is this bill--is what 
     any pension plan has, a more flexible approach to investment.

  Who is against that? Who is against getting a higher rate of return?
  But remarkably, almost unbelievably, if you grant that they are going 
to go from virtually a zero rate of return under the current program to 
8 percent plus inflation, their own Railroad Retirement Board looks at 
the bill that is before us and concludes that in 17 years, after 
earning these interests payments, you have $15 billion less in the 
trust fund than you would have under the current system.
  That is pretty startling. You are going to invest at interest, and 
you are going to have $15 billion less in 17 years than you would have 
without having any earnings whatsoever.
  How is that possible? How it is possible that what we are about here 
is not investment but pilferage?

[[Page S12077]]

  Let me outline how all of this came about. At least I can theorize 
how it came about.
  Today, as a result of a bill we passed, when Social Security is going 
broke, we remarkably have $19.2 billion in the railroad retirement 
trust fund. If you calculated the present value of the liability of the 
railroad retirement trust fund, it would be huge as compared to $19.2 
billion. Madam President, $19.2 billion is a lot of money, but it is 
not a lot of money to a system which has three retirees for every one 
worker.
  We are worried about Social Security when we have 3.3 workers per 
retiree. In railroad retirement, you have one worker for every three 
retirees. This $19.2 billion is a fairly small amount of money given 
the liability of the system and when its financial security is very 
much in doubt. If that is the case--nobody disputes that it is the 
case--why are we taking $15 billion out of it over the next 17 years?
  Let me tell you what I think has happened. I would have to say in my 
24 years of debating issues such as this, this is the most remarkable 
one I have seen. I am sure there is something comparable, but it 
doesn't jump to my mind. Here is what I would say happened a couple of 
years ago.
  The railroads are having tough times, similar to many other 
industries. They looked at this $19.2 billion, and they said: This is 
somebody else's money. This is the money that is supposed to at least 
partially back up the retirement program. But wouldn't it be great if 
we could have $7.5 billion of it? We would just like to pilfer $7.5 
billion out of railroad retirement.
  I am sure they hired some brilliant lobbyist lawyer and paid him 
several million dollars. He was worth every single penny of it.
  Here is the idea they came up with which is embodied in this bill: 
The railroads went to the unions and said: We want to steal $7.5 
billion out of your retirement program. Needless to say, I am sure the 
unions must have said: Are you crazy? They said: What about this? At 
the very moment when the retirement age for every other worker in 
America to get full Social Security benefits is rising from 65 to age 
67 where you get the full benefit--a big jump this year--what we will 
do is lower the retirement age for railway workers at the same time it 
is being raised for everybody else. In fact, we will cut it from 62, 
which is already 3 full years below Social Security; we will reduce it 
to 60. We will add a handful of new benefits, and we will raise the 
maximum benefit we will give. The net result is that over the next 17 
years we will get $7.5 billion, and we will give retirees $7.5 billion. 
We will take the $15 billion out of the railroad retirement program.
  In fact, sure enough, the Railroad Retirement Board, in looking at 
this data over the next 17 years, despite ``investing'' their money, 
the trust fund will be $15 billion smaller 17 years from now than it 
would be under the current system.
  I think you have a problem. They say: OK, we get $7.5 billion, you 
get $7.5 billion, but what about our retirement program? It is just too 
good to be true.
  They said: Oh, it's not too good to be true. We will put the Federal 
taxpayer on the hook for the $15 billion. You get $7.5 billion and we 
get $7.5 billion, and the taxpayer will guarantee the money will be 
there.
  Let me go over what the railroads get. Currently, for their tier 2 
retirement--which is just part of the retirement; it is not essential 
that people understand that to understand what is happening--today, 
they are paying 16.1 percent of payroll into this retirement program.
  They say: OK, look, next year, before any money is invested, before 
any returns could possibly be had, let's drop that from 16.1 percent to 
14.75 percent. And then the next year, let's drop it from 14.75 to 14.2 
percent. Then they say: If, in the future, when this $15 billion has 
been pilfered--they did not really say that; they just do it--if there 
is a problem, then you can raise the tax on railroads. But there is a 
cap on the amount you can raise it.
  So who is taking on this liability? What makes this whole deal work? 
How this whole deal works is, basically, the unions get $7.5 billion, 
the railroads get $7.5 billion, the taxpayer assumes another $15 
billion liability, and the trust fund actually goes down by $15 
billion.
  The final point was: Gosh, but how are you going to convince Congress 
of it? This is where it really gets brilliant. They said: OK, look, 
unions will get $7.5 billion, the railroads will get $7.5 billion, but 
what we will say is we are investing the money. Then Congress will say 
it is OK because they are investing the money. People are for investing 
the money. It makes good sense.
  The bottom line is, we have before us a bill that basically says we 
have a trust fund which now has $19.2 billion in it and has a 
projection, over the next 25 years, as to where it will be in terms of 
how much in assets it will have, given the money coming in, being paid 
in by railroad workers, and the amount of benefits that are being paid.
  Under the bill before us, because we are cutting taxes on railroads, 
even though the program has real actuarial solvency problems--no 
private pension fund in America could run a program like railroad 
retirement and not go to prison, but even though it has these problems, 
the bill before us, over 17 years, will take $15 billion out of the 
trust fund and will pay it out to the railroads and to the unions and 
to their members.
  Over 25 years, it takes out $28.7 billion that would have been in the 
trust fund, that will not be, even though the trust fund, under the 
current system, is earning a very small rate of return. And they are 
assuming a 8-percent rate of return plus inflation.
  I am sure people would look at these numbers and say it is not 
possible you could increase the rate of return severalfold and yet have 
the trust fund decline by $15 billion over 17 years. Yes, because the 
higher rate of return is really a smokescreen.
  What is going on here is pilferage. What is going on here is we are 
giving the railroads $7.5 billion and we are giving railway workers 
$7.5 billion and we are putting the American taxpayer in harm's way. 
That is what this bill is about.
  The House of Representatives passed it, and they passed it by a huge 
number. Why did it happen? How did it happen? It happened because the 
unions and the railroads are for it. You have a nice, catchy theme, 
``investing in a higher rate of return.'' Nobody paid any attention to 
the details and, quite frankly, when business and labor get together, 
more often than not, society and the taxpayer are losers.

  Paradoxically, these kinds of consensus measures are generally 
harmful, not helpful. The public may hate contention, but it is checks 
and balances that basically make for good government.
  The House of Representatives passed this bill by a huge number 
because every railroad--last year, I must have had 50 lobbyists come to 
see me. I have a huge number of railroad retirees. I am blessed to have 
lots of railroads. I have one that runs right through the middle of my 
hometown with seven big-time trains a day. The lobbyists came to see me 
and said: Boy, you can help the railroads. You can help the railroad 
retirees. Everybody is better off.
  In fact, I am sure that somebody would say: We can't refute the 
numbers. That $15 billion is coming out of the trust fund, but it is a 
victimless crime. Railroads are better off; unions are better off; they 
received $15 billion. But who is worse off? The taxpayer is worse off. 
That is who is worse off.
  But in any case, all of these lobbyists, all this letter writing and 
e-mail converged on the House, and they passed this bill. It has now 
come to the Senate. It seems to me that we could stand to be reminded 
of what the Senate is supposed to do.
  Some of you will remember the story that Jefferson had been in France 
when the Constitution was written. When he came back from France, he 
was suspicious of the Constitution. He met at Mount Vernon with George 
Washington. They were having tea. He was asking Washington what the 
Senate was for. He understood what the House of Representatives was 
for. But what was the Senate for?
  So Washington, as many southerners, had this habit, which some people 
still have now with coffee that they had with tea, of pouring the tea 
into the saucer to let it cool, and then pouring it back into the cup 
and drinking it. Washington said, in a very famous story, the House of 
Representatives

[[Page S12078]]

will respond to the passions of the moment; they will respond to 
popular clamor. But the Senate will be as the saucer, where there will 
be a cooling of reason, and the result will be a stronger, more stable, 
more responsible government.
  I understand that 74 people cosponsored this bill. I am not short on 
arithmetic. And I understand that, in the end, 51 Members in the Senate 
could pass a bill. Thank God we do have procedures where people who 
believe strongly can object and delay and cause debate. And I am going 
to do that. But I want to urge my colleagues, we can fix this bill. We 
can make this a good bill. I am totally supportive of letting railroad 
retirement invest the $15 billion.
  I would like to build a firewall where the people who are doing the 
investing have fiduciary responsibility, where they cannot promote some 
social agenda with railroad retirement money and, indirectly, with the 
Government's money.
  I would like to have some safety and soundness standards on the 
investment. Investing the money is one thing, but lowering the 
retirement age, expanding benefits, and cutting the taxes and the money 
going into the program is quite another thing.
  My proposal is, let's take this bill, let's go to the Finance 
Committee--we have never held a hearing on it; we have never had a 
markup on it--let's go to the Finance Committee, and let's agree to a 
program to invest the money, and then let's set up an actuarial system 
where we will look at the benefits of the investment, and to the extent 
that the system becomes actuarially sound, then--and after we have the 
money in hand--we could lower taxes, and then we could look at 
benefits.
  I do believe there is something innately unfair about raising the 
retirement age for 95 percent of the workers in America and cutting it 
for other people. How can that make any sense? How could any Member of 
the Senate go back to Iowa or Texas or Nevada and look their 
constituents in the face and say, we are getting ready to make you work 
2 additional years to get full Social Security benefits, but we have 
lowered the retirement age from 62 to 60 for railroad retirement? How 
can you possibly justify that?
  I have plenty of railroad towns in my State. I had a lot of them in 
my old district. I don't think I could sell this in Inez, TX, which is 
a big railroad town. I don't think I could sell, at the same period we 
are raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 on everybody else, that 
suddenly we are going to cut it from 62 to 60 for railroad retirees.
  I am perfectly willing to support--I wanted to come over today and 
pledge--a bill that sets up the investment of the $15 billion with a 
firewall to keep politics out of the investment, assess actuarially 
where we are, let the Railroad Retirement Board assess it, and when it 
is clear that we have more money than we need, if, God willing, that 
ever happened, then we could lower taxes on the railroads; then we 
could raise benefits for the retirees. But should we not get the return 
first?
  How can it make sense in this bill to lower the retirement age, 
expand benefits, and cut taxes before one penny is invested? How can 
that possibly make any sense? How can you spend money you don't have? 
How can it make any sense whatsoever to have a program that, to quote 
the representative of the American railroads who said, ``what we hope 
to get out of it is what any pension plan has, a more flexible approach 
to investment''? If that is all they want to get out of it--I assume he 
said this with a straight face--if that is all they want to get out of 
it, I am for that. In fact, I am very much in favor of investing 
pension funds. But should we let them take $15 billion out of the fund 
over and above the interest they would gain from the investment, and 
should we let them do it before they have earned a single penny?
  I don't see how in the world you could justify being for this bill in 
its current form. I make a plea: I know 74 people have signed onto this 
bill. It is not the same bill they signed onto because this bill is now 
scored as raising the deficit by $15 billion. And there has been a new 
provision added. If you cosponsored this bill, you haven't cosponsored 
the bill that is before us because it has a special provision that 
says, while the deficit of the Federal Government under this bill goes 
up by $15 billion, we are going to pretend as if it doesn't.
  It actually says to the Congressional Budget Office and to the Office 
of Management and Budget, we want you to certify something that is 
false. We want you to, in essence, look the other way, and even though 
you have scored this as costing $15 billion, we want you to certify 
that it doesn't cost $15 billion.
  I believe most of the 73 people who cosponsored them did not 
understand it. They were for investing the money. Why not help workers; 
why not help the railroads? I don't think they understood the $15 
billion of pilferage. But they didn't sign onto the bill that is before 
us because it has this provision that forces OMB and CBO by law to 
certify something that is not so.
  My point is, we could do this right, even at this late hour. We could 
take this bill to the Finance Committee. We could set up an investment 
program. We could put an actuarial program into effect as we earn these 
investment returns in the future. We could look, as the system becomes 
stronger, at cutting taxes on railroads, giving benefits to workers. 
But under the current bill, we cut taxes before any money is ever 
invested. We raise benefits before any money is ever invested.

  Despite the rate of return over 10 years, the value of the trust fund 
is $5 billion less than the current trust fund would be under the 
current system. Over 17 years, it is $15 billion less; over 25 years, 
it is $28.7 billion less. How do you earn more and have less? 
Pilferage, that is how you do it. That is our problem.
  We have two choices. One, we can look the other way and respond to 
the political pressure coming from two powerful political interests--
interests to which we are sympathetic. Who is hostile to railroad 
retirees? I am not. I can't justify having their retirement age 60 and 
Social Security 67. And theirs is already lower; it is already 62. We 
are going from 65 to 67, and they want to go down to 60. I can't 
justify that. But I am not hostile. I am not hostile to anybody who 
would want it. Who wouldn't want full benefits at 60?
  The point is, much of this program is paid for by Social Security 
money. Why should people who work for one industry be treated 
differently than people who work for other industries? I don't 
understand it. I don't know how you justify it. I don't guess people 
want to justify it.
  I am not unsympathetic to railroads. God knows, we want our railroads 
to be strong. We want to modernize our tracks. We want better 
equipment. I want railroads to make money. I want them to be 
successful. I have no hostility to them. We can't have a great and 
powerful economy without having successful railroads. But do we really 
want to pass a bill that pilfers $15 billion out of a pension fund and 
leaves the taxpayer liable for the great bulk of the $15 billion?
  We can avoid it. We can write a responsible bill. We could do it very 
quickly. The way we would do it is invest the money but don't start 
giving it away until we earn it. Don't start raising benefits and 
lowering taxes until we have gotten the return. And don't cut taxes and 
raise benefits more than the return grows. Those are just sound, simple 
principles.
  I want people to understand what is in this bill. It is true the 
railroads are for it. It is true the unions are for it. You might ask, 
well, if they can get together, if they think it is a good idea, isn't 
it a good idea? Well, when you read the fine print, why they are for it 
is they are dividing up $15 billion. Why I am against it is the 
taxpayer is becoming liable for the $15 billion.
  My colleagues on the other side will point out there is a provision 
that would allow the tax on railroads to rise when the pension fund 
gets into trouble. But it caps the amount that they can rise. We are 
cutting the amount they are paying in right now. Doesn't somebody 
suspect that when the roof falls in on this retirement program the 
railroads are going to come up here and say: If you make us pay all 
this, we are not going to be able to invest in railroads; it is going 
to hurt the economy, so let the taxpayer pay it?
  If what I am saying is not valid, I hope someone will stand up and 
say it is not valid. But if it is valid, I plead

[[Page S12079]]

with my colleagues, let's fix it. We can do what people say they want 
to do--invest the money. And we can do it responsibly. But the current 
bill before us is not good policy. It is obviously good politics, 
especially to people who signed onto an earlier version of it some 
months or years before.
  To sum up, because I know other people are here who want to speak, we 
have a bill before us that is not the same bill people have 
cosponsored. As far as I am aware, no one is a cosponsor of the bill 
that is before us because the bill that was cosponsored by 74 of my 
colleagues did not have a provision in it that directs OMB and CBO to 
turn and look the other way and not score the $15 billion that would be 
scored as an increase in the deficit, some of which is coming out of 
the Social Security trust fund. No one signed onto that as a cosponsor. 
So it is not true to say that 74 people cosponsored this bill. They 
didn't. They cosponsored something close to it, but not to mandate that 
OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Budget 
Office simply certify something they know is false.

  We can fix the bill by investing the money first, and then when 
income is earned, we can have a formula or procedure for the 
distribution of the money. This bill distributes the money before any 
investment is made.
  Finally, and most remarkably, even with the assumption that 8 percent 
is earned on the investment after inflation--and I am not disputing 
that you could not earn that today, I believe over the future that is a 
fairly conservative estimate. But even with that assumption, over 17 
years, under the bill before us, the trust fund actually goes down by 
$15 billion compared to the current program. Over 25 years, it goes 
down by $28.7 billion. How do you get less by earning more? Pilferage. 
By simply taking the money out and giving half of it to labor and 
giving half of it to the railroads. That may be popular, but it is not 
good policy. It is not right. It puts the taxpayer on the hook, and I 
urge my colleagues to give us a chance to fix it.
  Let us go to the Finance Committee, where we can debate these issues 
and report back in 2 or 3 days a bill, which I think we could do. We 
can pass it and we can be proud of it. As it is now, we are in a 
situation where we are going to have a cloture vote on Thursday. I 
assume that it will pass. This is a cloture vote to move to the bill. 
Then we are going to have a cloture vote on the bill. Then we will have 
a cloture vote on a substitute. And we are simply going to be in a 
process that may or may not produce a result in this year. It is not so 
important when we do this, but it is very important what we do and that 
we do it right. I just want people to know that I am willing to work to 
try to do it right. I hope someone will take me up on it. I am a member 
of the Finance Committee. We have the chairman and ranking member here 
in the Chamber. I would like for us to have a markup on this bill and 
discuss these issues and see if we can find a way to do this that will 
work better and that we can be proud of. I think we could, and I wanted 
to be on record saying that today.
  I appreciate our distinguished floor leader for his patience. He is 
much beloved around here for that characteristic.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. REID). The Senator from Nevada is 
recognized.


                              Nominations

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is easy to always listen to the 
statements of the Senator from Texas. I may not always agree with them, 
but I do a lot of the time. They are always articulate, well-reasoned. 
We have another year of listening to these statements, and he will go 
off and do something else. He will be missed not only by the people in 
the State of Texas but by those of us in the Senate.
  Mr. President, the Las Vegas Sun newspaper, on Sunday, November 25, 
wrote a major editorial saying, ``Tough Talk, But Bereft of the 
Facts.''
  The purpose of the editorial is to point out what a great job the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee has done in the 6 months he has 
been chairman of the committee. Senator Leahy has moved major 
legislation. In addition to that, the editorial goes on to report that 
he has been able to do many things with judges that haven't been done 
before, in spite of the fact his committee has been, in effect, under 
siege because of the September 11 events. Senator Leahy has had to work 
on the terrorism legislation and many other pieces of legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Las Vegas Sun editorial entitled 
``Tough Talk, But Bereft of the Facts'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Las Vegas Sun, Nov. 25, 2001]

                  Tough Talk, But Bereft of the Facts

       Republicans are complaining that President Bush's nominees 
     for federal judgeships haven't received a fair shake from the 
     Democratic-controlled Senate. The Republicans say that Sen. 
     Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
     isn't holding hearings promptly and isn't taking votes fast 
     enough on the nominations.
       ``It's purely partisan politics,'' Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., 
     said two weeks ago. ``They don't want conservative judges on 
     the court.'' Just over a week ago Vice President Dick Cheney 
     chimed in as well. ``The deliberate slowing of the 
     confirmation process is unworthy of the United States Senate 
     and an injustice to the men and women whose names have been 
     presented,'' Cheney said in a speech to Federalist Society, 
     an ultra-conservative legal group.
       Some serious accusations and harsh words from Republicans, 
     but they simply don't stand up to the facts. As of mid-
     November in the first year of Bush's presidency, 17 of his 
     nominees had been approved. At the same point in the first 
     year of Clinton's presidency, the Senate had confirmed only 
     eight judges. By mid-November of 1989, the first year of the 
     elder Bush's presidency, only 10 judges had been confirmed by 
     the Senate. So Leahy actually is ahead of the pace when 
     comparing the Senate's speed in handling nominees from 
     previous administrations' first year in office.
       Leahy also has had to overcome obstacles not of his making. 
     After Sen. Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party earlier 
     this year and put the Democrats in control of the Senate, the 
     Republicans tied up the reorganization process for a month, 
     which meant that no hearings could take place on Bush's 
     nominations. In addition, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks 
     delayed the process as the Judiciary Committee had to devote 
     time to holding hearings on the administration's anti-
     terrorism legislation, which obviously took priority over 
     judicial confirmation hearings. The anthrax mail scare also 
     has taken its toll on all of Congress' operations, but even 
     on Oct. 18, when all of the Senate office buildings were 
     closed due to the investigation, the Judiciary Committee met 
     in a borrowed room in the Capitol to approve four nominees. 
     That day the committee also held a hearing on five of the 
     nominees, including Reno lawyer Larry Hicks, who eventually 
     was confirmed as a U.S. district judge in Nevada by the 
     Senate earlier this month on an 83-0 vote.
       Numbers supplied by the People for the American Way 
     demonstrate that it is the Republicans, not the Democrats, 
     who have engaged in excessive partisanship. In the six years 
     that the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate, just 
     25 percent of Presidents Reagan and Bush's nominations were 
     blocked. But later, in the six years that the Republicans 
     were the majority in the Senate, 35 percent of President 
     Clinton's nominees were blocked, a substantial increase. In 
     1998 Sen. Majority Leader Trent Lott had no qualms about the 
     delays. ``Should we take our time on these federal judges? 
     Yes. Do I have any apologies? Only one: I probably moved too 
     many already.''
       Republicans have made a cold, brutal calculation to pack 
     the judiciary with conservatives. So when a Democrat controls 
     the White House, Republicans work overtime to derail the 
     nominations. But when a Republican is in the White House, the 
     GOP partisans kick and scream about perceived delays in an 
     attempt to get the Democrats to back down on their opposition 
     so that right-wing conservatives can push through as many of 
     their ideological soul mates as possible.
       President Bush is enjoying extraordinary high popularity 
     right now, but that is no reason why the Democrats should 
     roll over and let him appoint members to the federal 
     judiciary who hold extreme views and aren't qualified. The 
     Democrats should promptly, but carefully, weigh the nominees 
     who, if confirmed, receive lifetime appointments.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3090

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the past couple of days, there has 
been some talk about this railroad retirement bill and the reason 
people are not going to allow us to move forward with this is because 
it would return to the calendar this important stimulus legislation on 
which we are working. I have heard other statements that maybe the 
reason we are not going to move to it is because it should go to the 
Judiciary Committee and have hearings, or the Finance Committee.
  I personally believe these are only excuses. We are having no votes 
today. We should get to this legislation. If

[[Page S12080]]

there is a problem with it, have them offer an amendment and debate it 
on the floor as to whether the amendment is in order. We have 74 or 75 
cosponsors. It is important legislation not only to management but to 
labor, and it is not often that they agree on anything. They agree on 
this legislation. I think it is something that would improve this 
country.
  So based upon that, on behalf of Senator Daschle, I ask unanimous 
consent the stimulus bill, H.R. 3090, recur as the pending business 
immediately upon the disposition of the railroad retirement bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, when I go to the shopping 
mall, I am already hearing Christmas carols. We are closing in on 
Christmas. If we get off into extraneous matters, we are not going to 
complete our business. We need to pass a stimulus package, the 
appropriations bills, and deal with the insurance problem we have with 
terrorism. On that basis, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, very briefly, I want to share my thoughts 
on the urgency and the merit of the railroad retirement legislation. 
This is legislation that ought to be a slam dunk for this body. It is 
legislation which passed in the House by an overwhelming 384-33 vote--
legislation sponsored and supported by three-quarters of the Senate.
  We have an opportunity this afternoon to bring this bill up and to 
have adequate debate. I don't think it needs much greater debate. 
People who want to offer amendments could do so, and we could get this 
finished up after years of negotiation. This legislation has the 
support of both railroad management and labor and has broad-based, 
bipartisan support in both Chambers of Congress. There simply is no 
reason this bill cannot be expedited and taken care of today.
  I am disappointed we are having as much resistance as we have. It 
appears to me that with the 74 sponsors we have in the Senate this is 
an opportune time to find out who, in fact, is really supportive and 
whose sponsorship is, in fact, not meaningful. We will have a vote on 
breaking the gridlock and bringing this legislation to the floor.
  It is timely, meritorious, and it deals with a railroad retirement 
system that is solvent and will continue to be solvent to the end of 
the horizon for budget accounting. It is badly needed to update the 
survivor benefits. We all largely agree to that. I think it is a sad 
commentary that we can have that level of bipartisan support in both 
Chambers of Congress and still find ourselves being held up during 
these closing days by a few who, it would seem, are hopeful that this 
will somehow be discarded in the rush of closing legislation.
  I think there is a time when the will of the majority needs to 
prevail, particularly when it is an overwhelming majority and when it 
is bipartisan in nature.
  I cannot express my support for this legislation more strongly. We 
cannot wait for next year. This has been around for too long. It has 
been negotiated, painfully brought together over a course of years by 
management and labor, and it is time. Its time has come. There is no 
excuse for not passing this legislation this Congress and getting it to 
the President's desk for his signature. It will significantly enhance 
the quality of life and retirement prospects of thousands of Americans 
who are relying on us to do the responsible thing--the responsible 
thing in terms of retirement policy, the responsible thing in terms of 
budgeting. That is what this legislation does.
  Again I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting every effort to 
break the gridlock, to bring this up for full and fair consideration 
and then final passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2505

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the issue I brought 
before the body yesterday, which is what is taking place in 
Massachusetts and probably other places across the country, and that is 
human cloning.
  I am seeking to get H.R. 2505, to ban human cloning, heard. It has 
already been passed by the House of Representatives with a 100-vote 
margin. If we cannot get a ban through, I would like to put forward a 
proposal which I presented to the leadership, to Senator Daschle, for a 
6-month or even 3-month moratorium on human cloning until we have time 
for this body to consider the overall issue of human cloning.
  To date, we have not been able to have a full vote taking place on 
this issue. We know that one company has developed two human clones, 
and they lived for a week. It is a matter of time before we see 
announcements--and we could see announcements anytime--about one being 
implanted into a woman. We have no rules or regulations dealing with 
this issue--none at all. We have far more rules and regulations dealing 
with endangered species and the bald eagle's egg than a human embryo 
being developed by cloning mechanisms.
  This is being banned around the world, and yet it is happening here. 
Look at the front cover of Newsweek. I held up this magazine, U.S. News 
& World Report, yesterday: ``The First Human Clone.'' In Europe, the 
French and Germans have banned human cloning altogether. The Brits have 
taken up the issue. It is in the courts in Britain, and it is in front 
of the United Nations. Yet it is happening in the United States.
  I know my colleagues may grow weary, but I think it is an urgent time 
for humanity and we should take this up, imposing a moratorium for 3 
months, 6 months. I was talking yesterday about a 6-month moratorium. 
Even 3 months would get us to a time next year when we could fully 
debate the issue, the body could speak on it, and get a result. It is 
happening now.

  I will continue to plead with the leadership to allow us to bring it 
up before the Senate. Let us limit the amount of time in the debate. We 
can limit it to an hour if people want. We can have a vote on it so we 
can get this to conference with the House of Representatives and so the 
President can sign the legislation.
  Other people see fit to bring up other legislation. I respect their 
right to do that. I believe as a society this is one of the most urgent 
matters we can address at this point in time. I wish we could put it 
off. I wish we did not have private companies creating human embryos, 
something which we would not allow with a bald eagle or any endangered 
species, or with livestock. This is treating humans as livestock.
  People can say I have different viewpoints about the status of a 
human embryo. I think everybody will agree it has some moral 
significance, the thought they would treat a human embryo as livestock, 
without regard for it. And this body is sitting here saying: We are not 
ready to take it up. I can respect that because this is an issue which 
will require lengthy debate. The issue of whether we should have a 
moratorium is important.
  Mr. President, I renew the request I put forward yesterday, that we 
bring up H.R. 2505, a bill to ban human cloning, that has passed the 
House of Representatives. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to that legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I stated 
yesterday, no one can question in good conscience the sincerity of the 
Senator from Kansas in his attempt to do what he believes is so 
correct.
  We had a Democratic policy luncheon today on this subject. We had 
three eminent scientists, two of whom are in favor of going forward, 
another who is totally opposed.
  I am not for human cloning. Therapeutic cloning is something we need 
to take a close look at. There is great potential for solving the 
questions scientists have had for generations about Parkinson's, 
Alzheimer's, and diabetes. I would never attempt to get into a public 
debate with the Senator from Kansas on the technicalities of this 
issue. I know he has worked hard on it. Nor would I attempt to get into 
a debate with Dr. Frist, Senator Harkin, or Senator Specter, who have 
spent so much time on this.
  This is an issue on which we need to spend some time. I do not think 
it is as easy as the Senator from Kansas has indicated, to simply put a 
moratorium

[[Page S12081]]

on it. As I said yesterday, there are people who have contacted me who 
believe a moratorium of any kind would be a setback to the medical 
movement to cure some of these diseases.
  I respectfully suggest to my friend, the distinguished Senator from 
Kansas, there are other places in the world that are going to be doing 
this research. They may not have the refinement that we in the United 
States have, but there are certainly countries that are very close.
  For all these reasons and others, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I respect my colleague from Nevada and 
his views. We have had several dialogs on the floor about this. I 
respect his thoughts and his comments. I am glad to hear about the 
review of this issue in the Democratic caucus.

  I have a very strong sense that we should be pausing at this point in 
time, and that is why I respectfully continue to bring this forward. 
This is one of those times in humanity when we ought to be stepping 
back and thinking this through clearly and we will come out with a 
decision. Fine. We will let the body work its will. I am very troubled 
about this bill proceeding forward with private sector individuals, 
probably with all the best of intentions, but the only regulation they 
have is their own bioethical board, which they hire and put in place, 
deciding these issues for humanity.
  Once they are out there, they are there. It would be the same as if 
we allowed biotechnology of a fish, a chicken, or a cow without any 
regulation or consideration, just saying we are going to release it and 
have it out in the wild. I think people would be very uncomfortable 
with that notion. Even if this might be the most wonderful thing in the 
world to do, they would want us to think about it.
  I deeply respect the Senator from Nevada and his views on this issue 
of human cloning, but this is a troubling time for humanity. We ought 
to hit the pause button.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to address some of the remarks made 
by my good friend from Texas, Senator Gramm, with respect to railroad 
retirement. He is a great speaker. He uses words well, and I respect 
what he said.
  I think it is important to bring this issue down to its basics, to 
the essence of what this bill is, and what this bill is not. I will 
attempt to address that, and then in a few minutes I will answer some 
of the specific points the Senator made.
  Essentially, the situation is this: We have a railroad retirement 
system that pays benefits to railroad retirees and their widows. The 
amount of dollars in the railroad retirement trust fund is accumulating 
at a very rapid rate. I think it is about $19 billion now. Over time, 
if the law does not change, the trust fund balance is going to keep 
rising to a very high level. I think over the next 15 years it will be 
$32 billion. That is what the actuaries predict. That is not a 
politician. That is not a railroader. That is not a railroad executive 
making that projection. That is what our Federal actuaries project.
  Why is that? Why is that balance projected to go up to such a high 
level? Well, it is pretty simple. The reason is because the taxes the 
employers and the employees of the railroad pay are so high. The taxes 
are 21 percent total: 4.9 percent paid by the employees, and the 
balance paid by the employers. Now that is in addition to the 15 
percent tax which is similar to Social Security payroll taxes.
  I think it totals out to about 36 percent total taxes paid by the 
employers and employees of the railroad industry. Some goes to Social 
Security, but I am talking about tier 2. Tier 2 is the private pension 
part of the railroad retirement.
  The tier 2 trust fund balance is going up at such a rapid rate 
because the benefits paid to widows is so meager, so paltry. It is an 
embarrassment. It is a tragedy. It is also going up at a rapid rate 
because railroaders must retire at a later age to get the full vesting.
  So this bill is very simple. It says take some of that money that is 
in the trust fund and invest it in private securities. Lower the taxes 
the railroaders pay into that trust fund while, at the same time, 
increase the benefits so a widower would not receive only 50 percent of 
what a single retiree would receive, but rather 100 percent of what a 
single retiree would receive, and lower the retirement age to 60.
  There are many industries where the retirement age actually is lower 
than 60, particularly in industries where the work is so demanding and 
the work is so physical. It only makes sense to have this retirement 
age at 60, which is comparable with the work that railroaders do.
  The Senator from Texas makes the point that this is pilfering. He 
likes that word, ``pilfer.'' He says by reducing the taxes railroaders 
pay under the trust fund and by increasing the benefits that would be 
paid, which lowers the trust fund balance by $15 billion over 17 years, 
that is pilfering. Then he goes on to say: Who is going to pay for the 
pilfering? He says the American taxpayer will.
  It is very clear, the trust fund balance is being lowered because it 
is too high. It is because too many dollars are going into it. The 
taxes are very burdensome to the companies and to the employees. That 
is why the trust fund balance is at such a high level. The actuaries at 
OMB and CBO agree with this. The actuaries say when this bill passes, 
when this bill becomes law, there will be more than enough money in the 
trust fund to make it actuarially sound for the next 75 years. That is 
not my judgment. That is the chief actuary's assessment, confirmed by 
CBO. So there is no pilfering. Taxpayers will not have to pay more. 
There is also a provision in this bill which says if by chance the 
projections are wrong, if by chance the actuaries are wrong, if by 
chance there is not enough money in the railroad retirement tier 2 
trust fund, the taxes that are scheduled to come down under this bill 
will automatically go back up to their current level, if needed. That 
is in the law. The taxes which are to go up are those paid by the 
railroaders; not by other taxpayers, not by the rail employees, but by 
the railroad companies. The railroad companies and railroad workers 
agreed to this while developing the legislation. The railroad companies 
and the railroad employees want this bill. The railroad companies want 
it because, obviously, it looks like lower taxes at first, and it will 
probably always be lower taxes, but if it is not, they agree to let the 
taxes go back up. Clearly, the employees want it because the benefits 
are better.

  In addition, even if the projections are wrong, the taxes will go 
back up again and the railroad companies say that is fine. Now, why 
would they agree to that? Because there is another provision in this 
bill that says that in the private pension part of railroad retirement, 
that is tier 2, the investments do not have to be government 
securities. The railroad retirement investment board--it has a 
fiduciary duty to the railroad retirement system--could invest those 
securities in private securities, under a diversified mix, which is 
exactly what every other company pension plan allows and what trustees 
of company pension plans do in the private sector.
  This bill says what is good for most of the private sector ought to 
be at least as good for the railroad industry. Again, the actuaries say 
both under current law and under this bill, the fund will be solid for 
the next 75 years.
  There has been some confusion between Social Security, which is tier 
1, and the private pension plan, which is tier 2. The argument has been 
made: Why lower the retirement age to 60 from 62, when the Social 
Security retirement age is increasing?
  The answer is, we are doing the same thing as is the case in the 
private sector. In the private sector, people pay Social Security. They 
may also pay into their company pension plan and/or their employer pays 
into the plan on their behalf. In many industries, the retirement age 
for the company pension is lower than 65. It can be lower than 62.
  Seventy-four percent of the eighty-five retirement plans studied by 
the Retirement Research Committee in the State of Wisconsin contain a 
similar provision that allowed for retirement with full benefits after 
achieving a certain number of service years. In fact, 30 years of 
service and reaching age 55--

[[Page S12082]]

not age 60--was the most common structure for retirement with full 
benefits.
  So how does the legislation make this adjustment? Social Security's 
retirement age is rising to 67, and the private pension plan part of 
railroad retirement is lowering the retirement age to 60. How do you 
mesh the two?
  In this bill, early retirement is handled the same way as in the 
private sector. How is that? It is called a ``social security'' bridge. 
In the private sector, additional benefits from the private pension 
plan may supplement the standard pension benefits until the beneficiary 
is eligible for their Social Security benefit. That is what the 
railroad retirement reform legislation does for railroad retirement.
  Tier 2 benefits provide the bridge. Tier 2 provides additional 
benefits to the railroad retiree so he or she can retire at age 60 
instead of 62. The tier 1 portion of railroad retirement, which is 
similar to Social Security, is not touched. The Social Security system 
is not changed at all. The railroad retirement reform legislation does 
nothing to Social Security. Rather, the additional dollars come over 
from the private pension part, tier 2.

  Over the years, the Congress has not been fair to railroad 
retirement. Some railroad retirees could draw pensions from both Social 
Security and railroad retirement, a ``dual benefit,'' and the railroad 
retirement fund got stuck paying the cost of this extra entitlement. It 
was such a problem that Congress, in 1974, eliminated dual benefits for 
new retirees and agreed to pay for the post-1974 cost for all grand 
fathered employees.
  Guess what. Congress never reimbursed the railroad retirement fund 
for the $3.5 billion that had been paid out to dual entitlement 
beneficiaries before 1974. Had this reimbursement been made in full in 
1974, the railroad retirement fund would have more than $31 billion in 
additional funds today.
  If you add it together, there is no pilfering or theft. We are making 
railroad retirement essentially the same as the private sector. It is 
actuarially sound. CBO agrees it is sound for the next 75 years. If we 
are wrong, there will be a scheduled tax increase, which the companies 
agree to. They say that is fine. The statement has been made that they 
may change their minds and will not accept the tax increase. That is 
possible. But the burden is on the Congress to undue this. The 
scheduled tax increase, if there is one, is in this bill and will be in 
the law. Again, the railroad companies agree.
  A final point that needs to be addressed is the scoring issue. The 
House of Representatives directed the scoring of this legislation to be 
not $15 billion, but zero. The reason is today the railroad retirement 
tier 2 has assets. They are Government securities as required by 
current law. For years, the usual rule of thumb under OMB scoring: When 
the Government purchases an asset, it is scored as an outlay. In this 
case, when converting the federal treasury securities to private sector 
securities, OMB also scores this an outlay because it would be 
purchasing a private asset.
  This is a grey area. There is no bright-line test. The railroad 
retirement system will still own the same amount of securities, 
although it will be a mix of government securities and private sector 
securities. Is the railroad retirement system less better off? Is the 
purchase of private sector securities an outlay or not? Because of the 
rules, it is called an outlay, so it is technically a $15 billion cost. 
But that is 1 year and does not affect future years.
  The question is: should the rule we have had on scorekeeping be 
applicable in all cases, including this one, or not? That is clearly a 
judgment call for the Senate. My view is that it is something we should 
debate and make a decision about. However, I do not think that this 
scoring issue alone should stop Congress from passing railroad 
retirement reform this year. Regardless of how it is scored, the 
legislation reforms the system in a way that is actuarially sound and 
does not pilfer one thin dime from the taxpayers. This carefully 
balanced legislation has been developed over several years. The bill 
has twice passed the House by a large margin and the Senate bill 
currently has 74 cosponsors. It is time to act.
  If any Senator has any amendment to offer, now is the time. We are 
debating whether to go to the bill. That takes a lot of time, and we 
don't have a lot of time left before we adjourn. Rather than preventing 
the offering of amendments, I urge my colleagues, if they have problems 
with the bill--offer amendments of their own. We can debate, count the 
votes, and proceed. That is far, far better than trying to stop this 
bill with the parliamentary maneuvers, claiming we can go back to the 
Finance Committee and rewrite this bill. There is not a lot of time 
left. This bill has been worked on for a long time. Going back to the 
Finance Committee will not help.
  Let me correct myself. The $3.5 billion I mentioned earlier as a 
consequence of changing the dual-benefit system was for years before 
1974 and for pre-1974 retirees. For years after 1974, general revenues 
reimbursed tier 2. That was, again, the consequence of a mistake 
Congress made in earlier years by mandating dual benefits. So in 1974, 
Congress had to put money in the system to correct the mistake made 
earlier.
  We are now asking ourselves, given where we are today, what makes the 
most sense. I submit this bill makes the most sense. It is not perfect, 
but it is certainly very good. If Senators want to make changes, I urge 
them to offer amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS. What is the rationale for combining Social Security and a 
private annuity program?
  Mr. BAUCUS. This is not a Social Security private annuity program.
  Mr. THOMAS. These people don't have Social Security other than what 
is here.
  Mr. BAUCUS. They pay Social Security-like taxes and receive benefits 
similar to Social Security, both employees and employers.
  Mr. THOMAS. But if this happens, you will start getting Social 
Security benefits at age 60?
  Mr. BAUCUS. If this happens, you get tier 2 benefits at age 60. Part 
of that may eventually be like Social Security, but only the Social 
Security benefit allowed under current law. We don't change any law 
regarding tier 1, which is similar to Social Security. The additional 
benefit for early retirement is paid with additional funds from tier 2.
  Mr. THOMAS. You won't be eligible until you are 67; why are they 
eligible at 60?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is the practice in the private sector with private 
pensions.
  Mr. THOMAS. But this is Social Security, not the private sector.
  Mr. BAUCUS. For those who do not have pension plans, and many 
Americans do not have any pension retirement benefits, what you say is 
true. But many Americans do have private pension plans where they 
receive retirement income in addition to Social Security.
  Mr. THOMAS. That is not my question.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Let me explain.
  So in that case, whereas the Social Security retirement age is 65 and 
scheduled to go up over time, those same people who work for a company, 
or did work for a company and have retirement benefits under their 
pension plan, receive earlier benefits and more benefits when the 
pension plan so provides.
  Is the Senator asking, what is the interchange between Social 
Security and the private pension plan? In the private sector, when a 
retirement plan provides for an earlier retirement age than age 65, a 
person receives benefits provided by the private pension. For the 
benefits the person does not receive from Social Security, those 
benefits are also paid for by the private pension part of the plan. 
That is what the railroad retirement reform legislation provides for 
railroad workers.
  Mr. THOMAS. So in this program, if you start to get benefits at 60, 
they would be tier 2 benefits, and none of the Social Security would 
commence until you were 65?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
  Mr. THOMAS. Then is there any specific language that says that the 
taxpayers will never have to pick up part of this tier 2?
  Mr. BAUCUS. The language is, if the parameters for the trust fund are 
enacted--we are only talking tier 2--if they are enacted, the scheduled 
reductions in taxes that the railroad companies pay would have to go 
back up if

[[Page S12083]]

the trust fund investments are not performing well.
  If, on the other hand, the economy is doing so well that the taxes 
can go down, under this bill both employee and employer taxes will be 
reduced.
  Mr. THOMAS. But under the private annuity programs, they can't fall 
back on the Government. They are private. This is a mixture, and it is 
sort of confusing for most of us.
  The Social Security, of course, has supplemented this substantially, 
largely because there are three beneficiaries to every earner, I 
understand.
  Mr. BAUCUS. No, no, not substantially.
  Mr. THOMAS. It is $30 billion.
  Mr. BAUCUS. My colleague is pointing out the differences between 
Social Security and the railroad retirement. Under Social Security 
there are three or four employees for every retiree, and it is the 
opposite with the railroad retirement system.
  Mr. THOMAS. It is the opposite. I understand.
  I thank the Senator. I would love to see them do whatever they would 
like. They can do the best they can. But I think a lot of people are 
anxious, as you look at these other charts--I am sorry I can't tell you 
who proposed this chart, but it shows over time the contributions would 
have to go up substantially and the trust fund goes down substantially 
over a period of time. If that happens, I guess I am just concerned so 
the taxpayers are not going to be asked to fill that gap.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If I may respond to that chart, if the current law is not 
changed, the tier 2 balances will keep rising from the current $15 
billion, $16 billion, up to $20 billion, $27 billion; it will just keep 
going up, according to actuaries.
  Under the reform proposal, the railroad retirement account balance 
comes down, but there is a provision written in this bill which says 
there must be a certain level of reserves maintained in the tier 2 
portion. The actuaries certify the investment and tax changes in the 
railroad retirement legislation will produce a system that achieves 
solvency over the next 75 years. CBO has looked at it, and they agree.
  The reason it is coming down is that so much excess payroll taxes 
have been paid in, the balances have been going up more than they need 
to. They are coming down because taxes are going to be reduced a 
little--I assume the Senator from Wyoming likes lower taxes; this 
Senator certainly does--and also because the benefits are increased to 
conform with the modern era and with other industries.
  One example is retirement age. This is tough work, that of a railroad 
worker. In industries where there is physical danger and demanding 
physical work, the age to retire with full benefits is usually earlier 
than age 65. The reform legislation makes that change for railroad 
retirement.
  Mr. THOMAS. Wouldn't it be simpler over time if you just separated 
Social Security from a private retirement annuity program? Then you 
would have the same Social Security benefits as everyone else, and then 
you could add to it in the private sector and do whatever you chose.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is an idea. The trouble is now, given where we are 
today, it would require too much money to make the switch. It is our 
judgment now that we need this legislation. It is $40 billion, frankly. 
We would need 40 billion extra dollars, and I don't think we have 40 
billion extra dollars.
  Mr. THOMAS. We are dealing differently with a relatively small 
segment of folks here than we do with others.
  Mr. BAUCUS. What do you have in mind? Like what?
  Mr. THOMAS. Pardon?
  Mr. BAUCUS. What others?
  Mr. THOMAS. You and me and the gentleman who is giving you all the 
answers there. He doesn't get Social Security until he reaches 65.
  Mr. BAUCUS. You did raise a good issue. We have to somehow modernize 
retirement in this country. We have a patchwork system; but we have to 
somehow work with it.
  Mr. THOMAS. I appreciate the Senator's answers.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
allowed to speak for 20 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska is recognized.


                             An Energy Bill

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of a significant group 
of Americans who feel that an energy bill should be a priority for this 
Congress. That has been expressed uniformly by many organizations. We 
have heard from organized labor. For example, we have heard from 
America's veterans, and we have heard from America's Hispanic 
community. They suggest that an energy bill is way overdue. For the 
record, I will have a list of many of the organizations that 
participated in the debate, expressing themselves on the issue through 
statements and press conferences and so forth.

  It is important to recognize the current stalemate. It is my 
understanding that the current pending business is the stimulus bill. 
Nevertheless, we are being asked to set the stimulus bill aside and 
move to the railroad retirement bill. In context with this, I will 
refer to some comments that the majority leader made today with regard 
to the energy bill coming before this body.
  The statement came out of the majority leader's press office, 
indicating that the Republicans have two basic points: One, that energy 
should be debated this year and, two, that bringing it up in January 
will not allow the ANWR issue to be debated in the way they would like; 
therefore, they feel that the majority leader is being unfair.
  The majority leader, Senator Daschle, responded. He indicated:

       First of all, I guess I would invite them

  Meaning the Republicans--

     to tell me when before Christmas that they want to bring up 
     the energy bill. Why don't you ask them? Is it the 23rd, the 
     24th of December, because that is about the time we will 
     finish all the other things we've got to do. If they want to 
     bring it up between Christmas and New Year's, I would be 
     happy to entertain that possibility as well.

  Well, I don't want to be the Grinch that stole Christmas, but if I 
have to be, I will. If we have to be here on December 23 or Christmas 
Eve to pass an energy bill, so be it. We have procedural options. One 
person can object to a motion to take up legislation. I am prepared to 
do that. This is no threat. This is a reality. We have fooled around 
with this issue long enough.
  The majority leader has indicated to his members that he will respond 
to their wishes and ensure we don't take the energy bill up and ensure 
that we don't have a vote.
  The majority leader further said:

       Ask them what days in particular they have in mind in this 
     energy debate.

  And then he goes on to say:

       With regard to ANWR, what I am simply suggesting is that 
     the Senate work its will.

  Well, I am, too. The majority leader has a vote. I have a vote. We 
have debated this issue extensively. We passed a bill out of the Senate 
Energy Committee when I was still chairman. That was early this year. 
We have had hearings on it. But let's look at fairness. What has 
happened is tactics that I am very surprised the majority leader and 
some of my friends from the other side of the aisle would support.
  As the current ranking member and former chairman of the Energy 
Committee, even in a minority position, I resent the fact that the 
majority leader has directed the chairman of the Energy Committee, the 
Senator from New Mexico, not to take up any matters in committee in a 
business session that would give us the chance to report out an energy 
bill, an energy bill that would, of course, contain the ANWR issue.
  As a consequence, for the last 3 months, we have not had a business 
session. Now they are proposing to try and leverage that. They are 
saying: We have four or five nominees pending. The majority on the 
committee has indicated that they will give us a hearing

[[Page S12084]]

on the nominees and agree to a business session for reporting them out 
only--only--if the minority ensures that nothing will come up in an 
energy bill associated with ANWR.

  What are they afraid of? What is wrong with the committee process? 
The majority leader has simply taken away the authority from the 
authorizing committee. As a consequence, we can't even take the energy 
bill up in the Energy Committee.
  Let me revert a little bit to something that happened in 1995. We 
passed an ANWR bill. It was in the omnibus package. It was vetoed by 
President Clinton. What were the concerns at the time? At that time, we 
were about 56 percent dependent on imported oil. We were also concerned 
about our increased dependence on Iraq because, obviously, Saddam 
Hussein had been up to no good since the Persian Gulf War. The same 
arguments occurred at that time that are being used today. However, in 
1995 we didn't quite have the litany from certain Senators, because 
since that time the extreme environmental community has put the 
pressure on those Senators.
  We have had a close Presidential election. There is a great movement 
on the other side to try and have Members with Presidential aspirations 
line themselves up to try and pick up the base support that Al Gore 
had. That is the raw politics in this. That is where the pressure is 
coming from.
  We have Senators from Massachusetts who are opposed to opening ANWR. 
I think we probably have enough oil in ANWR to keep Massachusetts going 
for about 85 years. That is what it would mean to Massachusetts.
  In any event, it is a significant amount of oil. But the point I make 
is that had the President not vetoed that bill in 1995, we would have 
ANWR opened by now. We would have the oil flowing. What may not have 
happened was the drowning of two U.S. Navy sailors the other day in the 
line of duty boarding a rust bucket tanker out of a port in Iraq to 
inspect and see whether Saddam Hussein is cheating.
  They found he was cheating, alright. The vessel was overloaded. It 
had illegal oil going out, smuggled out of Iraq, smuggled out over the 
eyes of the U.N. inspectors. We are importing over one million barrels 
a day from Iraq.
  Now, I will revert to July 25, 2001. At that time I proposed an 
amendment. The amendment was on the Iran-Libya sanctions bill. I was 
questioning why Iraq was not included in these sanctions. In response, 
the Democratic leader, Mr. Daschle, indicated that he was sensitive to 
my point of view.
  As a consequence, we entered into a colloquy. That colloquy 
specifically addressed an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the 
issue of eliminating oil imports from Iraq, as we have done in Iran and 
Libya in the sanctions act which was passed by this body.
  I will read from the Record the statement of the leadership: I ask 
unanimous consent after the vote on the Libya sanctions that there be a 
time limitation of 60 minutes--of 60 minutes, think about that, 60 
minutes--for debate on the bill equally divided and controlled between 
the chairman and ranking member or their designees and that the only 
first-degree amendments in order to the bill be a Murkowski amendment 
regarding Iraq's oil; and that there be 90 minutes for debate with the 
time divided as follows: 60 minutes under the control of Senator 
Murkowski, 30 minutes under the control of the chairman and ranking 
member or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of the 
time on the amendment the amendment be withdrawn; that upon the use or 
yielding back of all time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate 
proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action.
  This is directed to the majority leader. I am going to take him up on 
his offer. Let's do it. Let's do it now. There is only 90 minutes in 
the agreement. Don't we have 90 minutes around here? We have 90 minutes 
right now. Should we debate Iraq on this floor? It is pretty obvious we 
have reason to. We just lost two American lives defending, if you will, 
the U.N.'s proposal to ensure that Saddam Hussein isn't cheating.
  What are we going to do after Afghanistan? We don't know, but we 
certainly know there is some significant momentum to look at Saddam 
Hussein's role in terrorism. How in good conscience can a Member of 
this body go to sleep at night, recognizing we are importing over one 
million barrels of oil from Iraq, and recognizing we have just lost two 
American lives that, had President Clinton allowed this bill to pass in 
1995, would not have been lost?
  On September 11, we had the largest single importation of Iraq, over 
one million barrels--1.1 million barrels. Whose passports were involved 
in the tragic action that took place in September? Saudi Arabia. We 
have a problem over there. Every Member of this body should recognize 
the significance of it. The voice is loud, the voice is clear: Reduce 
our dependence.
  How do you do it? You don't do it overnight. But you start. I am 
somewhat amused at the remarks made by my colleague from Massachusetts 
after a statement I made in the Chamber yesterday. His remarks were 
very brief, but I will make reference to them. He says:

       What is really interesting about the debate on the Arctic 
     wildlife refuge is that not a drop of oil is going to come in 
     the near term and answer any of the immediate needs of 
     national security with respect to dependence.

  That is a pretty weak statement. When do you start? Do you start when 
you have a crisis, a calamity, when you have American soldiers and 
sailors whose lives are at stake, or when some have already lost their 
lives?
  The Senator from Massachusetts--as I indicated, ANWR probably has oil 
that would supply Massachusetts for 85 years. Moreover, he says:

       We love the 90 percent of the oil shelf that is available 
     for drilling.

  Of course, the junior Senator from Massachusetts has never been up 
there in ANWR. He doesn't know one side of ANWR from the other. Here is 
a chart. Do you know what size ANWR is? It is about 30 times the size 
of Rhode Island. There it is--19 million acres. It is a big hunk of 
U.S. real estate. Eight and a half million acres are in wilderness in 
perpetuity; 9 million are in refuge, leaving the Coastal Plain 1\1/2\ 
million acres.
  H.R. 4, the House bill, provides for a footprint of 2,000 acres. At a 
press conference before Thanksgiving we had many Members who had agreed 
to supporting the opening of ANWR, including an energy bill. The other 
side had a press conference with Robert Redford. He was proclaiming 
that somehow opening ANWR would do irreparable damage. But the House 
authorizes only 2,000 acres. Do you know how big Robert Redford's ranch 
is in Utah? It is more than 5,000 acres. He has every right to have 
that ranch and do what he wants on it. But to come here and suggest 
that the people who live in Kaktovic, can't address the ownership on 
their own land is absolutely incomprehensible to me.
  Here is a photo of the village of Kaktovic. Real people live there. 
They have title to 95,000 acres of land there. They can't drill on that 
land for gas to heat their homes because there is no authorization 
opening ANWR. Here is the area in question. This is the 1002 area. This 
is the native land--95,000 acres.

  I am asking the majority leader to reconsider this. The Senator from 
Massachusetts suggests there is no difference in the outcome, whether 
the debate takes place in December, or in January, or whenever. We 
don't have any commitment from the majority leader. He talks about next 
year. Well, I am asking him for a vote, as he promised, on terminating 
our importation of oil from Iraq.
  I want to read the specifics that were in this agreement, which binds 
the majority leader of the Senate. I indicated:

       Reserving the right to object, Mr. President . . . It had 
     been my request of both leaderships that the condition on 
     withdrawing the amendment would be the assurance that I would 
     have an opportunity for an up-or-down vote at a future time 
     on the issue of oil imports from Iraq. I request 
     consideration, if indeed the leadership will consider that, 
     associated with the appropriate opportunity--maybe on one of 
     our trade agreements that will come before this body--that I 
     would be allowed at least not more than an hour and a half or 
     2 hours to debate that and have the assurance of an up-or-
     down vote. I ask the leadership for that consideration.

  The leader replied:

       If I may respond, Senator Murkowski has reiterated the 
     understanding we have on both sides of the aisle with regard 
     to his offering an amendment at a later date on Iraq oil on 
     another bill. I will certainly provide

[[Page S12085]]

     him with a vote in relation to that amendment when that time 
     comes.

  I said:

       Reserving the right to object, just for clarification from 
     the leader, the Senator from Alaska requested specifically 
     the assurance of an up-or-down vote, and I believe the 
     majority leader indicated a reference ``in relation to.'' I 
     don't want to mischaracterize the intent. I wanted to have an 
     understanding I would be afforded an opportunity for an up-
     or-down vote.

  Senator Daschle responded:

       I will have no objection to an up-or-down vote.

  Mr. President, let's start the 90 minutes, let's vote on it. This 
isn't going to take long, until Christmas Eve. We will be resolving 
something here that badly needs resolving--the inconsistency of 
increased dependence on an enemy. How that fails to cause anybody an 
ulcer is beyond me. Over one million barrels a day coming into this 
country, and we are paying Saddam Hussein for it. Saddam Hussein takes 
the money, pays it to the Republican Guards to keep them alive, and 
develops a missile capability because we haven't had any inspectors 
over there for several years, a missile capability, a biological 
capability. Who does he aim it at? Our ally, Israel. That is the 
reality, and we take his oil. We put it in our airplanes and take out 
his targets. We put the lives of American men and women at risk.

  Those on the other side of the aisle who believe otherwise about this 
issue, if we have a catastrophe over there, will rue the day. They will 
probably put a spin on it. But this is inconsistent, it is un-American 
and it is contrary to the national interests to not act on an energy 
bill.
  Make no mistake about it, by my presence on the floor today, I am 
putting the majority leader on notice that I want him to live up to the 
commitment he made to me that we would have an up-or-down vote on the 
issue of Iraqi oil importation into this country, and I will follow 
that up with a formal letter to the majority leader as well.
  Can Tom Daschle be the only one who is right and everybody else is 
wrong?
  Mr. President, I see no other Senator seeking recognition, so I ask 
the clerk how much time I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time remaining. Would the 
Senator like additional time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I request an additional 20 minutes, Mr. President. I 
will be able to yield some of that time back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I do not know how much politics is mixed up from the 
standpoint of this being a win or a loss for the President. It is a win 
or a loss for the American people. The President has indicated on five 
occasions that he wants an energy bill--it has been publicized at great 
length--including that he wants to open ANWR.
  We have heard from the Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, saying 
how important it is, how we can open up this area safely.
  We heard from the Secretary of Energy, Spence Abraham, about how 
important it is from the standpoint of our energy security.
  We have heard from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Tony Principi, 
about sending more Americans to fight a war over oil on foreign lands.
  We have heard from our Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao.
  We have heard from America's veterans. We have heard from the 
American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS, the Catholic War 
Veterans of America, the Vietnam Veterans Institute, and the Veterans 
of Foreign Wars.
  We have heard from organized labor: The Brotherhood of Teamsters, the 
Maritime Labor Union, the Seafarers Union, the Operating Engineers 
Union, the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union, and the Carpenters, Joiners, 
and Builders Union.
  Why are these groups interested in this issue? Organized labor is 
interested in jobs. Talk about the stimulus of opening up this area--
and I have an additional chart that shows what we are opening, 1.5 
million acres for exploration and development, but the development is 
2,000 acres--it means jobs for Americans, at least 250,000 direct jobs. 
The Federal Government would realize almost $3 billion in revenue from 
lease sales of this area because this is Federal land. That would meet 
our obligations for environmental oversight, for fish and wildlife 
management, and it could offset some of the deficit, perhaps the cost 
of this war, to some extent. It is very meaningful.
  We would have two major contributors to the stimulus bill: 250,000 
jobs, and approximately $3 billion in revenue.
  The bottom line is it would not cost this country one red cent. The 
taxpayers would not have to pay for it. The oil industry would bid on 
the leases, and the Federal Government would generate the revenue.
  We have organized labor saying it is a jobs issue. America's veterans 
are saying:

       Keeping in mind the events of September 11 and mindful of 
     the threats we are facing, we strongly believe that the 
     development of America's domestic energy resources is a vital 
     national security priority.

  They sent that letter to Tom Daschle. These are the people we sent 
off to war in the past. I ask unanimous consent that the remarks of 
these organizations be printed in the Record as part of my 
presentation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Groups That Support an Energy Policy for America


                    president bush's administration

       Secretary of Interior Gale Norton: ``We need the energy, we 
     need the jobs, we need a comprehensive energy bill from the 
     Senate. This plan increases our energy independence and 
     therefore our national security.''
       Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham: ``We need an energy-
     security policy and we need it soon.''
       Secretary of Veteran's Affairs Anthony Principi: ``We are 
     engaged in mortal combat with an enemy who wants to see us 
     fail in securing an energy policy.''
       Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao: ``The president's plan will 
     create literally thousands of new jobs that will be needed to 
     dramatically expand America's capacity for energy 
     production.''


                           america's veterans

       The American Legion: ``The development of America's 
     domestic energy resources is vital to our national 
     security.''--Letter to Senator Daschle.
       Veterans of Foreign Wars: ``Keeping in mind the horrific 
     events of September 11 and mindful of the threats we are 
     facing, we strongly believe that the development of America's 
     domestic energy resources is a vital national security 
     priority.''--Letter to Senator Daschle.
       AMVETS: ``As you know, our current reliance on foreign oil 
     leaves the Untied States vulnerable to the whim of individual 
     oil-exporting countries, many existing in the unpredictable 
     and highly dangerous Persian Gulf . . . [We] firmly believe 
     that we cannot wait for the next crisis before we act.''--
     Letter to Senator Daschle.
       Vietnam Veterans Institute: ``War and international 
     terrorism have again brought into sharp focus the heavy 
     reliance of the U.S. on imported oil. During these times of 
     crises, such reliance threatens our national security and 
     economic well being . . . . It is important that we develop 
     domestic sources of oil.''--Letter to Senator Daschle.
       Catholic War Veterans of America: Participated in press 
     conference.


                            organized labor

       Seafarer's International Union: ``At a time when the 
     economy is faltering, working men and women all over the 
     country would clearly benefit from the much-needed investment 
     in energy development, storage, and transmission.''--Terry 
     Turner, Executive Director.
       International Brotherhood of Teamsters: ``America has gone 
     too long without a solid energy plan. When energy costs rise, 
     working families are the first to feel the pinch. The Senate 
     should follow the example passed by the House and ease their 
     burden by sending the President supply-based energy 
     legislation to sign.''--Jerry Hood, Teamsters Special 
     Assistant for Energy Policy.
       Maritime Laborers Union: Participated in press conference.
       Operating Engineers Union: Participated in press 
     conference.
       Plumbers and Pipefitters Union: Participated in press 
     conference.
       Carpenters, Joiners, and Building Trades: Participated in 
     press conference.


                           hispanic community

       Latin American Management Association: ``As we head into 
     the winter season in a time of war, these worries multiply. 
     The possibilities of terrorist attacks on oil fields and 
     transportation in the Middle East are very real. This would 
     force energy prices to skyrocket and immediately impact the 
     most vulnerable families across the country.''--Stephen 
     Denlinger, Latin American Management Association CEO.
       The Latino Coalition: ``The Senate must act on 
     comprehensive energy legislation before adjourning. Not 
     addressing this issue immediately is both irresponsible and 
     dangerous to America as a nation, and particularly to 
     Hispanics as a community. America

[[Page S12086]]

     must increase the level of domestic production, so we can 
     reduce our dependency on foreign oil.''--Robert Despoda, 
     President Latino Coalition.
       U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce: ``We urge the Senate 
     leadership, both Democrats and Republicans to pass 
     comprehensive energy legislation before adjourning. This is 
     not a partisan issue. Millions of needy Hispanic families 
     need your support now. History would not treat inaction 
     kindly, and neither would Hispanic voters next year.''--Mario 
     Rodriguez, Hispanic Business Roundtable President.


                         SENIORS ORGANIZATIONS

       60 Plus: ``It's time the Senate leadership quit demagoging 
     and come to grips with the energy legislation they have 
     bottled up. Our economy depends in no minor way to the 
     passage of an energy plan. Much more important our security 
     depends on it.''--Roger Zion, Chairman 60 Plus.
       Seniors Coalition: Participated in press conference.
       United Seniors Association: Participated in press 
     conference.


                          JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS

       Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish 
     Organizations: ``The [Conference] at its general meeting on 
     November 14th unanimously supported a resolution calling on 
     Congress to act expeditiously to pass the energy bill that 
     will serve to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of 
     oil.''--Letter to Senator Daschle.
       Zionist Organization of America: ``At a time when our 
     nation is at war against international terrorism, it is more 
     important than ever that we work quickly to free ourselves of 
     dependence on oil produced by extremist dictators. Such 
     dependence leaves the U.S. dangerously vulnerable.''--Letter 
     to Senator Murkowski.


                           AMERICAN BUSINESS

       National Black Chamber of Commerce: ``Our growing 
     membership reflects the opinion of more and more Americans 
     all across the political spectrum that we must act now to 
     lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources by addressing 
     the nation's long-neglected energy needs.''--Harry Alford, 
     President and CEO.
       U.S. Chamber of Commerce: ``The events of the past month 
     lend a new urgency to our efforts to increase domestic energy 
     supplies and modernize our nation's energy 
     infrastructure.''--Bruce Josten, Executive VP Government 
     Affairs.
       National Association of Manufacturers (NAM): ``The House of 
     Representatives has answered the President's call. It has 
     taken our obvious energy needs into account--along with the 
     concerns of many interests groups--and produced reasonable 
     and comprehensive legislation that will help provide stable 
     energy prices and long-term confidence in our economy. But 
     the Senate is dragging its feet. Some seem willing to let 
     politics stop the will of the majority that wants to move 
     forward with comprehensive energy legislation this year. In 
     light of current economic conditions and on behalf of the 
     NAM's 14,000 members, I strongly urge Sen. Daschle to move an 
     energy bill to the floor without further delay. It is high 
     time to put the national interest ahead of parochial 
     political interests.''--Michael Baroody, National Association 
     of Manufacturers (NAM) Executive Vice President.
       Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth (representing 1,100 
     businesses, large and small, and over 1 million employees): 
     ``All of the members of the Alliance enthusiastically welcome 
     the President's strong appeal for action on a national energy 
     policy. We are also committed to work with Senate Majority 
     Leader Daschel to move forward in a spirit of bipartisanship 
     with comprehensive, national energy legislation.''--Alliance 
     spokesman Bruce Josten.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, moving from veterans and organized 
labor, we have the Hispanic community, the Latin American Management 
Association, the Latino Coalition, the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce. 
They have testified. They have spoken at press conferences. What does 
it mean to them? It means prosperity, opportunity, and jobs.
  We have heard from 60-plus senior organizations: the Seniors 
Coalition, United Seniors Association.
  We have heard from the American Business Group, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth that represents about 1,100 
businesses, large and small. This is a wide group.
  We have heard from the Jewish organizations which have a direct 
interest in the survival of Israel. That is something we have supported 
time and again.
  We have heard from the Conference of Presidents of Major American 
Jewish Organizations, Mortimer Zuckerman, Chairman, and Malcolm 
Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman. It reads as follows:

       The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish 
     Organizations at its general meeting on November 14th 
     unanimously supported a resolution calling on Congress to act 
     expeditiously--

  That means before Christmas, Mr. President--

     to pass the energy bill that will serve to lessen our 
     dependence on foreign sources of oil. We believe that this 
     important legislation has, in addition to the economic 
     impact, significant security implications. We hope that 
     Congress will move quickly to pass this vital measure.
       We look forward to continuing to work with you and your 
     colleagues on this and other matters of importance to your 
     country.

  Signed Mortimer Zuckerman, Chairman, and Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive 
Vice Chairman.
  I have a letter from the Zionist Organization of America dated 
November 26:

       Dear Senator Murkowski: On behalf of the Zionist 
     Organization of America--

  Not just Washington--

     the oldest, and one of the largest, Zionist movements in the 
     United States--we are writing to express our strong support 
     for your efforts to make our country less dependent on 
     foreign oil sources, by developing the oil resources in 
     Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
       At a time when our nation is at war--

  Is at war, Mr. President--

       against international terrorism, it is more important than 
     ever that we work quickly to free ourselves of dependence on 
     oil produced by extremist dictators. Such dependence leaves 
     the United States dangerously vulnerable.
       Your initiative to develop the vast oil resources of Alaska 
     will make it possible to rid America of this dependence and 
     thereby strengthen our nation's security.

  Signed by Morton Klein, National President, Dr. Alan Mazurek, 
Chairman of the Board, Dr. Michael Goldblatt, Chairman, National 
Executive Committee, and Sarah Stern, National Policy Coordinator.
  That is an overview of America's organizations with regard to the 
issue of energy security from seniors organizations, the Jewish groups, 
the Latino Council, the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, American 
businesses, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, and National Association of Manufacturers.
  Michael Baroody, Executive Vice President, Alliance for Energy and 
economic Growth, writes:

       I strongly urge Senator Daschle to move an energy bill to 
     the floor without further delay.

  And we have the attitude of our leader who says: No. He is going to 
disregard these organizations. He is going to put off indefinitely, 
until next year sometime--he does not give us a time; he does not say 
when we get back from the January recess we are going to take up energy 
and we are going to finish it in a week or two or finish it before the 
February recess with up-or-down votes and amendments.
  That is all we want, Mr. President. We want an opportunity to vote on 
this. They are ducking this. They are under water. They do not want to 
vote on it. They have made their commitments to America's extreme 
environmental community. The tide is up, and they are hiding in the 
sand. But some say when the tide is out and we have to vote, they are 
going to think twice.
  The reason they are going to think twice is they are going to have to 
make a decision on what is best for the extreme environmental 
community, from their point of view, or what is best for America, while 
ensuring that we do not lose any more lives as we did the other day 
when the tanker sank and we lost the two American Navy men who were 
doing their job to stop the smuggling of oil from Iraq.
  I am asking the leader today for 90 minutes to take up the issue he 
made available back in July when we had what was, in my mind, the 
equivalent to an unanimous consent agreement and he indicated he would 
give us the 90 minutes for an up-or-down vote.
  I find it rather distressing that the leader continues to duck this 
issue. The leader was asked what he meant when he said no on an up-or-
down vote on ANWR. He said when he anticipated extended debate, and he 
anticipated there would be efforts made to invoke cloture on the 
debate. We have never before had cloture during a crisis on an energy 
bill. They are threatening cloture. They do not want a straight 50/50 
vote. They are afraid they will lose. So they want to obtain cloture. 
So he said there would be votes on the ANWR

[[Page S12087]]

amendment, but I do not think it will be on an up-or-down vote. So he 
is saying we cannot have an up-or-down vote on ANWR.
  Why can we not have an up-or-down vote? That is the name of the game, 
is not it? Cloture obviously has a place in the Senate, but it does not 
have a place on an energy bill. It has never been invoked when our 
national security interests have been at stake, and this is about 
national security. This is about energy security.
  Furthermore, the majority leader says, I do not think there will be 
an up-or-down vote because I do not think we will ever get to that. He 
says that he thinks it will be a good cloture vote, but not a definite 
vote.
  I am not buying that explanation. So what are we going to do about 
it? Well, one Member can tie this body up. One Member can be the Grinch 
that stole Christmas. If it is Christmas Eve, if it is New Year's Eve, 
we are going to address the energy security issue. I want to address it 
in a responsible manner. I simply want the opportunity to offer the 
House bill, H.R. 4. On stimulus, on railroad retirement, on the 
agriculture bill, I am going to be objecting to moving of anything. I 
do not know if the leadership or the rest of the Senate want to go 
through six or so cloture votes on each one of these things, but I 
guess the only way to get attention is to start ringing the bell when 
attention is needed.
  I am not going to read into the Record again the statements of the 
President, but on November 9, October 31, October 26, October 17, 
October 4, and on numerous other occasions, he said he wants an energy 
bill. It is in the national security interest of our country.
  I am sure some people in this body perhaps saw the list. These are 
the organizations--there are over 1,000 of them--that believe we have 
to take up an energy bill before we leave. When I listen to the debate 
on the other side, and the points that were brought up by my good 
friend, the junior Senator from Massachusetts, I have to reflect on 
what he means.
  He says on the one hand he wants a good debate, and then he implies 
we are going to have a filibuster. I guess he too is afraid of a 50/50 
vote. He also says the supply of oil is somewhat insignificant, and 
therefore it cannot go on for an extended period of time. I have 
already addressed that in one sense, because the oil will start to flow 
as soon as we authorize it.
  Make no mistake about it, the extreme environmental groups have a 
position on this. They know they are going to lose. They just do not 
know when. They are playing this as a cash cow, and they are milking it 
for all it is worth. They will continue to do so until they lose, and 
then they are going to move to another issue, perhaps in somebody 
else's State, perhaps in a more populous State. We have one House 
Member. Think about it. That is the pattern.
  It is interesting for me to reflect on some of the commentators such 
as Charles Krauthammer who wrote a column very recently in the 
Washington Post. It was called ``War on the Polar Bear.'' He says he 
likes polar bears as much as the next guy. He likes pandas, and he 
likes caribou and all the furry, cuddly things of God's good Earth, but 
he also likes people, particularly Americans and particularly American 
soldiers, and he does not like seeing them shot and killed in wars that 
would be both more avoidable and more winnable were we not so 
disastrously dependent on energy supplies from a nasty part of the 
world, with nasty people who use oil for nasty purposes.
  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       [From the Washington Post]

                         War and the Polar Bear

                        (By Charles Krauthammer)

       So you thought that Sept. 11 changed everything, that the 
     era of game-show frivolity, ``Survivor'' silliness and 
     general self-indulgence had given way to an era of 
     seriousness. Well, not quite.
       Here we are, for the second time in a decade, risking 
     American lives in a war against an enemy fueled and fed by 
     oil money. Here we are again decrying our dependence on oil 
     from a particularly unstable, unfriendly part of the world. 
     Here we are in desperate need of both energy conservation and 
     new energy production.
       And here we see (in the Oct. 30 Post) that we may be 
     prevented from drilling in the single most promising area on 
     this continent because of a . . . polar bear treaty: ``New 
     Species Enters Debate on Artic Oil; Polar Bear Agreement 
     Cited by Drilling Foes.''
       Now, I like polar bears as much as the next guy. I like 
     pandas and caribou and all the furry cuddlies on God's good 
     earth. But I also like people, particularly Americans, and 
     particularly American soldiers. And I do not like seeing them 
     shot and killed in wars that would be both more avoidable and 
     more winnable were we not so disastrously dependent on energy 
     supplies from a nasty part of the world with nasty people who 
     use our oil money for nasty purposes.
       At a time when Washington should be working on a crash 
     program of conservation and new drilling, a six-year-old 
     report from the Fish and Wildlife Service is leaked in the 
     hope that a 28-year-old polar bear treaty might derail 
     drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
       The outrage! ``This is a classic Bush administration 
     strategy of running roughshod over international 
     agreements,'' charged Kieran Suckling, executive director of 
     the center for Biological Diversity and leaker of the report.
       The Interior Department stoutly maintains that the polar 
     bear agreement does not prohibit oil exploration. Alaska's 
     Sen. Frank Murkowski points out that the 25,000 or so Arctic 
     polar bears that he represents seem to be quite happily 
     lolling around the existing oil drilling in Alaska.
       I too have little doubt that the polar bears will do fine, 
     just as the caribou have thrived around the Prudhoe Bay 
     field. But the whole debate is surreal. We are at war, are we 
     not? Americans are fighting. In Washington and New York, 
     nearly 5,000 have already been killed. Fifteen of the 19 
     murderers were Saudi. Their leader is Saudi. Most of their 
     money is Saudi. And that same Saudi money funds the 
     madrassas, the fundamentalist religious schools where poor 
     Pakistani, Afghan and Arab children are inducted into the 
     world of radical Islam and war against the American infidel.
       And yet we bow and scrape to the Saudis. We beg and borrow. 
     We tolerate their deflecting onto America the popular hatred 
     that would otherwise be directed at their own corruption. 
     Why? Because we need their oil.
       The war on terrorism will be fought in many places. Alaska 
     is one. We have known since 1973 that we need to reduce our 
     dependence on Persian Gulf oil. But we have never been 
     serious. It was assumed that Sept 11 would make us serious. 
     Instead, we are engaged in exegeses on polar bear mating 
     habits and a ridiculous debate that pits conservation vs. 
     drilling. Why one and not the other is beyond me.
       Of course we need conservation. I have been an advocate of 
     a dollar-a-gallon gasoline tax for 20 years. Whatever it 
     takes: auto efficiency standards, higher taxes, incentives 
     for new fuels.
       But why stop there? We need more oil still. Every 
     additional barrel that substitutes domestic oil for foreign 
     oil is a victory. Drilling in the Arctic will involve less 
     than 1 percent of the Arctic Refuge. It might produce an 
     additional million barrels a day. The sea of natural gas 
     beneath could be the largest in North America.
       And yet the Luddites stand firm, as if Sept. 11 never 
     happened. Sen. John Kerry vows a filibuster if anyone dares 
     legislate Arctic drilling.
       Imagine where we would be if those railing against Arctic 
     drilling today had prevailed 30 years ago and stopped Prudhoe 
     Bay. The million barrels a day we now get from Alaska would 
     be coming from Saudi Arabia. We would be even more in their 
     debt and under their thumb.
       A concerned citizenry is yearning to do something 
     significant for the war effort on the home front. But this is 
     not World war II. We do not need rubber. We do not need war 
     bonds. We do not need Rosie riveting.
       We desperately do need energy independence. And that is a 
     home-front battle: conservation--and a willingness to disturb 
     a few acres of snow in a vast wilderness as remote as 
     Afghanistan.
       There's a war on, senators. Let's get serious.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Referring to my good friend again, the junior Senator 
from Massachusetts, who says the supply is insignificant, if the supply 
is insignificant, what has Prudhoe Bay done to this country? This is 
Prudhoe Bay. It was developed 27 years ago. It has supplied the Nation 
with 20 percent of the total crude oil. If we had not developed Prudhoe 
Bay, we would not have the oil. We would be importing more from Iraq, 
more from Saudi Arabia. Maybe we would be importing from Libya and 
Iran, very possibly. So do not say it does not contribute something, 
because it does.
  The area of Kaktovik is said to contain 5.7 to 16 billion barrels. 
Prudhoe Bay was only supposed to contain 10 billion barrels. It is now 
at 13 billion barrels.
  I am continually frustrated by people who speak on this who have 
never been to ANWR's Coastal Plain. They refuse to go. They do not want 
to take the time to talk to the people in Kaktovik

[[Page S12088]]

about their hopes and aspirations or see the kids in Kaktovik who want 
a better life going to school. They will not do that.
  So I have to come to this Chamber and explain why I have expertise to 
talk about something because of my background, because it is in my 
State, because of the fact I have been there. And yet, my critics do 
not have to justify their generalities.
  This is a picture of some kids of Kaktovik going to school, three 
happy Eskimo kids in a village of fewer than 400. They cannot drill for 
gas on their own land. Now think of that. That is an injustice, and yet 
we have those who say it is insignificant, those who say we are ready 
for the debate.
  I do not see them ready for the debate. I will debate them in a 
moment because there is no question we can develop ANWR safely. We have 
the technology. In Prudhoe Bay, we drill in the wintertime, the long 
winter, which runs roughly October through May. We have our drilling 
rigs. We have our various ice roads. We do it right. We do it safely. 
We can do it quickly.
  This next photo is a classic example of the Arctic. It looks exactly 
the same as the 1002 area in ANWR. There are no trees in this area. 
This is an oil rig drilling in the Prudhoe Bay area. This is an ice 
road, there is no gravel. When this oil well is done--and I will show a 
picture in the summertime --that is what is seen in the tundra. There 
it is, the same rig.
  We know how to take care of our environment. We can show a few other 
States how to take care of their environment because we directionally 
drill. This is the technology. These are 16 miles apart. My opponents 
say it cannot be done safely. There is no evidence to suggest we cannot 
do it safely. My opponents say it is insignificant because it will not 
start for a few years. It is significant.
  It is as if we are in a drought to some extent in Washington, D.C. I 
suppose we could just pray for rain like praying we will not use any 
more oil and then we will not have to increase our dependence on oil. 
But, what we do about it is we water our lawn or we look to the 
immediate relief we can get. We had that opportunity in 1995 when the 
bill passed this body.
  It was vetoed by President Clinton. Had that veto not occurred, we 
might not have had to board that ship. I know how that goes around 
here. That is not a fair accusation but is a reference on reality.
  Tom Daschle, tell me why all the organizations are wrong and you 
refuse to bring up an energy bill? Tom Daschle, you owe it to the 
Congress, you owe it to the House, you owe it to the Nation and you owe 
it to me. What we will do is ask you to live by your commitment for 90 
minutes of debate on the Iraqi sanctions.
  The other issue promulgated is the attitude of the Gwich'in people. 
Some of the arguments used are in regard to ensuring the Gwich'in 
people of Alaska that somehow this does not have any detrimental 
affect. The Gwich'in area is, of course, both in Canada and Alaska. 
This map has a better view. This is Gwich'in territory, Old Crow. This 
area on this side is also Gwich'in territory.
  My point is, in Canada, the Gwich'ins have entered into leasing. A 
new Native-controlled oil and gas company has been found in the McEnzie 
delta. The Gwich'in Oil Field Service owns 51 percent; owned by 
Gwich'in drilling company. The Gwich'ins estimate they have an area of 
22,000 square miles. We are talking about leasing, on the United States 
side, 1.5 million acres, and the footprint will be 2,000 acres. The 
Gwich'in Development Corporation, wholly owned by the tribal counsel, 
has a mission to build an investment portfolio offering business 
opportunities, employment and training to Gwich'in residents. The chief 
executive officer of the operation said that the deal with the company 
gives the community a chance to participate in oil and gas development. 
He says in his company's experience, the development of local workforce 
and infrastructure is the key to continued development of the gas 
resources of the Canadian Arctic.
  There is a mixed message. The mixed message is very clear. The 
environmentalists have been funding the Alaskan Gwich'in steering 
committee for their own purposes. Their purpose is to ensure that ANWR 
does not come about. As a consequence, I think that argument can be put 
aside now; most of the population are Canadian Gwich'ins, as far as the 
number of tribal members; three-quarters happen to reside in Canada. 
That is their business. But let's not use these people as a scapegoat 
to a position that somehow it is not in their interests. It is in the 
interests of the environmental community that funds them.
  Here is the issue in a nutshell. The argument is superficial. It is 
an argument associated with having an issue which the environmental 
community has to add to their membership and to raise money. They are 
playing it for what it is worth. It is a significant contribution. If 
it is halfway between the estimate of 6 and 16 billion barrels, as big 
as Prudhoe Bay.
  Is the issue equity to the Native people? Clearly, they don't want to 
talk about the fact that the 95,000 acres owned by the Gwich'ins cannot 
be drilled on for natural gas to heat their homes. They don't want to 
talk abut the job opportunities.
  The junior Senator said we have all kinds of job potential with 
regard to energy. Well, none were named. I am all for wind power. I am 
all for solar power. I am for greater mileage with gas. But we will not 
get there because America still relies on energy, whether in the 
airplanes, on the trains, or the ships. And so does the rest of the 
world. We have coal. But we don't move an airplane on coal. We don't 
move it on hot air from the Senate. Somebody has to produce oil 
somewhere. The question is reducing our dependence. How can we 
sleep, again, relying on Saddam Hussein and knowing what Saddam Hussein 
is up to?

  We will proceed. I have hopes that we can have cooperation. I will 
have hopes that I can go to the chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, Senator Bingaman, and try to address this in an 
approach we can handle in the Senate, but don't buy the excuse that we 
cannot take up an energy bill and pass it. We can take up H.R. 4; the 
House passed its bill. We can pass this out of committee and still have 
a very significant debate on the ANWR issue. But everyone is hiding on 
this issue. They are deathly afraid of it.
  All I can do is try and sort out fact from fiction. That is what I 
have attempted. I recall the statement of the chairman of the Energy 
Committee, my friend, Senator Bingaman, hoping there will be broad 
bipartisan support on the committee for dealing with urgent 
infrastructure issues and take a more comprehensive support to the 
remaining issues. I am ready to do that.
  When the leader took away the authority of the chairman of the Energy 
Committee and said he cannot bring anything up in committee if it 
involves an energy bill or involves ANWR--I hope other committee 
chairmen are concerned about that. If Republicans had control of this 
Senate and Senator Lott asked me to do it, I would tell him to go take 
a hike; I am the chairman. I work with the leadership. But after all, 
you take my authority totally and leave it in a nebulous state around 
the cloud of majority leader. That is not right.
  We have heard the organizations that support this. I guess the leader 
can assume, from his point, they are wrong and the leader is right. It 
depends on what the leadership wants and what they want to move. 
Somehow they are prepared to fight this out. We are going to address 
energy in one form or another before we leave. If I have to object to 
every unanimous consent agreement, if I have to object to moving to the 
next bill, we can go through the cloture, but enough is enough. We want 
either a commitment to take it up, put it on as an amendment to one of 
the bills, or a firm determination on when to take it up and when to 
conclude it.
  I have been in the Senate for 21 years. I am not buying the argument 
we will take it up at the 1st of the year. We start taking it up and it 
is set aside and we will never see it again. That will not work this 
time. We have a few people that feel very strongly about this, 
including the other side of the aisle. I hope the White House is 
observing this process. I am putting them on notice, too. Nothing 
moves.
  I hope you will join with me. This picture shows what is going on on 
the Canadian side of the Arctic. Those are all offshore and onshore 
wells. We see

[[Page S12089]]

the maple leaf, a Canadian symbol. This is the Alaska area, and this is 
the 1002 area. This is, again, 35 times the size of Rhode Island.
  Here is the pipeline. Remember the pipeline? We argued about it. It 
is 800 miles and is running at half capacity. It can take the existing 
oil from ANWR, run it laterally over here, and we are in business. No 
big thing. It is no big thing at all.

  Do you remember what they said about this? They said you are putting 
a fence across Alaska, 800 miles. The animals are not going to be able 
to traverse it. This is in permafrost. The ground is frozen, so when 
you put a hot pipeline in, it is going to melt and crack the pipeline.
  Here are the animals, three bears. They are walking the pipeline. 
Why? It is easier on the feet, you don't have to walk in the snow, and 
it is nice and warm. I don't know whether it is a papa bear and mother 
bear and baby bear, but that is a true story of the three bears.
  We are going to keep these coming until somebody comes or I will get 
tired of talking, either one.
  The Arctic, as a whole, is an extraordinary area. While some areas of 
the Arctic may have some pristineness, it also has a tough, long 
winter. This is the Arctic and this is what it is like this time of 
year. This is what it will be like in April. This is what it will be 
like until May.
  In the summertime there are a few mosquitos there and these are the 
Porcupine caribou. From here to here is more than 60 miles. Senator 
Boxer and I got into some discussion about just where this picture was 
taken from. This was taken from the roof of one of the windows in 
Kaktovik. We have the authentication of the photographer behind it. 
This is taken from the sea. These are 50 to 60 miles away. These are 
the caribou moving through.
  What happens with caribou is kind of interesting. They are protected 
in Prudhoe Bay. You cannot bring a gun into Prudhoe Bay. What we have 
seen in the Prudhoe Bay area--and this is fact, not fiction--is the 
tremendous growth of the caribou herd. It shows Prudhoe Bay and the 
oilfields and the caribou. I assure you, they are not stuffed.
  This is kind of interesting. It shows where we are likely to find oil 
and gas in this country that we put off limits. For the entire west 
coast--Washington, Oregon, California--there is a moratorium on any oil 
or gas exploration. I respect these States. They don't want it so they 
should not have it. This is Wyoming, and Colorado, Utah, New Mexico. 
But, we have also taken the east coast and put that off limits. Then 
down here, in the gulf--remember we just had a debate on reducing that 
leasing area.
  What happened here happened under the previous administration under 
the forest application, closing this to any interests for oil and gas 
as well as timber cutting. So we are excluding areas where we are most 
likely to find oil. We, however, happen to support the drilling for oil 
in Alaska and we want it.
  This next photo isn't Prudhoe Bay but this happens to be the caribou 
that are wandering through. The reason they are wandering through is 
because nobody bothers them. You and I can't just take a gun and shoot 
them.
  The same is true of the polar bear. If you want to shoot a polar bear 
for a trophy, go to Canada or go to Russia. You can't do it in Alaska, 
because they are marine mammals and they are protected--only the Native 
people can take them. These are the things that I live with.
  This is a photo of Kaktovik. This is one of the elders with, 
probably, his grandson. This is their community center. These are real 
people with real dreams and aspirations.
  I know the Presiding Officer was up there and viewed that. He kind of 
looked around and agreed there was some snow on the ground.
  This is Kaktovik. They just removed from here the Army's radar site. 
Native Eskimos have lived there for generations. This is a tough, 
tough, bleak country but it is their country and they love it and they 
simply want an opportunity, like everybody here has, of a better 
lifestyle, a job, better health conditions, and so forth.
  There has been much made about refuges. Some people have been saying: 
``Good heavens, you are going to drill in a refuge.'' Here is a map 
where there has been oil production in national refuges--wildlife 
management areas. Texas has nine; New Mexico has one; Montana has four. 
Oil production has also been in refuges in the following states: Texas, 
Oklahoma, North Dakota, New Mexico, Montana, Mississippi, Alabama, 
Arkansas, Alaska--we only have one in Alaska--California has four, 
Kansas and Louisiana. They are doing all kinds of drilling in refuges, 
and they always have. We have better technology now and we know how to 
do it safely.
  We listen to the arguments from the other side. Many of them have 
never been to ANWR. They don't have to give an explanation for their 
background or expertise, but we do. Here is a chart on reliance. In 
1973, we were 36-percent dependent on foreign oil, and some of us are 
old enough to remember when there were gas lines around the block. We 
were outraged. We said we would create a Strategic Oil Reserve so this 
will never happen and never be dependent on imported oil. In 2001, we 
are 56 percent dependent; in 2010, we will be 66 percent. Shouldn't we 
do something about that to try to take some steps? We want to conserve 
more. Granted, we are going to conserve more. But we are still going to 
use oil. And it is just not us; it is the rest of the world that is 
going to use oil. What about China and the developing nations?
  Here is what is happening to crude oil production in the United 
States. From 1990 to 2000, it is down. It is down from 7.6 million 
barrels a day to 6 million barrels a day. We can turn that around, turn 
it around for American jobs, turn it around for American veterans.
  Why are we deliberating this late in the session? We have tried to 
get this bill up. If you look around at the Chamber you wonder what the 
rest of us are doing today, other than me speaking. Here is where we 
get our oil: Venezuela, Nigeria, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia.
  Let me tell you something about Saudi Arabia. Am I out of time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent for another 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. We are seeing some very dangerous signs coming from 
Saudi Arabia. There is a lot of corruption over there, signs relative 
to the stability of the Royal Family. And there is concern over Bin 
Laden. There is concern that he could get into their oilfields and 
disrupt them through terrorist activities, or even sink a couple of 
ships in the Straits of Hormuz, or even try to overthrow the Royal 
Family.
  Remember what happened in Iran? Iran and the Shah were our best of 
friends, but the Shah did not believe that charity began at home. In 
other words, he was not taking care of his people. That has happened 
over the decades in Saudi Arabia. If that happened, we would pass this 
bill tomorrow because we react to the squeaky wheel and that is the 
crisis. There is absolutely no question about it.
  Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait--here is our friend Iraq, 
Saddam Hussein, Bahrain, and a little from Indonesia.
  We are dependent. I am not standing here and saying if you pass ANWR 
you will not be dependent, but we will be less dependent and we will 
send a message that we are doing something positive to relieve our 
dependence.
  There is an article here in the New Yorker called ``Kings Ransom'' by 
Seymour Hersh, and he talks about the true threat associated with Saudi 
Arabia and the plight of the people and the instability of the Royal 
Family. When we see these things, it behooves us to initiate some 
action.
  Here is a chart on the crisis as it exists. Foreign oil dependence 
has been increased to 56 percent. What happens to our leverage with 
these people when that happens?
  We see natural gas prices soar. We have not had a new nuclear plant 
licensed in 10 years. We have not had a new refinery in this country 
built in 25 years. No new coal plants--no new major plants in 10 years. 
The transmission capacity is overloaded. We saw what happened in 
California earlier this year. We have to do something

[[Page S12090]]

about it. We have to pass an energy bill. The House passed their energy 
bill.
  What about military uses? They are using barrels and barrels each day 
in peacetime.
  You have been very gracious with me, Mr. President. I see another 
Senator wishing recognition.
  But I am going to summarize again my intent in asking the majority 
leader to give us an up-down vote on terminating importation of oil 
from Iraq as he agreed to do on July 25 where he agreed by saying, ``I 
will have no objection to an up-down vote.'' I am sure he can find a 
way to dodge that, too. But we are only asking for 90 minutes. I have 
talked for almost 90 minutes today.
  This agreement says there shall be 90 minutes, and it will be divided 
between the two sides. OK. He is going to have an opportunity to say: 
No. We don't have 90 minutes; or, This isn't the right time.
  We just lost two American Navy seamen who boarded an Iraqi tanker 
which sank.
  We will have to see whether the influence of the extreme 
environmental community still exists to the point that the leadership 
will apparently do anything they ask.
  The leader is my friend. We have had conversations about this. He 
said: I realize how strongly you feel about it.
  It is not just me. It is what is right for America when we have the 
leading Jewish organizations totally in support of this, and the 
veterans groups, and labor. I think he is taking on a big issue here. 
Evidently, the environmental community, in his view, is a lot stronger 
than the veterans groups, the Hispanic groups, the Mexican groups, the 
Jewish groups, and the other groups, on and on--senior citizens, and 
the Bush administration.
  I hope it is not for the reason of handing the President a victory. 
This isn't a victory for the President. This is what is right for 
America. Let's put politics aside.
  Finally, if we can't work something out, all of us had better find a 
place up there to hang our Christmas stockings because we will be here. 
I will be here.
  I am ready to sit down and discuss, negotiate, or whatever, whether 
it be the railroad retirement bill we are trying to get up, to which we 
objected--I will object to the next one that comes up, whether it be 
the bill pending stimulus bill, we are going to address it on each one 
of these. It will take time. I have big files. I can talk for a long 
time. I don't want to do that to each Member. I want to resolve this. I 
want to find a way to work it out, and the sooner the better.
  I will be sending a letter to the leader today asking him to provide 
90 minutes for us to take up the issue of terminating our imports from 
Iraq because Iraq is an enemy and we are at war.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, before the Senator from Alaska yields the 
floor, I would like to ask a question.
  Because of news reports today and yesterday, I believe, that Saddam 
Hussein made an absolutely firm statement that under no circumstances 
would he comply with the U.N. resolution which required that he submit 
his country to U.N. inspectors looking for evidence of weapons of mass 
destruction, and because of the strong reaction here in the United 
States and, I think, in the West generally about the possibility of 
beginning much more aggressive action against Saddam Hussein, I have 
two questions for the Senator from Alaska.
  First, is it likely if we were to take such action that our ability 
to continue to buy oil from Saddam Hussein would evaporate?
  Secondly, my recollection is that if we were to develop the oil 
resources available in the ANWR area that it could be a complete 
substitute for the Iraqi oil. I have forgotten over what period of time 
that would be. Can the Senator from Alaska respond?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am very happy to respond to my friend 
from Arizona. Perhaps I can highlight a little bit about the specific 
dependence.
  Here is where we get our oil currently: Nigeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, 
and here is Iraq--862,000 barrels. It is over a million barrels now. So 
we have increased that.
  If we were to terminate our dependence, we would have to find it 
someplace else. We would like to think that we could initiate more 
conservation. You can buy a small, fuel-efficient car. Some people do. 
Most people prefer not to for their comfort and for economic reasons. 
But, nevertheless, the choice is theirs.

  To suggest that somehow we would terminate purchasing oil from Iraq, 
the results are somewhat predictable. The price of crude oil to the 
American public would go up because there would be a shortage of 
supply.
  I assume Saudi Arabia, which has excess capacities, would try to use 
their leverage to pick up some of that oil. But it would certainly cost 
more.
  The Senator from Arizona makes a very significant point--that we have 
evidence that Saddam is up to no good.
  Remember that just last week there was a tanker leaving an Iraqi 
port, and it was intercepted by the U.S. Navy. They went aboard that 
ship. In the process, the ship sank. We lost two American sailors. We 
had to do that. He was smuggling oil. That is how he generates the 
cash-flow above and beyond that which is overseen by the U.N. 
inspectors.
  We had an incident about a month ago where there was a little payoff. 
The inspectors went aboard. They loaded a tanker half full. The 
inspectors signed off and left. After they left, they would fill up the 
tanker, and away they would go.
  The worst thing about that is: What does he do with his money? We 
can't get U.N. inspectors in there, as the Senator from Arizona said. 
They haven't been in there for well over a year. I think it is probably 
2 years now that we have had no inspectors. He is not passing it out 
for the betterment of his people. We know what he is doing. He is 
developing a missile and biological capability, and he is aiming it at 
Israel. That is why you have all of the organizations now aboard the 
Israeli lobby, so to speak.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, my second question is: If we needed to find 
an alternative source, and if we could find a source that is right here 
in the good, old U.S.A., if the exploration in the ANWR area turned out 
as people think it would, what is the relationship between that part of 
the oil that might be produced and the amount of oil that we currently 
import from the country of Iraq?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It would eliminate Iraq's contribution. We would not 
have to depend on Iraq for 70 years. That is the harsh reality. That is 
what ANWR is estimated to contain. The range goes from 5.6 billion 
barrels to 16 billion barrels. As the Senator from Arizona knows, when 
you look for minerals or anything underground, it is the best 
scientific evaluation from the geologists. But even if it were in the 
middle--10 billion barrels--it would equal what we produce from Prudhoe 
Bay, which is 20 to 25 percent of all of our crude oil. It is a lot of 
oil. It would send a real signal to the Mideast that we are going to 
relieve our dependence on you folks over there. We are not going to 
increase it.
  The Senator from Arizona is a businessman. He knows. We lose our 
leverage when we become more dependent.
  Back to the chart, it shows the crude oil prices and percentages. 
Here is where we were in 1973: 36 percent dependent.
  Remember the Yom Kippur war. We had gas lines around the block. We 
said we would never again be dependent to that point. We created SPR. 
Yet in the meantime we are up to 56 percent dependence, and we are 
going to go up to 66 percent dependence in the year 2010.
  The other chart, of course, shows Iraqi oil exports. He has been 
doing very well considering he is our enemy.
  Mr. KYL. A final comment: Of all the reasons the Senator from Alaska 
has articulated today, I would put first among them the fact that we 
could well be at war to a much greater degree than we have been with 
Iraq in the very near future.
  We are going to have to have an alternate supply. If this bill could 
be passed, the exploration of that oil could occur in ANWR which would 
more than replace that Iraqi oil and begin to relieve our dependence on 
Middle East oil.

[[Page S12091]]

  It seems to me, not just as a matter of national energy policy but as 
a matter of national security, we ought to get on with the debate on 
the energy bill.
  I firmly support the effort of the Senator from Alaska to do so. I 
look forward to being able to debate it in the very near future.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator. It is important to recognize that 
the Senator from Arizona has been up to ANWR. So I can honestly say, he 
knows what he is talking about, as opposed to some who are ``experts'' 
on the subject who refuse to go up ANWR, who will not take the time.
  I advise my friend from Arizona that we sent a little over $5 billion 
to Saddam Hussein last year for the purchase of his oil. And that does 
not produce one job in America. What does he do with that money? That 
is a concern we should have.
  I thank my friend from Arizona for the colloquy and wish he and the 
Chair a very good day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am glad I had the opportunity to join in a 
brief colloquy with the Senator from Alaska because the point he has 
made is a very important one, and it ties directly into what I came to 
this Chamber to speak of today; and that is, an effort on the part of 
the majority leader to insert into the debate a subject extraneous to 
the effort the President is attempting to make to get an economic 
stimulus package, which includes an energy component to it, to ensure 
that our economy will remain strong so that we can continue to execute 
the war on terrorism and know that in the end we will have all of the 
resources we need to do that, as well as for the benefit of all 
Americans who deserve to have a growing and vibrant economy.
  There is something very wrong with the process we are engaged in 
right now, which takes us away from the consideration of the stimulus 
legislation the President would like to have us act upon, to begin to 
take up extraneous matters.
  We are almost at the end of our legislative session. We should have 
ended in October or November. It is now obviously going to be in 
December. The way it looks right now, it will be close to Christmas Eve 
when we adjourn for the year.
  I am happy to stay all year here in Washington doing business, if it 
is productive and we have our priorities straight. But the fact is, the 
No. 1 priority is fighting the war. Closely related to that is keeping 
our economy strong, and, frankly, stimulating the economy to be 
stronger because right now we are either in or very close to being in a 
recession. That is why the President has called upon us, as our first 
priority, to support his efforts to stimulate the economy.
  About a week ago, the majority leader brought forth to the Senate 
floor a bill--a very bad bill, in my view, the bill that came out of 
the Finance Committee on a partisan, party-line vote--but at least a 
bill that enabled us to begin to debate the stimulus package. The hope 
was we would all make our speeches and get our partisanship out of the 
way and then get down to trying to compromise and come up with a good 
package of tax breaks and support for those who are unemployed right 
now in order to be sure our economy could continue to grow rapidly.

  But after some initial posturing, rather than sitting down to work 
out a bill or debating further on the floor the merits of different 
proposals, and perhaps attempting to amend one or the other, we find 
ourselves in the situation where the leadership has decided to call a 
timeout on the stimulus package and go to other legislation. If this 
were June or July, that would be a perfectly appropriate legislative 
tactic. But we are almost at the end of the session.
  We have two things we have to do before we adjourn and very little 
time to do them. First, we have to finish the appropriations conference 
reports. They are about half done. They take time. We have to get them 
down. They fund the Departments of the Government for next year, not 
the least of which, of course, is the Defense Department appropriations 
bill. There is a separate bill there that will ensure we have the money 
we need to conduct our military operations in this war on terrorism.
  The second thing the President has asked us to do before we leave is 
to get this stimulus package passed so its effect can begin to be felt 
early in the next year, in time to do some good for our economic 
recovery.
  What we do not need to be doing is taking a timeout and beginning an 
excursion off into partisan politics, politics that have to do with a 
bill that railroad labor unions want. There are some people in this 
country to whom this is a very vital issue. Some of them are in my home 
State of Arizona. There is plenty of time to deal with the railroad 
retirement issue. Whatever we do with that, it is not going to go away. 
We can do it next year. We can do it whenever. But we do not need to 
take time away from our first priority in this war we are fighting to 
call a timeout to deal with this political issue of the railroad 
retirement fund.
  And we are told when we are done with that, the next thing is a farm 
bill. We do not need to take up a farm bill until next year either, but 
we are told that the leader would like to bring up a farm bill.
  My point for coming to this Chamber today is to say, wait a minute, 
where are our priorities? Let's get back on the President's agenda. If 
we are going to be bipartisan in this body, then let's support what the 
President is attempting to do.
  Certainly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not have to 
agree with everything the President wants to do. I would never expect 
them to do that. But, on the other hand, we ought to at least act in 
enough of a bipartisan way to begin compromising, to reach a conclusion 
on a bill we can pass before we recess this year. That means we have to 
continue to focus on the stimulus package and not go off riding to the 
hounds on some railroad retirement legislation.
  So we are going to vote tomorrow. The question is going to be: Should 
we leave the discussion of the stimulus package and begin consideration 
of a railroad retirement bill?
  I say no. Let's stick with the stimulus package. Let's get it done. 
And then let's go home for Christmas. Let's support the President.
  I hear a lot of talk of bipartisanship. What does bipartisanship 
really mean? I have to commend several of my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle for the public statements they have made in support of the 
President's conduct of this war. Frankly, the majority leader has been 
one of the people who has been the strongest in his enunciation of 
ideals, with whom every American can agree who supports the President, 
even though the President is not from the majority leader's party. I 
commend him for that.
  The problem is there seems to be a division between the war effort on 
the one hand and domestic politics on the other. So some of my 
colleagues are saying, but it is OK if we are not bipartisan on matters 
that deal with the domestic side of things. The problem with that is, 
the primary issue on the domestic side is the state of the economy, and 
the state of the economy has a direct bearing on our ability to fight 
the war on terrorism. It is also the most important problem facing the 
American people.
  So bipartisanship, it seems to me, would be an effort to work 
together, not necessarily to agree out of the box, but to try to 
develop a procedure under which we would eventually come to some kind 
of an agreement on a stimulus package that we could support, that the 
President could sign, that would benefit the American people.
  We can get there by continuing to focus on the stimulus package. We 
will never get there if we take time out to take up the railroad 
retirement bill. If we take the farm bill up, that is a black hole of 
significant magnitude, I must say. If you get into a farm bill, you get 
into the dairy compacts and you get into many other subjects. The year 
will, in fact, end before we ever get through that bill.
  Meanwhile, the appropriations bills languish, most especially the 
Defense appropriations bill, of all things. We have to get the Defense 
appropriations bill passed.
  So I am asking my colleagues to say no. Vote no. Do not invoke 
cloture to take up the railroad retirement legislation and leave the 
stimulus package.
  Mr. President, let me make one more point. There is another issue I 
have

[[Page S12092]]

talked about while addressing subjects in this Chamber over the last 
several months, and that is nominations of the President. It may not be 
known, but this Senate, now about to enter the month of December, has 
still not completed its work on the consideration of the President's 
nominees for his Cabinet.
  He has been President for almost a year now, and the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy nominee, John Walters, has not been acted 
upon by the Senate. I am very hopeful that this week the Senate can 
debate, if we need to, and then vote on the nomination of John Walters. 
Otto Reich, Gene Scalia, and other nominations to important positions 
in this administration are not scheduled for consideration on the 
Senate floor.
  I would suggest this: If we have time to take a timeout from 
consideration of the stimulus package to do other things, then our 
first priority should be--again, if we are going to be bipartisan now--
to act on the President's nominees. He has asked us repeatedly to do 
that.
  Of course, this is not to mention his judicial nominations. We now 
have over 100 nominations pending for vacancies on our courts, 40 of 
which are denominated emergencies, yet we take up no judges. Again, if 
we have time to call time-out from our consideration of the stimulus 
package, we sure as heck have time to take up some of these judicial 
nominations.
  Back in May, the President nominated a group of people to either 
Federal district judgeships or to circuit judgeships. Two of those 
people have never had a hearing in the committee. There is no 
indication that the leadership ever has in mind taking them up. These 
are superbly qualified nominees for the District of Columbia Court of 
Appeals: Miguel Estrada and John Roberts.
  And yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an editorial which speculated 
that the reason was because these are two noted conservative jurists, 
both of whom will be well qualified to be nominated for the U.S. 
Supreme Court if a vacancy were to occur there, and that knowing this, 
the people on the other side of the aisle responsible for these things 
are loath to bring them up because, if confirmed, they would then be in 
a good position to be nominated by the President for a Supreme Court 
position.
  One of them is Miguel Estrada. It is no secret that Miguel Estrada is 
Hispanic, and if confirmed and elevated to the High Court would become 
the first Hispanic Justice. I suspect that President Bush would very 
much like to appoint someone like Miguel Estrada--or John Roberts--to 
the U.S. Supreme Court. What does the Democratic leadership's 
unwillingness to even bring these two people up for a vote suggest?
  It seems to me that there is a lot of politics being played here and 
that we ought to get back to bipartisanship in this body which 
characterized the mood at the very beginning of this year and was 
certainly the mood right after September 11.
  Insofar as the President is concerned, it should still be the order 
of the day; that at a minimum, before we leave here, we should consider 
his nominees for the Cabinet and for these judicial posts. We should 
try to finish work on the appropriations bills. We should conclude the 
work on the stimulus package. And if we do those things, I suggest that 
we will, in fact, be about ready to be singing ``Jingle Bells.'' We 
don't have time to be taking up the Railroad Retirement Act.
  I said I would talk a little about the substance of this. My 
colleagues from Texas and Oklahoma have outlined some of the problems 
with the legislation. Contrary to some of the statements made on the 
floor, it is really not a question of the rail employers and employees 
running their own pension plan.
  The reason that this is being discussed on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate, the Federal Government, is because the United States of America 
has become a major stakeholder in this process on behalf of the 
taxpayers of the United States of America who, in fact, subsidize this 
pension plan
  By the way, I believe that is the case only with this private 
industry's pension plan. We are not talking about the home builders and 
their union employees or the airline companies and their employees, 
just the railroads. A decision was made some time ago that the U.S. 
Government should get involved in the funding and the guarantee of the 
pension for these particular people. That is why the pension plan for 
railroad retirees is on the floor of the Senate.
  The first question one could ask is: Is that good policy? Should we 
be doing that? And then: Should we be debating a bill which would 
expand the obligation of the taxpayers of the United States to fund 
this pension as well as to expand the benefits under the pension? My 
view, you can guess, is, no, we should not be doing that.

  This boils down to a question of two special interests--and there is 
nothing wrong with that per se; we all represent the many special 
interests that comprise our body politic, but these are special 
interests--the railroad employees and their employers, who have 
designed a plan that gives them benefits provided by the American 
taxpayers.
  I don't think we need to be interrupting the business of the entire 
Nation for the benefit of these particular special interests at this 
time.
  If these railroad stakeholders insist on maintaining a retirement 
system that is a Federal responsibility, then I submit their claims 
should be scrutinized by those of us who are supposedly looking out for 
the interests of all of the people. And for starters, we should ask if 
the claimed benefits justify an immediate $15 billion reduction in the 
budget surplus.
  Actually, of course, the budget surplus is probably a misnomer by now 
because we have spent the budget surplus. There is no more budget 
surplus. So this will have to be borrowed money, and taxpayers will 
have to pay the associated interest costs.
  It will not do to pretend, as the House-passed bill does, that the 
fiscal impact can be wished away. I marvel at the audacity of the 
bill's sponsors in resorting to a device of legal legerdemain to say 
that something that is so isn't really so and because we are the 
Congress, we can say that and that becomes the law.
  Here is what they said. I am directly quoting from the House-passed 
bill. They are instructing the CBO and OMB, the Congressional Budget 
Office and the Office of Management and Budget that notwithstanding 
budget law or OMB scoring conventions, ``the purchase or sale of non-
Federal assets''--which is what is involved in this pension fund--
``shall be treated as a means of financing'' rather than an outlay. 
With that clever language, what they have said is: We are going to 
spend $15.6 billion, but we hereby direct the CBO and OMB to say that 
it doesn't count. We are really not spending it as an outlay. It is a 
means of finance.
  That is pretty good. I have to take my hat off to them. It reminds me 
of an old story that Abe Lincoln used to tell. He would ask this riddle 
of people. He would say: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a 
dog have? And his students would ponder that. He would say, of course, 
the answer is four; calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
  Well, calling $15.6 billion in spending a means of financing rather 
than an outlay--it clearly is a means of financing but that doesn't 
mean that it is not an outlay, which, of course, it clearly is--doesn't 
mean that that is what it is. It is an expenditure of $15.6 billion. It 
is money that the U.S. Government is going to have to borrow. 
Therefore, it ought to be counted as an outlay.
  There are three interesting aspects to that besides the audacity of 
it. The first is, of course, that the proponents here are obviously 
embarrassed by the fact that they are asking the American taxpayers to 
expend over $15 billion immediately to aid this private industry's 
pension fund. I would be embarrassed, too. I would want to call it 
something else.
  Secondly, however, for those of my colleagues who signed onto this 
legislation in its original form--there are reasons for having done 
that and reasons for not doing it, but for those who found good reason 
to do it, I make the point that what they are going to be asked to vote 
on tomorrow is not what they signed onto. They signed onto a bill that 
did not have this magical language in it.
  When we are voting tomorrow, they are clearly going to be able to say 
to supporters of this bill, look, I still support your bill and we can 
take it up next year, but I am not going to support a fraud on the 
American people claiming that the $15.6 billion is not an outlay. We 
are going to have to account for that one way or the other. Let's be 
honest about it.
  I hope that my colleagues who are still committed to the legislation 
would acknowledge that what they are being asked to vote for tomorrow 
is not what they signed onto.
  Second--this is an important point--anybody who believes that we 
should

[[Page S12093]]

reform Social Security has to look at this very carefully for the 
precedential effect. If the precedent stands, this will prevent us from 
reforming Social Security as the President has suggested and many of us 
desire to do by allowing a portion of the Social Security funding 
through the payroll tax to be put into an investment account managed by 
each individual Social Security stakeholder.
  Instead, it will cause us to move toward what President Clinton 
proposed and was rejected, fortunately, which was a scheme in which the 
U.S. Government would actually invest money, would invest people's 
Social Security money in the equities market.
  So you would have the Government buying stock in companies. That is a 
bad idea. But because of this language that we would now be permitted 
to say that the purchase or sale of nonfederal assets shall be treated 
as a means of financing rather than an outlay, the kind of scheme 
President Clinton proposed would not have any costs associated with it; 
whereas, the proposal to establish worker-owned personal accounts would 
presumably be scored in the traditional fashion, as a cost, making it 
much more difficult to accomplish. I doubt that was the intent of the 
people who wrote this language. But it is, unfortunately, the effect of 
it. As a result, it is not language that this body should adopt.
  Mr. President, there is another problem. At a time when we have seen 
the great surplus in the Federal Government now disappear, and we are 
now aware that we are going to have to be borrowing money to fund every 
new program that we pass, we have to look very carefully at any 
spending proposals. I think most of us would say we should look 
carefully anyway, but clearly when you are borrowing money in order to 
fund programs, there is an extra obligation to be sure we are spending 
wisely. We are not taking on new obligations that just as well could be 
performed by someone else, if they are good ideas.
  It seems to me that when we are talking about taxpayer responsibility 
for a railroad retirement system, with its massive unfunded 
liabilities, that, A, we are buying a pig in a poke and, B, likely 
putting taxpayers into a situation of having to fund something with 
deficit financing because this bill puts the Government deeper and 
deeper into this pension and deeper into debt.
  If the projections offered by the system's own actuaries are borne 
out, the scheme will reduce the trust fund's reserve by more than 50 
percent. That is because of the lowered retirement age incorporated 
into the bill, as well as the other increased benefits, combined with 
the reduction in payroll taxes. Who can doubt that when this happens, 
these industries who lobbied for this bill will lobby for another 
taxpayer bailout? No private sector pension plan could get away with 
engaging in such practices and calling it reform.
  Shame on us if we allow, through a very truncated debate here, the 
saddling of taxpayers with the bill for such a scheme at the behest of 
these vested interests.
  As I said, this is the time for us rather to address our real 
priorities, and to the extent that people are interested in trying to 
find the best way to reform the taxpayer-subsidized railroad retirement 
system, that should be given the deliberation it really requires in 
this new time. Obviously, that could not occur over the next 24, 48 
hours. We should not be taking up that legislation at this time--not 
only because it is bad legislation, but, as I said, because it diverts 
our attention from more pressing problems; namely, a stimulus package 
and getting that done, getting the appropriations bills done, and 
getting nominations done. I am sure if we can accomplish all of those 
things with great speed, that would put us right up to Christmas Eve 
time.
  I hope tomorrow my colleagues will join me in voting to stay on the 
subject here, the stimulus package. Let's work through it and get it 
done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been listening closely to the 
arguments made by the other side. I have the greatest respect for the 
junior Senator from Arizona, but, boy, I will tell you that it is 
really hard to follow his argument. Based upon his statement asking why 
we are taking time out for extraneous material, the fact is, I was on 
the floor earlier today and offered a unanimous consent request. It was 
clear that there were some who came to the floor and said what the 
Senator from Arizona said: Why are we not on the stimulus bill?
  As the Senator from North Dakota, who is on the floor, so adequately 
projected yesterday in his statement, we are not on the stimulus bill 
because a point of order was raised by the Republicans. We would be 
totally off the bill if we played their game.
  We could have raised a point of order against the House bill. Then we 
would have nothing. We decided not to do that because we wanted the 
stimulus to be here because we believe it is important. But now the 
unanimous consent request--and I will offer it again--has been objected 
to. I will offer it again while the Senator from Arizona is here.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3090

  I ask unanimous consent that the stimulus bill, H.R. 3090, recur as 
pending business immediately upon the disposition of the railroad 
retirement bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Yes, Mr. President. I object because what the Senator is 
asking for is the right to take up the railroad retirement bill.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, objection has been heard and I have the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has the floor.
  Mr. KYL. I respect that, Mr. President.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I also say there has been a question raised 
as to why we are not on the Railroad Retirement Act. In the words of my 
distinguished friend from Arizona, ``the audacity of the bill's 
sponsors.'' There are 74 of them, and 26 of them are Republicans. So 
the ``audacity'' of the 26 Republicans should be spread all over this 
record. The reason they were concerned when they sponsored this bill is 
that maybe they were concerned about the widows of the railroad workers 
and how they feel. This is important legislation, Mr. President.
  Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield for clarification?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, also, there is a riddle about the 
legislation not being as it was when it was signed onto. This happens 
all the time here. That is why we have debate on the floor. If somebody 
doesn't like part of the bill, don't filibuster it; let us go forward 
and offer amendments. We would have been off this a long time ago.
  Then there was talk about why would we go to the farm bill. Well, Mr. 
President, 22 farm organizations believe that we should be on the farm 
bill as soon as we can. We are going to try to do that procedurally as 
soon as the minority lets us. I guess we should ask the Nation's 
farmers about the importance of this farm bill this year. They need 
this. That is why we want to go to it.
  Also, there has been some talk as to why we aren't on the stimulus 
package. I have already talked about that. The fact of the matter is, 
in less than 45 minutes, the majority leader is meeting with the 
minority leader, the Speaker, the majority leader of the House, and the 
eight top leaders of this Congress, including the chairman and ranking 
member of the Finance Committee to talk about a stimulus package. 
Senator Byrd decided he is going to worry about homeland security; he 
is going to do that on the Defense bill. The majority leader is doing 
everything he can, and that will be amplified at 6:30 tonight.

  Earlier today, we were criticized: Why are we not doing conference 
reports? Well, the reason is there aren't any. There are none to do. We 
would be on the stimulus package right now if a point of order hadn't 
been raised by the Republicans. I repeat that the reason we still have 
the bill is we decided we wanted to do something with the conference 
report.
  My friend from North Dakota is present. He does a great job. But 
talking about nominations, how they can do that with a straight face is 
beyond my ability to comprehend. Mr. President, 14 judicial nominees 
have been approved. Senator Leahy is going to report out 9 or 10 more 
tomorrow. He will have hearings next week on 4 or 5 more. This will be 
far more than anybody could imagine he could do with

[[Page S12094]]

the September 11 incident, with the antiterrorism legislation, which 
took weeks. We have approved 4 top-ranking officials from the State 
Department, 10 nominees who represent the United States before the U.N. 
We have approved 45 ambassadors.
  We have said time and again this isn't payback time. But look what 
they did to President Clinton's nominations to be ambassadors. It was 
embarrassing. Senator Daschle and I went to Brazil. We didn't have an 
ambassador there for 2 years. It is one of the largest countries, not 
only physically but in the number of people, in the whole world. They 
would not bring the nomination up so we could have a vote. We have 
approved 45. We have approved 49 U.S. attorneys. We would approve more, 
but they haven't submitted them to us. There is also the Commissioner 
of Customs and the representative of the United States to the European 
Union. And they complain about Walters. We are going to do that next.
  Now they have the theory that the reason Senator Leahy is not moving 
forward is we don't want people to go to the Supreme Court. There is a 
basic rule we have that you don't have to be a district court judge or 
appellate judge to become a member of the Supreme Court; Rehnquist 
wasn't, the Chief Justice, for whom I have great respect. I think he is 
a great guy. He said the reason we are not moving forward is that a 
Hispanic judge is going to be promoted. I thought Judge Gonzalez, the 
President's chief lawyer at the White House, was going to be the next 
nominee to the Supreme Court. They should get their stories straight.

  In short, rather than coming over here trying to confuse the American 
people, remember, we are not on the economic stimulus bill because they 
raised a point of order. We would be on the bill today. Instead, 
Senator Daschle is having to do some things in his office to work 
something out with the leadership--Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, 
and our counterparts in the House.
  I am terribly disappointed that we have the minority coming here 
making excuses for their own delay. We are not delaying anything. We 
have not had a vote all day. It is not our fault.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I, too, was inspired by the remarks of a 
couple of colleagues. My colleague from Nevada just described a rather 
curious circumstance. We had colleagues come to the Chamber of the 
Senate and ask the question: Where is the stimulus package? Where is 
the legislation designed to provide economic recovery and lift to the 
American economy? It is as if they have forgotten the last couple of 
weeks.
  That stimulus package, or the economic recovery package, was before 
the Senate. We had debate on it. I was here and began debate on that. 
We were discussing it. Then the other side decided they would make a 
point of order against that stimulus package.
  A point of order was valid against it, as there is against the 
Republican package authored by Senator Grassley, as there will be 
against the House package. All of them violate the Budget Act. We 
understand that. This is an emergency, and all of us understand that 
passing a stimulus package to provide for economic recovery is outside 
of the Budget Act. But they are the ones who decided to make a point of 
order and take it off the floor of the Senate, and they did.
  Now they are asking: Where is it? They know where it is. It was 
before the Senate, it is now on the calendar, but it is not before us 
for debate because they made a point of order against the bill.
  There is a certain genius in being able to ignore facts, but it must 
certainly be uncomfortable in the long run to do that. This is not 
about he said, we said, she said, they said. This is about: what do we 
do to help the American economy recover, how do we do it, and when do 
we do it? That is what it is about. It is not about pointing fingers.
  We have had people come to the Chamber to talk about the majority 
leader this, the majority leader that. We had a discussion for an hour 
about energy and the majority leader. The majority leader came to the 
Senate Chamber today and said we are going to take up energy. He said 
exactly when we are going to do it, and how we are going to do it, and 
he is doing exactly the right thing because energy is important for 
this country. Part of America's security is energy security, that is 
true. But providing energy security is not developing policies that 
represent ``yesterday forever;'' developing policies that say our 
energy strategy is just dig and drill, and that is our energy strategy 
for the future. That is not an excuse for an energy strategy.
  Yes, we should produce more oil and gas. Yes, we should use more 
coal. We should do it in an environmentally acceptable way. There is 
much more to do, as the majority leader knows, to promote strong 
conservation measures, better efficiency of appliances, and incentives 
to produce both limitless energy and renewable energy.
  As the majority leader knows and some have forgotten, there is more 
to energy than just supply and conservation. Energy is also about 
national security and energy security--providing security for nuclear 
powerplants, providing security for transmission lines, and providing 
security for pipelines. All of that exists as well, and ought to be 
part of an energy bill.
  That is why the majority leader has waited just a bit to bring all of 
these things together from all of the committees, so that when we 
debate energy in the Senate, we are debating a comprehensive energy 
bill that deals with energy security for this country. It is not just a 
``yesterday forever'' policy.
  I mentioned ``yesterday forever.'' I will not repeat the story, but 
my first car was a 1924 Model T Ford that I restored. When I got my 
Model T Ford restored when I was 14 or 15 years old, my father had a 
gas station, and I put gas in that 1924 car exactly the same way you 
put gas in a 2001 model car. Nothing has changed. You go to a gas pump, 
take the hose, stick it in your tank, and pump gas. Nothing has changed 
with respect to the way you fuel an automobile.
  Everything else in life has changed. Don't you think maybe when we 
talk about an energy policy 40 and 50 years from now, we might aspire 
to have a change?
  I drove a car out on the lot of the Capitol Building that was a fuel 
cell car operating on water and air, oxygen. The fact is, there are 
technologies, applications, and opportunities for us in a good energy 
policy dealing with not only transportation and automobiles, but with 
electricity and the transmission of electricity; with composite 
conductors, and tripling the efficiency of transmission lines.
  There is so much more we can do and should do. That is why the 
majority leader says: Let's do this. I pledge to do it, here is when we 
are going to do it, but let's do it right. Let's have it be much more 
than just the same-old policies.
  I asked those who run our energy policy one day--and I could have 
asked this question of any of the last four administrations, and gotten 
the same answer--I asked them: What are your plans? Do you have plans 
for 50 years from now, because we talk about Social Security--is Social 
Security funded for the next 30 to 50 years? Everybody is gnashing 
their teeth about that. I asked: What are our energy plans for 25, 35, 
and 50 years? Do we have any? If so, what are they? Do we aspire to 
wean ourselves just a bit from fossil fuels, and perhaps go to some 
other technologies and some renewable, limitless fuels? What is it that 
we aspire to do?
  The answer was: We do not have plans for 25 or 50 years with respect 
to an energy future. We really do not think in those terms. We ought 
to. That is why the majority leader says: Let's do an energy bill and 
let's do it right. Let's do it in a way that says to this country our 
energy policy for the future is not yesterday forever. Senator Daschle 
makes good sense when he commits to do this, and to do it the right 
way.
  I know one of my colleagues brought out several dozen charts today. I 
do not need any charts to simply say that we need an energy policy that 
is balanced, that represents production, conservation, efficiency, and 
renewable and limitless energy sources, and one that represents energy 
security for our country. I do not need charts to say that. We need to 
do that.
  The House of Representatives wrote an energy bill that almost drops 
off the

[[Page S12095]]

one side of the page, it is so overweighted with ``yesterday forever'' 
policies.
  To those who talk about the energy issues at such great length, I say 
we are heading toward a real debate on real energy policies that will 
strengthen this country. The reason we are going to do that is Majority 
Leader Daschle says he is committed to do that in the first work period 
when we come back in January. We are going to bring the work from all 
of these committees to the floor of the Senate, and talk about all the 
facets of energy that we need to employ to give this country some 
assurance of energy security for the future.
  Mr. President, let me get back to the stimulus package. We cannot 
leave town without passing a stimulus or economic recovery package. We 
cannot do that. This country is at war. The economy of this country has 
been in a steep decline. We are in a war and a recession, and we must 
pass a package that tries to provide economic recovery. There is not a 
Republican way to do that or a Democratic way to do that.
  There are plenty of good ideas in this Chamber. The trick, it seems 
to me, is for us to discard the bad ones, and embrace the good ones 
from every part of this Chamber--to come up with a bill that says: 
America first. We want this country to succeed. We want our economy to 
grow. We want to provide opportunity for the American people.
  We have been in a situation where there was a call for an economic 
recovery program by virtually everyone, and the House of 
Representatives wrote one. It is not really worth much. I will just 
describe a couple of things.
  The Ways and Means Committee on which I served for 10 years and was 
very proud to do that--it is a great committee--wrote an economic 
recovery plan. God bless them, they just went back to the same old 
suitcase of tired ideas. One that they trotted out was: Oh, by the way, 
for economic recovery, let's do this: Let's provide a tax rebate for 
alternative minimum taxes paid back between now and 1988 for the 
biggest companies in this country.
  What does that mean? Well, Ford Motor Company gets a $1 billion 
rebate check. IBM gets a $1.4 billion rebate check. Is that going to 
promote economic recovery in our country? I do not think so. It is the 
same old tired thing, giving the big the most in a way that does not 
necessarily address the question of economic recovery. That is one 
example.
  The point is the House wrote a bill. It has some good provisions in 
it; it has some awful provisions. In the Senate, we had a bill that 
came out of the Finance Committee. I thought it was a good bill, though 
not perfect. I would have done some things differently, but we brought 
it before the Senate. The Republican side of the aisle decided they 
would offer a point of order against it. They made a point of order 
that it violated the Budget Act, and they took it down. Now they stand 
around wondering what happened to it.
  If a bill is taken down, it seems to me that if one's memory is not 
infinitesimally short, one should remember what happened to it when it 
was taken down. So maybe we need to get some mirrors for useful 
reminders to people when they say: Where is the stimulus package? Those 
who voted to take it off the floor of the Senate really dispatched the 
stimulus package from a debate we were having, which I thought was a 
pretty constructive debate.
  Senator Daschle has convened a meeting that is going to happen in 30 
minutes. I hope that meeting bears some fruit, because I do not think 
this is about Republicans and Democrats. It is about trying to get the 
best ideas we can to figure out what approaches--in spending and tax 
changes, tax cuts and expenditures, approaches that are both temporary 
and immediate--can help this country's economy. Whatever they are, 
wherever they come from, we ought to employ them in a way that 
cooperates with the President's interests, employ them to try to help 
this economy. That is what we should be doing at this point.
  We had a discussion about judges. I happen to be one who believes we 
ought to move judges quickly to a vote. We ought to know all there is 
to know about them, as is the case in any lifetime confirmation. It is 
a lifetime appointment. When we confirm someone for life, we ought to 
know everything there is to know to make a judgment. I do not think we 
ought to hold judges. Let us move them to a vote. I am for that.
  The people who are complaining these days were silent for 6 and 8 
years when the then-majority party held the Democratic President's 
judges in a deep prison, and they never saw the light of day. We never 
heard a peep from these people.
  Notwithstanding all the history, it seems to me this country is best 
served by moving judges after we have determined through hearings what 
their backgrounds are. My understanding is Senator Leahy is holding a 
hearing, and about to report either eight or nine judges this week. So 
I think we are moving on judges. I think it is important for us to work 
together to do that.
  What we have is a situation where Senator Daschle brings forward the 
Railroad Retirement Act. It has 74 cosponsors. In a 100-Member Chamber 
of the Senate, 74 Senators have cosponsored this Railroad Retirement 
Act, and yet we have a filibuster. Next we will try to bring the farm 
program. That came out of the Agriculture Committee. I am told by some 
there may be a filibuster on the motion to proceed to the farm bill. I 
hope very much that is not true. I hope we can get that legislation 
before the Senate.
  With respect to the Railroad Retirement Act, I do not think this 
ought to be a cause for a filibuster. I know that has happened in the 
last day and a half, but the Railroad Retirement Act has 74 cosponsors, 
years of discussion between the railroads themselves, rail labor, and 
management, and the principles of those discussions have been 
incorporated into legislation that has been worked on for a long time. 
This has a very long gestation period. This has been around a long 
time. The bill is sufficiently good that it attracts 74 cosponsors. How 
many times does legislation in the Senate have 74 cosponsors? Not very 
many. So why does this have 74 cosponsors? Because this has been worked 
on a long time. It represents a sound compromise that will do a lot of 
important things.

  I very much hope those who take a good look at this, especially those 
who cosponsored it, will vote to break this filibuster so we can move 
this bill and pass it through the Senate. But this provides for an 
expansion of the widow and widower benefits. It deals with important 
vesting provisions, early retirement provisions. It represents a 
compromise with respect to investment of funds. It is a compromise that 
is a good compromise, and has been developed over a long period of 
time, and one that the Senate really ought to embrace.
  I realize when we come to the end of a session, as we have 
experienced now with probably a week and a half or two left, there are 
some who do not like the agenda. They say: this bill is brought up, but 
that is not what they want. They wanted a different bill. The problem 
is, someone has to be in charge. Our side did not like it when the 
other side was in charge. I understand that. That goes way beyond, in 
my judgment, the question of trying to get a couple of very important 
things done in the next week or week and a half. One is the stimulus 
package. That, by far, is the most important.
  Our economy took a huge hole in its belly on September 11, and it was 
very weak going in. Economists now say we have been in a recession for 
some months. This economy is an economy that no one quite understands. 
It is a global economy. It is safe for me to say that Mr. Greenspan, 
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, does not understand it. 
Mitch Daniels, Director of OMB, does not understand it, despite the 
fact that today he was talking about what might or might not happen 
with respect to deficits in the years 2002, 2003, 2005, in the 
outyears.
  None of us understands it. I do not understand it. It is a global 
economy. The modeling does not work. It is a new economy. So what does 
this mean, this slowdown, this recession? When will it end? What can we 
do to help it?
  It is quite clear to me the most important element by far is consumer 
confidence. If the American people are confident about the future, they 
do things that manifest that confidence. They buy a house, buy a car, 
or take a trip. They do things that represent

[[Page S12096]]

confidence and security in their future. If they are not confident 
about the future, they do exactly the opposite.
  From those two reactions, of either being confident or not confident, 
we have both a contraction or an expansion of the American economy. In 
this global economy, that is even much different than we used to teach 
it in college. That expansion or contraction has other elements 
attached to it as well.
  So it is our responsibility, in my judgment, to pass a stimulus 
package. The sooner, the better. My hope is the meeting at 6:30 this 
evening will give us an opportunity to reach a compromise between the 
two parties--to be able to create a package of economic recovery 
proposals that will really give confidence to the American people that 
this economy can begin to strengthen, can begin to expand and provide 
jobs and opportunity once again.

  In the month of October, some 415,000 people had to go home one night 
after work and tell their family they lost their jobs. That is a pretty 
tough thing to do. These are people who lost their jobs through no 
fault of their own, people often at the bottom of the economic ladder 
being told that they no longer have a job. Then on the other side of 
the coin, about half of them, when they see if they can qualify for 
unemployment compensation, are told, no, they do not qualify. If they 
do qualify, they qualify for a rather insignificant quantity of 
unemployment compensation for a limited time.
  That is why I hope when we pass this stimulus package one of the 
things we will do is recognize, as every economist who has talked to us 
recognizes, that one of the important elements of every economic 
slowdown to stimulate the economy and to do the right thing for people 
who have lost their jobs is to extend unemployment benefits. That money 
immediately goes into the economy and immediately helps the economy. So 
that is one of the things I hope will come out of the meeting this 
evening. I hope Senator Daschle, working with the other leaders in the 
House and with the White House, can reach agreement on a stimulus 
package that really will help this country.
  Let me make one final point that I think some people will wonder 
about. There is no disagreement or dispute in the Senate about support 
for the President in prosecuting this war against terror. President 
Bush called on this Congress to support his prosecution of the war 
against terrorists. We support him. I think he has done an 
extraordinary job. I commend him. I commend the Secretary of State and 
the Secretary of Defense. My heart goes out to all of the men and women 
in uniform who are risking their lives for this country. We have some 
disagreements on domestic policy--on how we might put a stimulus 
package together, or whether there should be a filibuster on the 
Railroad Retirement Act--but people should understand there is no 
disagreement about this prosecution of the war against terrorism by 
this administration.
  We support this administration. We applaud them for their efforts and 
stand behind them and do everything we can to see they succeed. It does 
not disserve this country's interests to have a discussion and debate 
about other issues--railroad retirement, farm policy, a stimulus 
package. It doesn't disserve anyone's interests to have disagreements 
about that. The best solution will be devised if we have disagreements 
and come up with all of the ideas, have a competition and select the 
best from that competition. That is what this Congress, in my judgment, 
owes the American people. From time to time people will be concerned 
about what the majority leader did or did not do; we ought not be 
concerned that this is broken down into some sort of a debate that is 
unhealthy.
  Once in the Washington Post a Member of Congress was quoted as 
saying: This issue has really degraded into a discussion about 
principle. I thought: Well, I hope so. That is why we are all here, to 
debate policies and principles. No one should feel aggrieved because 
there is debate breaking out in Congress on some of the domestic 
policies; but no one should be mistaken about the war against terrorism 
and terrorists and the support this Congress has for this President in 
the prosecution of that war.
  It is my hope we will be able to make some significant progress on 
these issues in the coming days. Despite the agreements we have had in 
recent days, I think we will see that progress.

                          ____________________