[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 163 (Thursday, November 29, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12114-S12119]
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

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 
10, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the bill (H.R. 10) to provide for 
     pension reform, and for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
shall be 60 minutes of debate prior to the cloture vote.
  Who yields time? If neither side yields time, time will be charged 
equally to both sides.
  The Senator from Nevada is recognized.


                         Republican Energy Plan

  Mr. REID. Madam President, yesterday there was considerable talk on 
the Senate floor regarding the Republican energy plan, using that term 
loosely, talking about the need for us to move forward. The majority 
leader has announced that we are going to take up an energy bill in 
February. He has given a date. I guess it is difficult for some to take 
yes for an answer. We are going to go to an energy bill just as soon as 
we get back. It is important we do that.
  In the meantime, there is this constant harangue from the other side 
about how important it is that we go to an energy bill right now. We 
agree that there should be an acknowledged policy in this country. It 
is very important we do that.
  We have to understand that under their plan, an increase in oil 
import dependence would go from 56 percent today to well over 60 
percent by the year 2010.
  According to the Energy Information Administration, which is part of 
the DOE, by 2010, cars, light trucks, and SUVs will use an additional 
1.8 million barrels of oil a day. Total oil use will increase by twice 
that much to about 3.6 million barrels a day. The Republican plan does 
virtually nothing to address oil consumption. Their mantra is supply, 
supply, supply.
  Nothing the United States does will have any impact on the price of 
oil. That price is determined in the world market. If we don't address 
our consumption, we might drive the price higher.
  The United States currently uses 25 percent of the world's oil 
supply.
  U.S. oil production has been declining since 1970. Even if ANWR were 
opened to oil development, the most optimistic scenario would only 
result in a net increase of less than half a million barrels a day. 
That is a lot of oil, but certainly it will not do anything to address 
the major problems we have in this country. Those problems relate to 
consumption.
  This assumes that oil companies don't shift production from other 
places in the United States. There are 32 million acres in the Gulf of 
Mexico that have been leased but not developed.
  Most of the dollars spent on developing new oil supplies are invested 
outside the United States. Why? Because there is more oil outside the 
United States. We, who are so proud of our natural resources, must 
acknowledge, reluctantly but truthfully, that we don't have a lot of 
oil in the United States. It is estimated that out of 100 percent of 
the oil reserves in the world, we have 3 percent in the United States. 
Most of the dollars spent in developing new oil supplies are in places 
such as Russia, Africa, Brazil, the Caspian and, of course, the Middle 
East.
  Major oil companies, led by Exxon, just committed $30 billion to 
develop gas and water projects in Saudi Arabia. This is a picture of 
the signing of that deal. Mobil has done well. We don't need to cry 
about how Mobil is doing in the economic world. Let's talk about 
ExxonMobil. I am glad they are doing well, but let's not cry about how 
they are doing. Profits in 2000 were $12.40 billion, total upstream 
profits. Profits from the U.S. oil and gas production is this much; you 
can see that. Investment in U.S. production is this much. We have 
learned how much they are doing with the Saudi Arabia program. The 
picture is of Lee Raymond of Exxon signing that deal. It was for $30 
billion. The United States is spending that much. Investment in non-
U.S. production in Saudi Arabia, Angola, Qatar, and others, is $5.2 
billion. Madam President, we should understand where the money is 
going.
  Natural gas: On the other hand, natural gas is currently being 
produced from existing oilfields on the North Slope of Alaska, and then 
reinjected because there is no pipeline to bring the gas to the lower 
48 States.
  Natural gas demand is projected to increase by 24 percent by 2010. We 
in the United States have a choice. We can build a pipeline to bring 
the gas to market. We can do that. It would be expensive, but it would 
be very productive and good for the consumer. Or we can become 
dependent on liquefied natural gas from oil and gas exporting countries 
as we are for our other oil.
  So the question is: Arctic gas or liquefied natural gas from OPEC. 
Eleven of the world's gas-exporting nations gathered in Iran in May of 
this year for the inaugural meeting of the Gas Exporting Countries 
Forum. They control two-thirds of the world's natural gas reserves.
  According to the OPEC bulletin of June 2001, ``Not only was the Gas 
Exporting Countries Forum born in the capital city of an OPEC member, 
but the two groups also have five members in common: Algeria, 
Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, and Qatar. They can unite and coordinate 
their policies in much the same way as OPEC has done in the past four 
decades.'' That should give us pause.
  We need a stimulus from the energy policy. Some argue that opening 
ANWR to oil development would be a great economic stimulus. As we now 
know, the job numbers thrown around have been grossly exaggerated.

  CRS estimates job creation from ANWR might be between 60,000 and 
130,000. Again, this assumes jobs are not just shifted from the Gulf of 
Mexico or the Rocky Mountain region.
  Construction of an Arctic natural gas pipeline would create between 
350,000 and 400,000 jobs in steel production, pipe manufacturing, 
trucking and shipping, and construction jobs for 3 to 4 years for 
assembling the pipeline. These projections are derived from the 
estimated construction costs and the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 
pipeline construction, and this is the same approach as the CRS 
analysis used for ANWR.
  This pipeline would be a mammoth project, requiring 4 times as much 
steel as used for all the cars produced globally in 1999. The steel for 
the pipe would be enough to give each person on Earth enough stainless 
steel to make cutlery for six elaborate table settings. The potential 
natural gas resources could supply the American market for 50 to 60 
years.
  It seems that we have an easy choice to make. We can do it ourselves 
or we can be dependent on foreign oil. In the speeches we hear from the 
other side, I hope they will recognize that we can't continue to 
consume, consume, consume and meet our energy needs. We are going to 
have to cut back on consumption. We can do that in a number of simple 
ways. We can make cars more fuel efficient. We can save millions of 
barrels of oil a day by making our cars more efficient. Also, we need 
to look at what we are going to do with alternative energy sources, 
such as sun, wind, geothermal, biomass, and also spend some money--real 
dollars--in hydrogen development. For example, Senator Harkin, for 
years, has worked with me in trying to come up with a hydrogen program 
in the United States. It can be done, but we can't get the research 
dollars to do it. We know it is a safe product. If you had a container 
of hydrogen that started leaking, you would get water vapor. That is 
what you would get--not the sludge and these terrible messes that we 
get in the ocean and on land.
  In short, we are no longer going to stand by and let the other side 
speak about what a terrible thing is happening and that we are not 
doing something about energy policy. We want to do something. We want 
to have a full and complete debate, recognizing that

[[Page S12115]]

the answer to the problems of America is not drilling in the Arctic 
pristine wilderness.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I rise this morning to offer my strong 
support for the Railroad Retirement Survivor Improvement Act of 2001. 
It is a piece of legislation that truly will modernize the railroad 
retirement system and help ensure that our railroad retirees are 
offered benefits that are consistent with what is made available in the 
private sector to other industrial workers throughout our economy.
  Quite frankly, this is simply a fairness issue, to which I think we 
need to attend. It is strongly supported on both sides of the aisle, 
and I think we ought to do away with the procedural hangups that are 
keeping us from addressing this issue and moving forward.
  Today's railroad retirement system is deeply outmoded, badly in need 
of reform. Unlike most pension plans, the current pension system for 
railroad workers has tied the hands of those who have the fiduciary 
responsibility to manage it. It can't invest in private market assets, 
bonds, or equities. Instead, under the current law, the railroad 
retirement system is required to invest only in Government securities. 
That is whether it is the tier 1 benefits, which are like Social 
Security, or tier 2 programs, which are very consistent or the moral 
equivalent of a private pension system.
  The result is that railroad retirees and their families are being 
placed at a significant and, I believe, unfair disadvantage relative to 
their peers in the economy.
  Throughout modern pension activities, we have a different result than 
what happens for rail workers because they are not able to retire with 
the same certainty and security that other workers are, and their 
families are prejudiced as well because of the lack of effectiveness in 
their investment programs and retire programs. We need to do something 
about it.

  This program is very simple and very straightforward. The legislation 
before us also represents a political compromise that enjoys broad 
support, as I suggested, by Republicans and Democrats, labor and 
management. It has wide sponsorship throughout all interested parties. 
It makes sense from an economic standpoint, a consistency standpoint, 
and certainly a political standpoint. After all, most people in this 
Chamber--putting this into a personal perspective--are not being forced 
to invest in pension plans that are limited only to Government 
securities.
  Under the Thrift Savings Plan, Government employees, like most in the 
private sector, can invest in the private market, stock index funds, 
debt index funds--a whole host of options that improve the performance 
profile of the assets involved in the pension funds.
  These funds historically have done better, and the academic history 
and testing objective data show private pension funds need more 
opportunities than just being limited to Government securities. I do 
not understand why we are denying to railroad workers the same 
opportunity that we have as public employees.
  Because private debt and equities generally provide these higher 
returns, this also would allow for significant improvement in the 
retirees' benefits: For example, a simple concept such as reducing the 
retirement age from 62 to 60 after 30 years of service. It is a pretty 
straightforward, simple, commonsense view and is very consistent with 
what goes on in the private sector.
  Also, widows and widowers would be guaranteed benefits at an amount 
no less than the amount of the annuity that the retiree received. If 
one works all their life to build up an annuity that is sensible, the 
widow or widower should receive more than 50 percent of the retiree's 
annuity. That is also pretty consistent with actions in the private 
sector.
  This legislation will allow a retirement system to reduce its vesting 
requirement from 10 years to 5 years, a very standard feature in all 
private sector pensions. We ought to take advantage of this opportunity 
to modernize the railroad retirement system and put it in a consistent 
format with other elements in our society's retirement programs.
  I am concerned that the reason this legislation is not moving is 
because there are those who believe we somehow are going to pilfer the 
money. The opposite is true. I believe when we do not properly manage, 
as a fiduciary, retirees' money, we are actually limiting their 
ability, and the pilfering is really our fault, not theirs. We ought to 
do something about that.
  I am concerned about what is really happening. I believe it is 
sometimes the view of some that we are trying to limit our options in 
managing retirement funds. It is quite possible people are presuming 
that if we make this kind of move with respect to railroad retirement 
activities and pension investments, we must have an analogy that works 
for Social Security. There is reason to believe we ought to be thinking 
about how we manage our Social Security trust funds so that we secure 
their actuarial responsibility over the long run.
  I hope we are not standing against doing something that makes sense 
for railroad workers because we have this great desire to resist 
modernizing our practices in how we handle our pension funds.
  It is time for us to move forward with this legislation. It was 
overwhelmingly supported in the House. There is something approaching 
75 cosponsors in the Senate. This is 21st century investing--actually, 
it is 20th century investing practices, and we need to make sure our 
railroad workers have that same right. I hope we will avoid all this 
haggling about procedure and move forward to protect their retirement 
the way we expect others in the economy to proceed.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am proud to have been an original 
cosponsor of the bipartisan Railroad Retirement and Survivors' 
Improvement Act of 2001 when it was introduced this spring. This 
legislation has strong bipartisan support and it deserves action before 
Congress adjourns this year.
  In West Virginia, we have over 11,000 retirees and their families 
currently depending on railroad retirement, and almost 3,500 West 
Virginians working for the railroads who will need their railroad 
retirement in the future. These hardworking railroad employees have 
done tough jobs for years, and because of the physical work and often 
harsh outdoor working conditions, they deserve a good retirement 
package, at a earlier age than current benefits allow.
  Nationwide, there are currently about 673,000 railroad retirees and 
families, and about 245,000 active rail workers. They, too, deserve a 
better retirement program, and I want to work with them to promote this 
historic package supported by both rail labor and rail management.
  There can be no doubt that improving retirement benefits for railroad 
workers, retirees, and their families must be one of our top 
priorities. Right now, it takes 10 years of service before a railroad 
worker becomes vested in the retirement plan, while private companies 
covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, vest 
their employees in just 5 to 7 years.
  The need to dramatically improve benefits for railroad widows and 
widowers is also obvious and has gone unaddressed for far too long. It 
is cruel to slash the benefits of the widow of a railroad retiree at 
the death of her spouse, as the current policy does. Railroad widows 
have called my offices and pleaded with me at West Virginia town 
meetings to understand how essential this legislation is for them.
  A railroad widow living in Hinton, WV, recently told me that her 
current railroad pension benefit is too small for her to pay the 
premium for railroad health insurance. This widow's husband died when 
he was just 56, and she was only 46. She has been struggling to 
maintain her home and pay her bills, and can just barely do that, but 
she cannot afford to buy health insurance. She deserves a better deal. 
Railroad widows in my state and across our country living on fixed 
incomes face a tough challenge to maintain their homes and their 
dignity. Increasing pension benefits for railroad widows should be a 
priority before this Congress adjourns.
  Today, experts predict that the Railroad Trust Funds are solvent for 
the next 25 years, and existing policy offers

[[Page S12116]]

guaranteed benefits to railroad retirees and their families. Under the 
new plan, the railroads would pay less taxes into the Railroad 
Retirement Trust Funds, but the fund would create an investment board 
to invest its reserves in private equities, so the increased rate of 
returns would cover the expanded benefits. Under the plan, there is a 
provision to increase railroad taxes in the future when necessary to 
fully fund the railroad retirement benefits.
  As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have been pushing hard 
to enact this legislation to improve benefits for railroad retirees and 
their families. I will be working with Finance Chairman Baucus and 
Senate Majority Leader Daschle to achieve our goal of improving 
railroad retirement. Our railroad workers, our retirees, and their 
widows have been waiting too long for a better retirement package. It 
would be wrong for Congress to leave without acting on this vital 
program.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
that the time be charged equally.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    The Energy Bill Must Be Debated

  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I have heard several comments this 
morning with regard to energy, yet I am still in a fog about why we are 
even discussing this legislation.
  Americans should know that September 11 not only changed the entire 
Nation but it also changed the mindset in Washington, DC. I can 
remember that morning because we were in a press conference talking 
about enhanced 9-1-1, legislation that was passed and signed by 
President Clinton. Basically what it did was it allowed the technology 
to move forward in our wireless communications that when someone used 
their cell phone and they hit 9-1-1, they got the nearest first 
responder or emergency responder.
  In a State such as Montana where we have large rural areas, this is 
very important. I held a safety conference in Helena during the August 
break. We had around 200 people attending, saying we need to locate 
people whenever an emergency comes in on a cell phone because we have 
great distances to cover.
  With the technology of triangulation of the towers and enhanced GPS, 
we can now locate the 9-1-1, or the emergency caller, just as we can 
when we pick up a phone in our own home where it is wired.
  We were taking a look at the deployment of that technology in a news 
conference on that morning of September 11 when the terrorists decided 
to take their bite out of the United States of America. It was a 
shocking thing when we saw the second airplane go into the second tower 
and then the one that hit the Pentagon in Washington, DC. It changed 
our perspective on everything.

  I bring that up because we are in a war, and the only defense against 
terrorists who will forfeit their lives to carry out a mission, the 
only way to prevent those people from doing great harm to our country, 
is to keep them on the run where they do not have a lot of time to plan 
to do bad things to us.
  I congratulate the President this morning because we are taking out 
the al-Qaida and the terrorists who perpetrated this act of war on our 
country.
  We are also in a recession. We have an agricultural sector that is 
hurting, and we are talking about something that affects none of the 
things that are affecting our country today. Nothing in this 
legislation, with the time we think we have left of this year, the 
first half of the 107th Congress, will stimulate the economy. It has 
nothing to do with the economy.
  I am a cosponsor on the bill. We have farmers who are walking into 
their banks to renew their operating loans, and what are the bankers 
telling them? We have to have some concrete evidence this Government is 
going to be in your corner next year. We have been every year, but now 
they want to tie it down a little tighter. Yes, that is a stimulus. 
Agriculture is about 20 percent of the GDP in this country. It is very 
important, and it all starts at the production level. We do not hear 
anybody talking about that.
  Yesterday morning I brought up the fact that energy is a part of 
this, and we hear speeches even this morning on energy, but we only 
hear speeches. Put a bill on the floor. Allow a bill to come to the 
Senate. We will debate conservation. We will debate the economy. We 
will debate production. The President had a task force put together 
headed by Vice President Cheney, and a lot of the actions he wants 
taken are not allowed to be debated. Make no doubt about it. We are at 
war, and then we hear speeches. We have an energy crisis, but we hear 
speeches. The economy continues to slip; we continue to hear speeches. 
Put the bill before the Senate. That is all I say.
  The Railroad Retirement Act probably has as many cosponsors as have 
ever cosponsored a bill in this body. Some folks would say fairness. 
Fairness to whom? Fairness with the rest of the country? It does 
nothing that would heal some of the ills that are afflicting our 
country right now.
  What I am saying is let us get our work done. If we want to talk 
about energy, put an energy bill before the Senate. That is all we ask. 
Then we will let the chips fall where they may. That is what we should 
be doing this morning if we move forward on anything.
  Let us do something substantive. Let us complete the appropriations. 
I serve on the Appropriations Committee. The assistant minority leader 
serves on that committee. We have worked together on a lot of issues, 
and I think he will agree that it is not going to take a lot of work or 
a lot of time to finish. As soon as we get the Defense appropriations 
and complete a stimulus bill, then let us go home and let us recharge 
the batteries. Let us talk to the people back home. Let us find out 
what their agenda is, what they want to see this Government and this 
Congress do as we complete the year 2001.

  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.


                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 3090

  Mr. REID. Madam President, the junior Senator from Montana, my good 
friend, and I have worked together on a number of issues. We were the 
two who handled military construction appropriations for many years. He 
is a pleasure to work with. I enjoyed working with him this year on the 
Interior appropriations bill. In answer to my friend, the reason we are 
talking about energy this morning, it has been talked about so much 
from the other side, I must reply.
  Regarding the railroad retirement bill, it is important legislation. 
For the widows, it is an important piece of legislation. I acknowledge 
we should move these appropriations conference reports as quickly as we 
can. Transportation was resolved yesterday. That is big news. We hope 
to complete that this week as soon as the House does.
  Yesterday it was noted that if we moved to the House bill, which will 
be the vehicle for the railroad retirement legislation, the stimulus 
bill would be displaced. We agreed that the stimulus bill should not be 
displaced. We did not raise a point of order to knock it off the 
calendar. We could have raised a point of order against a Republican 
vehicle and then the stimulus bill would be gone forever from this 
session of the legislature. We chose not to do that. We agreed the 
stimulus bill should not be displaced. That is the reason we asked to 
call the railroad bill up by unanimous consent, but that was objected 
to by a Republican colleague.
  To ensure again that the stimulus bill is not displaced by the 
railroad retirement bill, 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. On behalf of the Republican leadership, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard.


                         Senate Work Priorities

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me speak for a few moments on the 
issue of railroad retirement, the stimulus package, and the business 
before the Senate. Our assistant Republican leader is on the floor and 
wants to speak to the motion to proceed, so I will be brief.

[[Page S12117]]

  I rise in support of railroad retirement and have been a cosponsor of 
that legislation for the last several years. There is adequate time to 
deal with this issue. We can deal with it now following the stimulus 
package or certainly we can deal with it next year. The Democratic 
leadership has chosen to bring it up and force the issue at this time. 
It is an important piece of legislation. There are 75 cosponsors in the 
Senate. The Senate Finance Committee has worked some on it. The House 
has worked on it and passed it.
  Is it a perfect piece of legislation? No. It goes a long way to fix a 
flawed system, a system at this time that is in deep trouble, a 65-
year-old system that has been treated poorly in the past in many 
respects and will not serve the retirees or the railroad system 
effectively well in the future.
  As a result of an effort on the part of management and labor to bring 
this issue together, they have worked hard to do so. There are many on 
my side who disagree and some on the other side who disagree. This 
issue does not find unanimous support in the Senate. I would hope 
issues of such critical nature could find unanimous support, but that 
will not happen.
  It is important this issue be addressed. I hope the Senate can work 
its will. I will support efforts to bring it to the floor. At the same 
time, I hope the Democrat leadership understands a recession has been 
declared in this country by the institutions that measure our economics 
and measure the output of our economy. If we are in recession--and we 
are--we ought to deal with a stimulus package that will bring 
investment and job creation back to the marketplace.
  We ought to be understanding that we are at war. We ought to move 
expeditiously, as the House now is, to deal with the DOD package to 
make sure our men and women in harm's way are adequately funded, and 
that all of the issues of post-September 11 are dealt with in the 
appropriate fashion. That doesn't mean we have to stay here for the 
next 3 weeks to get that done.
  We do our timely work now; we come back in late January and do the 
balance. This is an issue that could have been dealt with in late 
January, as can agriculture, as energy, I hope, will be with a date 
definite and a vote up or down to pass. If energy is not dealt with in 
that fashion, and if the majority leader does not choose to give us a 
clear signal as to how energy will be voted on, energy will be an 
amendment to any amendable bill that comes before the Senate following 
the current effort.
  This bill will be amendable. Maybe energy fits well into a railroad 
retirement package. It is every bit as critical to a broader base of 
the American economy as this bill is very critical to a lot of people 
in my State and across the Nation.
  To reiterate, I support the railroad retirement legislation. I am one 
of the 75 cosponsors in the Senate. In the last Congress, when I was 
briefly a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I had an opportunity 
to participate in the hearings on the bill and vote in favor of passing 
it and sending it to the Senate floor for consideration. While I am a 
supporter of this bill, I can understand why some of my colleagues have 
genuine problems with it. Does this bill take a flawed system and make 
it perfect? No. However, does this bill take a flawed system and 
dramatically improve it? Yes.
  I am here today to urge my colleagues: Do not let the perfect be the 
enemy of the very, very good. It is no small feat that rail labor and 
rail management came together, reasoned together in good faith, and 
devoted a great deal of energy, expertise, and old-fashioned innovation 
to improving a 65-year-old system in a bright and forward-thinking way. 
They have fashioned a remarkably good bill. It removes a 65-year-old 
requirement that assets of the system be invested solely in Federal 
instruments. It permits the kind of investments that any other industry 
pension plan might make. As a result, over time the system will bring 
in more revenue, and that will permit better benefits for retirees and 
surviving spouses, while reducing the contributions needed from rail 
employers.
  It is important to remember that this bill also provides for the 
possibility that the returns on investments might be less than history 
suggests they will be. If that should occur, it would trigger an 
automatic adjustment mechanism requiring more contributions from the 
industry. This protects the federal government and the nation's 
taxpayers. On the other hand, if returns are greater than projected, 
both labor and management will be able to reduce contributions further. 
The new Investment Trust created by the bill will not include any 
government employees and will not be appointed by any. Trustees will be 
subject to ERISA fiduciary standards. They will be able to hire 
professional pension investment advisors. Congress will annually 
receive a report on the results of the investment efforts.
  Let me also address the so-called ``cost'' of this bill. I agree with 
the House of Representatives that changing the investment mix is not an 
outlay, but just a new means of financing the government's obligations 
under the system. Those who take balanced federal budgets seriously 
should have no reason to back away from this legislation.
  Mr. President, the thousands of working men and women, retirees, and 
surviving spouses who will benefit from this legislation have waited 
patiently while this bill has been reviewed again and again. They have 
waited long enough. This bill is an enormous step in the right 
direction, and one the entire Senate should support.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I rise in opposition on a motion to 
proceed. I have great respect for my friend and colleague from Nevada, 
but I happen to disagree that moving to railroad retirement is what we 
should be doing. Railroad retirement is an issue that some people say 
has been considered by Congress. It hasn't been considered. We didn't 
have a hearing in the House; we didn't have a hearing in the Senate. We 
have a bill written by special interest groups, by railroad companies 
and unions. They negotiated a deal and said, great, now have the 
American taxpayer pay for it.
  If there is ever special interest legislation, this is it. We are 
going to say we want to set aside the stimulus package so we can take 
this bill up. I have told my friends and colleagues if we take it up, 
we will have to have a lot of amendments and a lot of debate.
  I read where tier 1 is the same thing as Social Security. But it is 
not. It is not the same thing. There are differences. People who 
receive Social Security do not get to retire at age 60 with 100-percent 
benefits. And this is what this legislation does for railroad retirees.
  Under private pension benefit plans, survivors of deceased usually 
receive 50 percent; the survivors under this bill receive 100 percent. 
We are going to do that? We are going to put that in the statute and 
say the Federal Government will pay for it?
  People say they want to be treated like the private sector. Private 
sector gets to invest in the stock market. Great. Make this a private 
sector plan. We can do that. We are going to give them $15 billion, 
that is a heck of a cash infusion to a pension system. We have never 
done that in the history of America where we have taken $15 billion, 
given it to one industry for their retirement system. It benefits 
primarily a few companies and a whole lot of employees and retirees. 
They have worked it out in a mutually beneficial manner. They both 
benefit, almost exactly the same amount. They negotiated a deal to save 
$4 billion in 10 years and the employees get $4 billion in new 
benefits. And the Federal Government will gives them $15 or $16 billion 
in the process.
  I question the wisdom of doing that. We have not had a hearing and 
have not been able to ask people: Why are we doing this? How does it 
work? Where does the money come from?
  If we move to this bill, as I expect may well happen but, will have 
to have some amendments. We will have to consider should tier 1 really 
be equivalent to Social Security. If they are going to be in the Social 
Security system and pay Social Security taxes, they pay identical tier 
1 taxes to Social Security, shouldn't we give them identical Social 
Security benefits? Or do we give them benefits far in excess of what 
Social Security provides? We are going to have to consider that.

[[Page S12118]]

  What about this survivor benefit? They say this is great, we have a 
survivor benefit, and it is a big increase. Everyone likes it. If we 
are going to increase the survivor benefit for railroads, should we do 
it also for Social Security? Or conversely, should survivor benefits, 
at least for Social Security, be the same for all Social Security 
beneficiaries? There is a big difference. We have to look at that and 
we have to look at the cash infusion. The argument is made that this is 
just moving $16 billion of Government IOUs over into the private sector 
for real investment.
  I asked the Treasury Secretary, how are you going to do it? He said: 
I am going to go out and borrow $16 billion. We are in a deficit 
situation. It is all going to be added to debt, so we are going to add 
$16 billion to our national publicly held debt that you and I and all 
taxpayers will be paying interest on every year. That means if we are 
paying something like 6 percent interest on $15 billion, we are going 
to be paying $1 billion per year in interest maybe forever for this 
cash infusion to go to this retirement fund which will greatly increase 
benefits and also reduce the contributions to that retirement fund.
  I used to be a fiduciary and trustee of a retirement fund. You can't 
do that. You would have the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation 
saying: You are not making your minimum allocation requirements to make 
these funds adequately financed. You are doing just the opposite. You 
have a grossly underfunded actuarial benefit that is required, and you 
are not making those payments.
  We are doing just the opposite. We have an unfunded plan that has 
financial problems in the future, and what we are doing is cutting 
taxes and increasing benefits. Oh, yes, we are going to transfer a 
whole bunch of money so it will last a little while, but it doesn't 
last even that long. As a matter of fact, it is kind of startling to 
find out the amount of money available. This fund starts evaporating 
pretty quickly. It is projected in 20 years the taxes are going to have 
to be raised as much as 70 percent--in 20 years, because of the 
shortfall.
  My biggest problem is the way we have directed scorekeeping in here 
to say we are not going to count that $15 billion. Hocus pocus--write a 
check, and it doesn't count. That really bothers me.
  There is language in the House-passed bill on page 25 that says:
  Means of financing. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 and the Balanced Budget Act and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
1985--and on and on--notwithstanding the purchase or sale of non-
Federal assets--shall be treated as a means of financing--i.e., it 
doesn't count; they are kind of clever legal words that say it doesn't 
count.
  It will be interesting to see how Democrats and Republicans vote on 
this bill because we have a little section in here that says ``the 
budget doesn't count.''
  I ask you, if you can do this for the railroad retirement system, why 
can't you do it for Social Security? Why don't we write a check for $1 
trillion or $1.8 trillion, or whatever the Social Security trust fund 
balance is that is Government-held debt, Government IOUs to itself? Why 
don't we just write a check for that entire amount and say now we have 
real securities?
  If you do it, you are going to have outlays and we are going to have 
to borrow money. This $16 billion we are going to have to borrow. We 
are going to increase the national debt to do this.
  I wonder if people really thought about that and what that really 
means. Can we do this for Social Security? Is this real? Are we moving 
away from Government T-bills into Government stocks? No, we are not. We 
are moving away from Government IOUs, which are on paper, into real 
debt that we will have to write checks for and pay interest on every 
year--real debt, publicly held debt that could be held in the United 
States or overseas, on which we will be writing checks. We will have to 
pay interest on it to the tune of $1 billion a year.
  We will put it in the railroad retirement fund and at the same time 
say: Railroad companies, you don't have to pay as much. We are going to 
reduce your taxes. Even though you signed contracts that are very 
generous in retirement benefits, we are going to reduce your 
contribution. Incidentally, retirees, because you were willing to go 
along with this, we are going to increase your benefits. We are going 
to give you benefits nobody else has in the private sector. We are 
going to give you benefits that are greater than Social Security.
  You are tier 1, which is supposed to be equivalent to Social 
Security. In Social Security, the retirement age is going to 67. For 
tier 1 benefits, the retirement age is going to 60. For Social Security 
beneficiaries, for everybody--every Senator, every civil servant, 
employee who is on Social Security today--when they receive benefits, 
every person in the private sector on Social Security today, if they 
retire at 62, they receive 80 percent of their normal retirement 
benefit--80 percent.
  Not railroad retirement; it is 100 percent under age 62, and under 
this bill it will be 100 percent at age 60. And they pay the same 
taxes. That is 12.8 percent, 6.4 percent by the employer, 6.4 percent 
by the employee for tier 1 taxes and Social Security taxes. These are 
the same taxes everybody else pays in America, but they get a lot 
better benefit under this bill we are considering.
  The House almost passed this bill unanimously. Did they really know 
what they were doing? Did they realize the cost implications of this 
legislation? Does that really make sense, and can we afford it? Is this 
trust fund in such good shape we can give the most generous benefits in 
America? Does it make financial sense to do that? I don't think so.
  I think people are going to be embarrassed when sometime, at some 
point, if and when this bill ever becomes law--and it has not become 
law yet because it still has to go through the amendment process, and I 
hope we can improve it, I hope we can strike out language that says 
this $16 billion check we are going to write doesn't count.
  I am on the Budget Committee. I have been on the Budget Committee for 
21 years. I am horrified by this language. I am embarrassed the House 
passed it, and I am embarrassed we would even consider it in the 
Senate. So we are going to have amendments to strike it, and we will 
find out whether or not people think when you write a check it doesn't 
count. If we say it doesn't count, let's just tear up the Budget Act 
totally.
  Speaking about budgets, a lot of people are talking about 
emergencies. I met with the President last night, and I said we have 
been trying to respond to emergency situations in a bipartisan fashion, 
but I am looking at spending that is growing rather dramatically. The 
President proposed a budget that grew at 6.1 percent. We had an 
agreement at $686 billion. We signed a letter. Members of Congress 
actually asked the President to sign the letter that said: Here is our 
deal. October 2, our budget deal, $686 billion discretionary spending, 
a growth rate of 7.1 percent. We added a few billion more for 
education. All signed on, this is the deal.
  Then we agreed, let's add $40 billion as a result of the September 11 
attack. So that moved the $686 up to $726 billion. The growth of 
spending now is 13.3 percent. That doesn't include $16 billion coming 
in for railroad retirement. That doesn't include $16 billion or $15 
billion or $7.5 billion for additional homeland security. That doesn't 
count the additional billions of dollars--we don't know how much it is 
going to cost--in the victims' compensation fund that is already the 
law of the land. That doesn't count the $15 billion we have for airline 
security and loan guarantees.

  If we add all that together, we are on a spending spree in Congress. 
It looks to me as if people are trying to ram through all the spending 
they can this year because they know that next year we are in red ink. 
Next year we are going to have deficits.
  There was a front page story in the Washington Post today alluding to 
the situation that we may have deficits for several years, so let's run 
this through now and put in little language in the bill that says it 
doesn't count.
  So I hope to have several amendments to this legislation if we are 
forced to consider it. Although, I think it is more important that we 
stay on

[[Page S12119]]

the stimulus package and visit this legislation at another time. I hope 
we finish the Nation's business. I hope we get our appropriations bills 
done, pass the stimulus package trying to help this economy which is in 
a recession, and go home. But if we are going to say let's come out and 
spend this kind of money, we are going to have to rework this program 
and improve it.
  Let's allow the unions and railroad companies to come up with 
whatever benefits they want. I don't care if they have retirement at 
age 40, as long as they pay for it and don't ask us to pay for it. If 
it is their retirement system and they are responsible for it, great. 
If they are asking taxpayers to pay for it, wait a minute, we should be 
a little more cautious. If they are going to have survivor benefits 
greater than almost every survivor benefit in America, that is fine, as 
long as they pay for it. But don't ask us to guarantee it.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to move off the 
stimulus package and move on the railroad retirement bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. While the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma is on the 
floor, I ask unanimous consent the time for debate prior to the cloture 
vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 10 be extended until 10:30, with 
the time equally divided and controlled as under the previous order, 
and that the remaining provisions of the previous order governing the 
cloture vote remain in effect.
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, I suggest the absence of 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I renew my request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 69, H.R. 10, an act to provide for 
     pension reform and for other purposes:
  Paul Wellstone, Richard Durbin, Byron Dorgan, Harry Reid, Jon 
Corzine, Hillary Clinton, Blanche Lincoln, Thomas Carper, Patrick 
Leahy, Tom Harkin, Benjamin Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Bill Nelson, Ron 
Wyden, Charles Schumer, Bob Graham, and Barbara Mikulski.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 10, an act to provide for pension reform, and 
for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are 
required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 96, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 343 Leg.]

                               YEAS --96

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS --4

     Gramm
     Gregg
     Kyl
     Nickles
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 96, the nays are 4. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________