[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 167 (Wednesday, December 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12390-S12394]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   COMPREHENSIVE RETIREMENT SECURITY AND PENSION REFORM ACT OF 2001--
                               Continued


                           Amendment No. 2170

  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I make a point of order that the 
Daschle amendment No. 2170 violates section 302(f) of the Congressional 
Budget Act.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Oklahoma is recognized to raise a point of order.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Montana is recognized to 
make a motion to waive the point of order.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to waive the relevant section of 
the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I withdraw the request, Madam President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. Under the previous order, there will now be 30 minutes of 
debate to be equally divided between the Senator from Montana and the 
Senator from Oklahoma or their designees.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, for the information of our colleagues, 
it is anticipated we will be voting at 10 o'clock. We may try to 
shorten that somewhat. It is anticipated we will have two votes, one on 
a motion to waive a Budget Act point of order, as entered by Senator 
Baucus, and also on final passage of the Railroad Retirement Act. I 
notify our colleagues that probably in the next 20 minutes or so we 
will be voting on these two measures, for them to plan accordingly.
  I make a budget point of order because we didn't have any funding. 
The $15 billion in outlays we are getting ready to pass was not in the 
budget. Granted, this bill has a lot of support. It had a lot of 
support when we passed the budget, but it was not included. It was not 
included in the House budget. It was not included in the Senate budget.
  We had a budget. The budget we agreed upon said we were going to have 
so much in spending. This was not part of it. So we have to waive the 
budget if we are going to pass it, or a budget point of order lies, or 
else we are just breaking the budget.
  The reason I raise this point is that Congress in the last several 
months has

[[Page S12391]]

been, in my opinion, pretty irresponsible. We have had spending grow 
dramatically, and yet many people are saying it is not enough. Some 
people are saying, because of the disaster on September 11, we need a 
lot more money for this and for that. Some of us need to kind of total 
it up. I don't think we have totaled it up. Spending is growing 
dramatically.
  I looked at the amount of money we spent in fiscal year 2000, last 
year. It was $584 billion in total discretionary spending. In 2001, the 
year we just completed, it was 640. That was a 9.6-percent increase for 
domestic spending. For nondefense spending, that was 14-percent growth 
over the previous year.

  That is a big increase. Nondefense spending last year, the year we 
just completed in September, grew at 14 percent.
  President Bush's budget said let's have spending grow, total 
discretionary spending, up to $679 billion. That was a 6-percent 
increase. After the disaster of September 11, we had a bipartisan 
agreement to get the budget agreed to of $686 billion. In addition to 
that, President Bush agreed to the $40 billion, money for New York, for 
Virginia, for defense. That was an additional $40 billion. Add the $40 
billion to the $686 billion; that is $726 billion. That is a growth in 
outlays of 13.3 percent. And that is still not enough. It doesn't 
include the $15.3 billion we are talking about that will be required 
outlays for railroad retirement. If you add that together, that is 
another 15.6 percent.
  Somebody said that doesn't count because we have scorekeeping. We 
said we are going to put language in here: don't count it. The fact is, 
you are going to have outstanding publicly held debt that is going to 
grow by $15.3 billion as a result of this bill. The fact is, we will be 
borrowing that $15.3 billion; Treasury will borrow additional money. It 
is not coming out of the surplus. It is not even coming out of Social 
Security. It is coming out of publicly held debt. We are going to 
borrow more money, and we are paying about $1 billion per year every 
year, maybe every year forever, to pay for this bill.
  The 10-year cost in interest expense is going to be about $10 
billion. Our colleagues should know that. The amount of outstanding 
publicly held debt as a result of passage of this bill will be growing. 
I think people have not looked at that.
  Then there are a few other items in the mill. When we take up the DOD 
appropriations bill, I understand Senator Byrd has an amendment to add 
an additional $15 billion for homeland defense and other things on top 
of it. We haven't considered that yet, but that is in the mill.
  We have already passed airline assistance. I didn't add that. That 
had outlays of about $5 or $6 billion, loan guarantees for up to 
another 10. We don't know how that will score. It depends on how many 
will default. But there is additional exposure there as well.
  We have a stimulus package that was reported out of the Finance 
Committee, two-thirds of which was spending, mostly outlays. Some of it 
was for unemployment compensation, some of it for cash payments to 
people who didn't pay taxes. But the net result of that stimulus bill 
that passed out of the Finance Committee and that we considered on the 
floor was about an additional $50 billion in outlays.
  We have an agriculture bill we will be considering probably later 
today. It has additional outlays. And we have a victims compensation 
fund that was part of the airline bailout bill that no one knows, no 
one in the genius of this body who authorized and passed that 
legislation, how much it is going to cost. It could cost billions of 
dollars. We don't know how much the insurance companies are going to 
pay. We don't know what kinds of rewards are going to be made to the 
survivors and to the victims of the September 11 disaster. It could 
cost billions. Congress legislated that little package. I was part of 
the negotiations in the final hours. No one has a clue how much it is 
going to cost. It could be in the multibillions of dollars.
  My point is, if you add all these numbers, we may be looking at 
spending growth in the 20- or 24-percent range. It is as if there is no 
budget whatsoever.

  I raise a budget point of order. That is why we have a budget. A 
budget doesn't do any good if you are not going to use a point of 
order. Unfortunately, in many cases people in the Budget Committee 
haven't felt inclined to use it. We waive budgets in cases of national 
emergency. I supported the $40 billion that was included. We believed 
that was a national emergency. We were attacked. Let's give money for 
defense of our country to go after those persons who attacked the 
United States. I am all for that. Let's assist people who need the help 
in New York and Virginia and Pennsylvania. We supported that. We waived 
the budget to do it.
  Maybe we will waive the budget to do railroad retirement. I expect we 
probably will. The special interest groups have everybody on board this 
bill regardless of how much it costs, regardless if it may bankrupt the 
fund. The railroad retirees and their own accountants say the trust 
fund balance goes down to almost 1 year of payments in several years, 
almost bankrupting the fund.
  How does it do that? It greatly increases benefits, and it cuts 
payroll taxes. It leaves Uncle Sam as still guaranteeing the benefits. 
I would be all in favor of the railroads and the employees making 
whatever kind of deal they want to make for their benefits. If it is 
more generous than any other retirement plan in America, so be it, as 
long as they don't ask for taxpayers to guarantee it and pay it.
  Unfortunately, they are asking for both. They want one of the most 
generous retirement benefits in the country: 100 percent retirement at 
age 60, 100 percent survivor benefits. That is great. But they also 
want us to pay for it if the fund goes broke, and even their own 
projections have it almost going broke. Then to say now, yes, and we 
want to waive the budget--the budget doesn't count?
  If we are going to have a budget, let's use it. Let's abide by it. 
Let's have unanimous votes if we are going to waive it for cases of 
national emergency. This is not a national emergency. That is the 
reason I made the budget point of order. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  I don't want to see our colleagues on the floor next year, or maybe 
even a month from now, saying: Where did the budget surplus go? We are 
now in deficits. Where did it go? It must have been those Republicans. 
They passed a tax cut. That tax cut, in the first year, was $37 
billion.
  Let's see, I totaled up $40 billion for emergency spending, $15 
billion for airlines, $15 billion for railroads, and $15 billion that 
Senator Byrd is trying to pass. No telling how much spending will be in 
the so-called stimulus package. When you add it up, there is going to 
be much more of a spending problem than a tax cut problem.
  My colleagues may say: Wait a minute, did I vote to waive the budget? 
Did I vote for that extra spending?
  This is deficit spending. We are going to borrow an additional $15 
billion. We are going to have to waive the budget to do so. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to waive the budget point of 
order.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield such time as the Senator from 
Delaware desires.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware is 
recognized.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I agree with my friend from Oklahoma on 
several of the comments he just made. We can ill afford, even in the 
environment in which we live today, to forget about fiscal restraint 
and the responsibility to manage our finances, not only in the short 
term but in the long-term. But it is not just spending that we need to 
watch. It is also the nature of the tax cuts that we have adopted and 
the ones we are considering adopting as part of the economic stimulus 
package.
  Let me take a somewhat different approach to the legislation before 
us, for which we are now considering the step of waiving the Budget 
Act. I thank Senator Baucus for bringing the measure to the floor. I 
thank our leader for bringing this measure to the floor. I salute 
Senator Hatch and others who have introduced the legislation, which I 
have cosponsored. I am not aware of anywhere in the Federal Government 
where we have a private sector type of pension plan. The railroad 
retirement

[[Page S12392]]

is somewhat difficult to understand. Let me take a minute and 
contemplate what it is and what it is not.
  The railroad retirement, which provides retirement benefits for 
hundreds of thousands of railroaders and their survivors, is a two-tier 
plan. Tier 1 deals with Social Security benefits, or reflects and 
mirrors Social Security benefits. We are not talking about addressing 
or dealing with those. Tier 2 is a pension plan that goes beyond Social 
Security benefits. Most people who work in the private sector in this 
country realize Social Security benefits. They also have a pension 
plan, in many cases, from their own employer. Those employers 
contribute to those plans. The employees contribute to their employer's 
pension plan established for them. Most employers, private sector 
employers and, frankly, most public sector employers around the country 
who have pension plans--the moneys that go into those plans are 
invested, but they are not invested exclusively in securities issued by 
the U.S. Treasury.

  Tier 2 of the railroad retirement plan is different because the 
moneys that are contributed by the employers--the railroad companies--
and moneys contributed by employees of those railroads to the pension 
fund, the trust fund, are invested only in securities issued by the 
U.S. Treasury. Many States and local governments have changed the way 
they invest their pension moneys. They have invested now in equities, 
corporate stocks, and other investment options because the yield there 
is greater and they are able to provide better benefits and reduce 
their contribution into their pension fund.
  The question before us in this bill is, Should we provide the same 
kind of flexibility for railroad companies and railroad retirees when 
contributing to their tier 2 pension plans? Should we give them the 
same flexibility that is enjoyed by other employers throughout the 
country? I believe we should. The question also is, In doing that, does 
that somehow cause an outlay by the Federal Government? We still work 
in the Federal Government under a cash basis of accounting. Most 
companies and, in fact, almost all State and local governments use the 
accrual form of accounting. If we use an accrual form of accounting, my 
guess is we would not be debating whether or not this is actually a $15 
billion cash outlay. I think the point would be moot. But we still use 
the cash basis, so that is the law under which we operate.
  Having said that, we are not talking about the need to spend another 
$15 billion to build roads. We are not talking about another $15 
billion to provide better health care. We are not talking about another 
$15 billion to provide better environmental protection. We are talking 
about a step here that says to the folks who oversee tier 2 pension 
funds contributed to by employers--the railroad companies--and the 
railroad employees: You don't have to just invest the money in your 
trust fund in U.S. Treasury obligations. You can invest in other kinds 
of investments, such as securities, which would provide a greater 
yield, and then that anticipated yield, which has been proven over 
history, that greater yield will enable that pension fund to provide 
better benefits to railroad retirees and to their survivors.
  That anticipated greater yield--again, proven historically --would 
enable the railroad companies, the employers, and the employees--
particularly the railroad employers--to reduce their contribution 
somewhat. That is what this is all about. And because of an 
anachronism, we are forced to go through this procedure of waiving the 
budget law and the extraordinary procedure yesterday of directing the 
spending.
  This is a good measure. When we think it through and we look at the 
numbers and the requirement for the railroad companies, the employers, 
to increase their contribution, if the tier 2 fund does run out of 
money, this is a measure that is responsible. I want to say to those 
who brought it to the floor, on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of 
railroad employees and pensioners and survivors, thank you for taking 
this step for them and the companies for whom they work. I say to the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, thank you again for bringing the 
measure to the floor and for yielding this time to me today.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. How much time do we have on our side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Six minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, let me first congratulate the Senator 
from Oklahoma. I think what has happened basically is that we have seen 
a very impressive lobbying effort where the railroads have gotten 
together with the unions and divided up $15 billion, which is the only 
barrier between the taxpayer and massive injection of Federal funds 
into the railroad retirement program. And basically this has been 
lobbied as some movement toward private investment in railroad 
retirement.
  The Senator from Oklahoma and I both support private investment, but 
the problem is that under the cloak of investing this $15 billion, as 
the actuaries of railroad retirement show very clearly, under this 
bill, $15 billion plus all the interest earned on all the investments 
made will be pillaged over the next 17 years as that money is taken out 
and miraculously divided exactly equally between the railroads and the 
railroad retirees.
  The railroads have lobbied hard for the bill because they say they 
cannot pay 16.1-percent payroll taxes. They can't afford it. Yet under 
this bill, in 19 years, they are going to be moving toward paying 22-
percent payroll taxes because they will have depleted the trust fund. 
Does anybody believe they can or will pay 22-percent payroll taxes in 
19 years? Does anybody believe the railroads are not going to be before 
the Congress saying they will be driven into bankruptcy, and they will 
have to shut down every railroad in America if they are forced to pay a 
22-percent payroll tax? But that is what is required to keep this 
program solvent, after you pillage $15 billion.
  I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. This has been an uphill battle. 
Americans love bipartisanship and they love consensus. Those are 
wonderful things, but they are very dangerous things. What we have had 
is the railroads and the labor unions getting together, each having 
their affection attracted because they each get $7.5 billion, but what 
we have really seen is a consensus against the taxpayers' interest. The 
Senator from Oklahoma has been courageous in standing up and pointing 
out that this emperor has no clothing. I congratulate him for that. We 
are going to have one final vote before the bill is passed, and that is 
a point of order.

  The telltale sign of the problem with this bill is not just that $15 
billion is divided up between the railroads and the railway unions. It 
is that in making the transfer this year, we are going to increase the 
deficit by $15.3 billion. We have a budget that gives us some power in 
trying to prevent these things from happening. If we were offsetting 
the $15.3 billion in some other way, there would be no budget point of 
order, but there is a budget point of order because we are violating 
the budget.
  The final vote we are going to have is the vote on whether or not we 
are going to enforce the budget. I have to say, we have already started 
to see a partisan debate where many of our colleagues are saying we 
have a deficit because of the tax cut. Today on this bill, we are going 
to raise the deficit by 40 percent of the impact of the entire tax cut 
for this year. In fact, we are approaching the point where we will have 
increased spending $100 billion above the budget this year.
  If somebody votes to waive the budget point of order and says, we do 
not care about the budget, the sky is the limit, we can spend anything 
we want to spend and this is a popular thing to spend it on, then I 
hope they will not be out arguing that they are very concerned about 
the deficit.
  You cannot have it both ways. You cannot be for adding $15 billion to 
the deficit and be concerned about the deficit. You cannot be for 
increasing the deficit on one day and blaming somebody else for it on 
the other.
  I thank our colleague for his leadership. I intend to vote against 
waiving the budget point of order. I hope my colleagues will as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will be brief. We have had these 
arguments

[[Page S12393]]

and made our points many times. It is important to put all of this in 
perspective. There is a lot of arcane budget language discussion here. 
A lot of that is very important. There is an important reason for 
having budgets.
  Cutting through all the technical budget arcane language and green 
eyeshade stuff, very simply the situation is this: The railroad 
retirement trust fund has built up a large balance. The question is 
what we should do about that.
  We have decided in this legislation that the balance should be 
reduced by lowering the taxes the railroad companies have to pay--and 
they are extraordinarily high taxes today--and also increasing survivor 
benefits, for example, and the early retirement age which conforms with 
current practices in other industries.
  The charge is made that the balance will be too low, and that is 
going to jeopardize the budget, it is going to jeopardize the trust 
fund.
  The fact is this legislation provides for many safeguards; there are 
actuarial reports, financial statements, and reports to the contrary. 
The actuary himself has said at no time, even under this legislation, 
will the balance in the trust fund be at such a level that it 
jeopardizes the fund or payments to the beneficiaries or cause undue 
strain on the railroad companies. That is the actuary's projection. He 
makes that projection for the next 75 years.
  Those of us in Congress have a hard time trying to predict what the 
economic situation is going to be 10 years from now. That is pretty 
hard to predict. What we are talking about with this legislation is at 
least 20 years from now, because that is when the trust fund is going 
to be dipping down to a lower level than is the case today. We have all 
kinds of oversight reports required by the legislation to make sure the 
trust fund is safe.
  The Senator from Oklahoma says we have to borrow $15 billion. That is 
technically true, but that is a wash because the trust fund will 
receive $15 billion in assets. We have unified accounting in this case, 
so as a practical matter, that has virtually no effect on the budget.
  Also, with respect to the trust fund, it is a wash, too, because some 
of those securities will be private securities as opposed to public 
securities.
  Altogether, this is a bill that has been worked on for a long time. 
Seventy-four Members of the Senate cosponsored this legislation. We 
considered the bill last year in the Finance Committee. Over 20 
amendments were offered. The House has passed this legislation twice, 
both times by very large margins. If this point of order is not waived, 
if this technicality is not waived, then there will be no bill passed 
and this bill is going to die.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Nevada?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Absolutely.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this legislation is sponsored by Senators 
Baucus and Hatch. If there were ever two people who are fiscally 
conservative, it is Senators Baucus and Hatch. I do not need anything 
else other than to know they are the ones who are pushing this 
legislation to make me very comfortable with every vote I have taken.
  I publicly commend and applaud Senators Baucus and Hatch for their 
leadership on this issue. We have gone a long way the last few days 
under their leadership. Everyone should feel very good about waiving 
the Budget Act. Remember, we are being asked to do this by two of the 
most fiscally conservative people we have in the Senate--Senators 
Baucus and Hatch.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifty-three seconds.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to clarify a few points. This $15 
billion transfer in the outstanding publicly held debt is not a wash. 
That is $15 billion added to the deficit, added to national debt. We 
are going to have to borrow about $1 billion a year, maybe forever, to 
pay for this. The Senator from Montana said this legislation makes 
benefits conform with the norm. It is not the norm in the private 
sector pension benefits to get a 100-percent pension benefit at age 60. 
That is not the norm. Nor is it the norm to have survivor benefits 
equal 100 percent. That is not the norm. They are very generous 
benefits.
  I do not begrudge them having generous benefits. I just do not want 
to have taxpayers pay for them when and if the fund goes broke, and 
even under their projections it almost goes broke. Why? Because we 
increase benefits and cut the taxes and also we keep the Federal 
guarantee, and we have to waive the Budget Act to do it.
  We did not put this money in the budget. We should have. I urge my 
colleagues not to waive the budget act provisions.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am not going to use all my time. We have 
had a very good debate on this bill. I strongly urge Members to vote to 
waive the point of order because this is a very sound, fiscally 
responsible bill. I know Senators will be very proud in voting for this 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back his time.
  All time having expired, the question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 in 
relation to amendment No. 2170. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senate from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) 
is absent attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 80, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 350 Leg.]

                                YEAS--80

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

                                NAYS--19

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Ensign
     Frist
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Helms
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lieberman
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 80, the nays are 
19. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. The point of order falls.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order the amendment No. 
2170 is agreed to.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of 
legislation to reform the Railroad Retirement system. Reform 
legislation has 75 cosponsors in the Senate and I am proud to be one of 
them. Over the past 65 years, Railroad Retirement has provided a safe 
guarantee of benefits to railworkers and their families. In order to 
keep these benefits secure, both management and labor have endeavored 
to come up with an agreement that would strengthen the Railroad 
Retirement system, and I believe that this legislation, The Railroad 
Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act has done just that.

[[Page S12394]]

  This legislation represents a balanced benefits package that together 
with phased-in tax cuts can provide and ensure the financial integrity 
of the Railroad Trust fund. This bill introduces sound investment 
techniques into the effort to make better use of resources built up by 
railway employees many who live in my home State of Oregon.
  The legislation relies upon a number of features to ensure the fund 
will meet its benefit obligations to retirees:

       Fund Reserves. The legislation maintains four to six years 
     worth of benefits in reserve as a safety margin.
       Automatic Tax Adjustment. Tax rates on employers and 
     employees will be adjusted automatically in an effort to 
     maintain a fund balance sufficient to pay between four and 
     six years of benefits.
       Asset Management. Assets will be managed much like private 
     pension funds, providing the opportunity to earn higher rates 
     of return than the current 6 percent rate of return. Higher 
     returns will provide additional funds for benefit payments 
     and reduce the need for high payroll taxes.

  I have been particularly worried about the plight of widows and 
widowers of retired railroad employees. Under current law, their 
monthly checks actually decline by two-thirds when a spouse dies. I 
believe this trust fund can do better by these widows and widowers and 
am happy that this legislation calls for the surviving spouse to 
receive 100 percent of what the retired employee was entitled to. 
Almost 50,000 retirees will be affected by this provision.
  Further, this legislation allows the industry to reduce the 
burdensome payroll tax it now carries to provide benefits. A three 
percentage point drop in payroll taxes is phased in over three years. 
The payroll tax was a very real disincentive to hiring employees or 
replacing retirees and it frees up capital for other expenditures.
  I am sure that the relatively swift passage of this reform 
legislation is welcome by those in the Railroad industry and urge all 
my colleagues, including the 75 cosponsors of this bill in the Senate, 
to continue to give it strong backing to ensure these needed 
improvements are enacted and beneficiaries see these desperately-needed 
changes.

                          ____________________