[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 27, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S270-S278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             PENSION FUNDING EQUITY ACT OF 2003--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:15 
p.m. having arrived, the time until 2:30 will be equally divided 
between the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, and the Senator from 
Montana, Mr. Baucus, or their designees.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Senator from Montana is otherwise 
occupied for the moment, so we are going to turn our attention, through 
myself and Senator Kyl, to the legislation we are considering, which is 
critically important and which has to do with pension plans and 
offering predictable solutions.
  There are many people who I would like to thank, but I will not do 
that because I only have 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The legislation we are considering enacts critical reforms that will 
shore up defined benefit pension plans upon which so many Americans 
depend. Today, we are updating the interest rate that companies must 
use when they calculate the liabilities of their pension plans. An 
index of long-term corporate bond rates is surely more accurate as a 
measurement of expected investment return than the now entirely defunct 
30-year Treasury rate.
  This bill also provides a grace period for pension plans, including 
multiemployer plans, which have experienced extraordinary losses in the 
recent stock market declines. Make no mistake, if companies are not 
accorded reasonable flexibility in funding their plans, then they will 
not be able to maintain or afford plans for their workers, and their 
workers will hurt. I know of that because I live in a State where that 
surrounds me.
  I hope today's action is only the first step in a thoughtful and 
careful process to provide meaningful reforms for the defined benefit 
pension plan system. Congress ought to do all it can to encourage 
employers to provide retirement security through such plans.
  Today, only 35,000 companies provide defined benefit pension plans, 
which is less than a quarter of the plans available 20 years ago. That 
is a big loss. Given the volatility we have seen in the stock market 
over the last few years, more employees would benefit from having the 
opportunity to earn secure, predictable pension benefits.
  I stand ready to work with my colleagues to address the other 
important issues facing companies that are interested in providing 
defined benefit pension plans. For example, Congress ought to 
reconsider the funding rules to ensure that companies are able to 
invest appropriately in their pension plans when business is good and 
profits are strong. We also need to consider ways to strengthen the 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation which, to say the very least, is 
stretched dangerously thin.
  I hope my colleagues will work with me on important reforms such as 
these so we can improve retirement security for millions of Americans. 
As I ask my colleagues to do exactly that, I remind them of the people 
who are dependent upon us. I have met with many West Virginians who 
have worked hard all of their lives--as they say, played by the rules--
and earned pension benefits from their employers, only to have the rug 
pulled out from under them in retirement. It is a painful, painful 
sight.
  Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel, Weirton Steel, Kaiser Aluminum, and 
Special Metals--and I am talking about companies in West Virginia--have 
been taken over by the PBGC in recent years. Retirees who dedicated 
their working years to those companies have told me how scared they 
are. Many have also lost their health insurance. Without their full 
pension benefits, they have no way to provide for their health care 
needs.
  Some people--and I am talking about seniors who are 60 or 65 years 
old--have told me they are looking for work. Part of their so-called 
retirement will be spent on the job because the pension benefits they 
were promised--the benefits they did earn--have been taken away.
  The legislation we are considering today will not solve all problems. 
More comprehensive pension reform is needed. But I am pleased this bill 
will help companies maintain pension plans that otherwise might have 
been canceled.


                           Amendment No. 2234

  I would also like to take a moment to address the amendment that has 
been offered by my colleague from Arizona. On behalf of the 
steelworkers of my State and the steelworkers of the State of the 
Presiding Officer, and on behalf of steelworkers across this country 
and many other hundreds of thousands of working people, I want to 
oppose the amendment that the Senator has offered.
  The legislation that Congress is considering today is designed to 
help companies maintain critical pensions on which workers are 
depending. We are doing so to protect workers from losing benefits that 
they have been promised. We understand some companies, faced with 
particularly hard times, are unable to immediately make up the 
investment losses recently suffered by pension plans. If companies 
cannot afford to meet strict deficit reduction contribution 
requirements, they might be compelled to abandon pension plans and 
leave workers without secure retirement benefits.
  Having said this, the Kyl amendment would dramatically decrease the 
security of hard-earned retirement benefits. The amendment 
fundamentally undermines the guarantee provided by the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation which insures the defined benefit retirement 
plans. Let me be very clear about that because the PBGC is, 
unfortunately, something that we know a great deal about in the part of 
the country I come from. I repeat, the Senator's amendment would 
dramatically decrease the security of hard-earned retirement benefits. 
It undermines the guaranteed portion of the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation. If Congress is going to change the guarantee provided by 
the PBGC, we must look for ways to improve the guaranteed benefit, not 
undermine it.
  Hundreds of thousands of Americans currently depend on PBGC for their 
retirement security. These are people who toiled away for years, often 
in very dangerous occupations, in all kinds of them. It is absolutely 
essential that we do not erode the already inadequate guarantee that 
protects these workers in their old age. Retirees depend upon PBGC 
payments to pay for food, housing, and, increasingly, to cover health 
care costs when retiree health benefits have been reduced or 
eliminated, as is so often the case. It would be unconscionable for 
Congress to provide relief to cash-strapped companies to help them 
maintain the pension plans they offer, only to punish the employees of 
those companies by

[[Page S271]]

denying them the benefits they have earned.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in standing up for workers and 
defeat this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 7\1/2\ 
minutes to speak to the amendment which I have offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KYL. Let me point out what we are doing here and then explain the 
very modest amendment I have offered which would not undermine the 
pension guarantee for employees.
  The basic problem we have is that the Treasury note that was used to 
calculate the payments that companies make to the fund to guarantee 
pensions for their employees is no longer being issued, so some 
substitute had to be found. The underlying bill uses the 30-year 
Treasury note as that substitute. I think everybody agrees that needs 
to be done on a temporary basis.
  There was a deficit created in the pension fund because companies 
were not paying in the appropriate amount during the period of time 
that the Treasury note was not being issued. As a result, the fund 
accrued a deficit. It is over $11 billion. So companies are being asked 
to pay in a deficit reduction contribution to make sure that the fund 
has the money that is required to ensure that employees will receive 
their benefits.
  Ironically, it is the proponents of the amendment that are 
undercutting the fund because what they are saying is not everybody 
will have to pay their fair share into the fund to guarantee payments 
to employees; that for a couple of steel companies and a couple of 
airlines, they will not have to make the full deficit reduction 
contribution. Instead, in the first year, they only have to pay 20 
percent of what is required. In the second year, they would only pay 40 
percent of what is required. That, obviously, is going to mean, for 
those companies, they are not paying in what they should be to ensure 
that their employees are fully covered.
  All my amendment does is say that given the fact that in this 
situation an employer is not paying in the full amount, the pension 
guaranty board should not be on the hook for benefits that are accrued 
just during this period of time. So what we say is that if a business 
takes advantage of this special rule, and if it fails during the 2-year 
period that this is in effect or 2 years thereafter, then all of the 
benefits that accrued during that period of time would not be 
guaranteed by the board. In other words, the corporation would have to 
hold harmless the pension guaranty board.
  If we don't do this, then the prediction that the board members who 
are in charge made in their recent letter would potentially come true. 
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has three board members: The 
Secretary of Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of 
Labor. They wrote a letter to Leader Frist on January 22 and this is 
among the things they said:

       We believe that H.R. 3108 would best protect pensions and 
     pensioners if passed free of any provisions to alter the 
     Deficit Reduction Contribution rules.

  The underlying amendment does, in fact, alter the deficit reduction 
contribution rules.

       Specifically, it would be irresponsible to amend the 
     interest rate bill with any additional provisions that would 
     significantly further exacerbate systemic pension plan 
     underfunding.

  Obviously, if you don't require all of the companies to pay in their 
fair share, you are, in fact, undermining the fund. They conclude by 
saying:

       If H.R. 3108 were amended to do so, we as the PBGC board 
     would recommend that the President veto the legislation.

  My point in mentioning this is to note that it may be that the amount 
of money we are talking about would not be interpreted as significantly 
underfunding. That would be the hope because if it would be, then I 
don't think any of us would be happy. But what I would suggest is that 
as a way of ensuring that the impact is minimized, my amendment should 
be adopted. It is very minimal. It simply says for those companies, if 
any, that choose to take advantage of this special waiver from the 
deficit reduction contribution, if they fail during this 2-year waiver 
period, then only the benefits that are accrued during that period 
would not be covered. That is to say, they would have to hold harmless 
the pension guaranty board for that amount of money.
  The reason is obvious: They are not paying in. They should not 
receive the benefit of the guarantee. If they want to receive the 
benefit of the guarantee for those benefits, then pay in their fair 
share. Obviously, they are totally covered for all of the benefits 
accrued up to that date because they paid in up to that date. So we are 
basically saying: If you choose as a corporation to take advantage of 
this waiver and not pay in what everybody else has to pay in, you 
should be on the hook for that amount of money. You should not ask the 
taxpayers or your rivals in business, your competitors, or the board to 
try to make up that difference.
  The reality is, we are not talking about a great deal of money. The 
principle is important and would help to make this underlying amendment 
a little bit more palatable to some of us on this side and to the 
administration.
  I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want my colleague from Arizona to 
listen. If I misstate this, I hope he will correct me. I urge our 
colleagues to vote in favor of the Kyl amendment.
  The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is in trouble. It guarantees 
pensions, both single-employer plans and multiemployer plans, and it 
doesn't have enough money to provide the guarantees that it has already 
made.
  So there is a catchup provision that says, well, you should pay up; 
you should help. This bill we are getting ready to pass is going to 
make it easier on some companies--airlines and steel--so they don't 
have to pay as much on the catchup. The Senator's amendment says if 
those companies grant additional benefits, i.e., increased pensions, 
and if they go upside down--declare bankruptcy--PBGC will not be held 
for any incremental benefits increase during this 2-year period of 
time; is that correct?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I may correct one aspect. Theoretically, a 
new employee would be a new benefit, but the reality is that since the 
accrual or the benefit is usually a 3- to 5-year time period, new 
employees would not in fact be covered.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield further, you want to make sure 
people are not receiving additional pension changes, i.e., increasing 
benefits by 10 percent for all covered employees?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, that is one of the purposes of this. To be 
clear, technically, a new employee would be counted, but since the 
benefits don't accrue for 3 to 5 years anyway, it probably would be de 
minimis.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Kyl amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the Kyl amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Chambliss) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus), the 
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. 
Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Montana (Mr. Baucus) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) 
would each vote ``yea.''

[[Page S272]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 25, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 4 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--25

     Allard
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Ensign
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (SC)
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Sununu
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Baucus
     Biden
     Chambliss
     Edwards
     Inhofe
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, could I have the attention of the 
chairman of the Finance Committee? Would the Senator enlighten us as to 
what he expects as far as when we are going to complete this 
legislation? As the Senator well knows, we have been on it Wednesday, 
Wednesday afternoon, Thursday afternoon, Friday, Monday, and today. We 
have had one amendment. I know we are going to run into all kinds of 
problems later on in the session about time, and I was just wondering 
what the leadership intended to do on this bill.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. We hope to work out agreements on all of the remaining 
amendments yet today and then have a vote tomorrow and close down very 
shortly because of weather.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Fine. I do not believe there are any amendments on this 
side.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. There is one more on this side.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Fine. I look forward to working with the chairman. We 
are together on this.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As a matter of interest, Members on our side have 
inquired about how we were going to proceed on the legislation. I 
wanted to give them some opportunity. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, over the past few days we have had a good 
debate and discussion of the challenges facing the defined benefit 
pension plan system. I thank my colleagues for engaging with us on 
these issues that are so vital to the well-being of American workers 
and their families.
  As I and others have mentioned, defined benefit pension plans provide 
a greater certainty and greater security to retirees. Every American 
deserves this kind of security in his or her old age in terms of 
retirement. There are savings, which are so important, Social Security 
and pensions. We have seen savings reduced significantly with our 
economic downturn and we have also seen the pensions of so many of our 
citizens threatened.
  This legislation is designed, as pointed out earlier, to try to deal 
with a particular challenge in a temporary way until we can reach a 
final determination on how we are going to proceed. But it is 
absolutely essential.
  This week we have taken the first important step to stabilizing our 
Nation's pension plans, which have been battered by a perfect storm of 
economic conditions over the last 3 years.
  I again thank Chairman Grassley, the ranking minority member, Senator 
Baucus, as well as our HELP committee chairman, Senator Gregg, for 
working with all of us to develop a moderate bipartisan measure to 
address the pension system's short-term problems. This amendment does 
not weaken the existing funding bill. It simply provides temporary, 
moderate relief to give companies and workers the breathing room needed 
to take steps to further protect these pension plans. We must take 
advantage of this time to improve and expand our pension system.
  More and more American workers are finding themselves without a 
pension. Since 2000, 3.3 million Americans have lost their pension 
coverage. In 2002, only 53 percent of our Nation's workers were 
participating in retirement plans--the lowest level in over a decade. 
Only one in five workers today has a secure defined benefit plan.
  This drop in pension coverage is part of an overall decline in the 
quality of jobs and the quality of benefits that American workers are 
receiving. American workers are working harder than ever, but they are 
getting less and less for their effort.
  I want to take a few moments here on the floor of the Senate to 
remind our friends and colleagues what the real state of the union is 
with regard to workers in our country at this time.
  As recently as today, there were statements and comments by the 
chairman of the Federal Reserve. On CNN, they asked the question: Do 
you agree with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's comment that 
new jobs will replace old jobs as they always have?
  We could ask that in this Chamber. I wonder what the answer would be. 
The American people get it--certainly the viewers of CNN do. This is 
nonscientific, but it is a reaction. Those who believe Mr. Greenspan 
was right were 11, and those who believe he was wrong were 89 percent.
  Americans are getting it. They are understanding it.
  The Federal Reserve Bank publication Economics and Finance, last 
summer said--I will include the appropriate references--that the 
downward turn in the mid-1970s and early 1980s shows an even mix of 
cyclical and structural adjustments--those who lost their jobs as 
temporary workers and who lost their jobs which are more permanent in 
nature. During these episodes, half the unemployment was structural and 
half was cyclical. The pattern changed in the early 1990s when industry 
was undergoing structural adjustments and increased its share of total 
employment to 57 percent.

  The greatest change, however, is apparent. In the 2001 downturn, 79 
percent of the employees worked in industries affected more by 
structural shifts than by cyclical shifts. That means, in simple 
language, those who responded to the CNN poll understand that 80 
percent of the jobs that are lost today are permanently lost. This has 
to be a major concern.
  This chart indicates that the Federal Reserve reports the Bush job 
loss is permanent. In the 1950s, the permanent job loss was 51 percent; 
in the 1980s, again 51 percent; and, early 1990s, only 57 percent. Now, 
there is an 80 percent permanent job loss--the first time in the 
history of this country.
  There is a report from the Department of Labor which shows that 36 
States have lost jobs since President Bush took office, and 27 States 
lost more jobs in the last month alone. The rate of job loss in my 
State of Massachusetts since President Bush took office is higher than 
in any other State.
  I say to the Chair, my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, I 
doubt if Rhode Island is very far behind. Over the last 3 years, 
193,000 jobs disappeared, and 200,000 Massachusetts residents are 
currently unemployed. In Massachusetts, 2,500 workers a week are 
running out of benefits because our Republican friends and the Bush 
administration refuse to extend the unemployment compensation 
temporarily for 13 weeks to permit these families to pay a mortgage and 
to put food on the table. These workers have paid into the fund. The 
fund has $17 billion in surplus. The cost of this legislation for 13 
weeks is $7 billion. But no.
  Look at what the President of the United States said at the time of 
his State of the Union. He said, ``This economy is strong and growing 
stronger.'' Applause. And then he said, ``Jobs are on the rise.'' 
Applause.

[[Page S273]]

  That really defies the facts and reality in terms of what is 
happening across the United States in terms of real jobs.
  I referred previously to the excellent article and report of just 
last Friday. This information is current. These figures are current 
with regard to my own State of Massachusetts. The statement of the 
chairman of the Federal Reserve is current. The study of the Federal 
Reserve is current.
  Here is the Wall Street Journal pointing out that the gap in wages 
and equality is growing for U.S. workers. The gap between the highest 
and lowest earners in America is widening again, with election year 
ramifications. The trend is a reflection of the job market. The 
exceptionally weak response to the current economic recovery as well as 
the long-term technological and economic changes have eroded the 
bargaining power of America's lowest paid workers. Data show that 
younger workers, who currently have fewer job prospects than a few 
years ago, in particular are bearing the brunt. The numbers indicate a 
movement to greater wage inequality around the time President Bush 
succeeded President Clinton.
  This is the Wall Street Journal. This is not a Democratic organ I am 
quoting.
  The disparity started under President Bush with the economic slide 
into recession 3 years ago. The trend represents a reversal of the late 
1990s when the lowest rates in a generation enabled the lowest paid 
workers to keep pace with those at the top. Mr. President, we will look 
at the jobs referred to in the President's State of the Union. He 
talked about these jobs as being on the rise.

  Look at this chart. This refers to what is happening in the job 
market.
  The late 1990s, 1998 to 2000, all the fourth quarter--the same 
quarter we were coming out of the recession--for every job that paid 
$16.31, the new job paid $18.32, a $2 bonus. Lost your job? Get a new 
job and get better pay. This is the average of all the new jobs.
  What is it today? Under the Bush recovery, for every job that was 
paying $16.92, the replacement job is $15.65--22 percent nationwide; 35 
percent in the State of New Hampshire where so many of our friends and 
colleagues are today. No wonder the citizens of New Hampshire are 
concerned about the state of the economy, the cost of tuition, and the 
cost of health care.
  Look what is happening in the industries across the country at the 
point of hiring. We find workers are working harder, working longer, 
and they are making less. This is the real state of the Union.
  This chart shows nationwide only two States--Nebraska and Nevada--
have actually increased employment and had a pay increase over the 
employment figures when the President took office. Every other State 
has seen a decline.
  How does the recovery stack up with other recoveries, the last nine 
recoveries, going back to 1949? This chart compares the constant 
quarter used when the recession ended. What happened to wages? Going 
back to 1949, they went up 16 percent; 10 percent in 1954; 10 percent 
again in 1958; in 1961, 7.9 percent; 9.2 percent in 1982; 1991, 6.1 
percent; and 2001, 1.58.
  That is what is happening out here among workers in the workplace. No 
wonder, as CNN reported last week, that American workers are finding 
themselves competing with cheap foreign labor just to hold on to their 
jobs. They are overwhelmed because they feel as if forces way beyond 
their control are making decisions that affect their lives. They are 
exhausted because they are working harder and longer and faster just to 
stand still.
  Who is making out with this recovery? This chart compares the 
recovery in the 1990s and the recovery today. In the Bush economy, 
corporate profits ballooned compared to workers' wages. With the 
recovery in the early 1990s, 60 percent of the new economic activity 
was reflected with 60 percent going to the workers' wages; with the 
recovery in the 1990s, 40 percent went to corporate profits. With 
today's recovery, 86 percent goes to corporate profits and 13 percent 
goes to the workers in this country.
  Talk about disparity. Talk about fairness. What is going on is the 
most dramatic change and shift in recent history in terms of the 
relationship between the profits and what the workers are earning.
  That is absolutely wrong. The results are dramatic. In the year 2000, 
there were 31 million Americans living in poverty. Today, there are 34 
million Americans living in poverty, according to the Department of 
Commerce.
  It is not just what is happening in the job markets; it is happening 
in health care costs. We see this in the most recent Time magazine, 
February 2, ``Why Your Drugs Cost So Much More.'' The report shows 
Americans spent $162 billion on prescription drugs in 2002, up from 
less than $100 billion a decade ago.

  Health care spending continues to rise; 9.3 percent in 2002, 
according to the trade journal Health Affairs. That is the largest 
increase in 11 years. Employers tighten coverage to cut costs; 
consumers are more resentful of what they are paying at the drugstore. 
While prescriptions represented only 10 percent of the total health 
care costs in the United States in 2002, they amount to 23 percent of 
the out-of-pocket costs for the consumer.
  We passed a drug bill last fall. One would think we would look at 
coverage and try to do something about costs. No way. Written into 
that, behind closed doors, were the provisions that this Bush 
administration and the Republicans prohibited the Secretary of HHS to 
be able to bargain with the drug companies in order to see some 
reduction. The Secretary for Veterans Affairs can do it and it means a 
47-percent reduction for veterans' prescription drugs. But this was 
prohibited in the legislation.
  Hopefully in this Congress under the leadership of Tom Daschle and 
Congresswoman Pelosi, we will address what is happening with health 
care costs. Prescription drug costs are a special problem because the 
cost of prescription drugs is out of control. We have to do something 
for our fellow Americans, primarily our seniors but for others as well, 
and about the costs of health care generally.
  Workers are working harder, longer, and for less. They are worried 
about their health care. The costs are going through the roof, with 
very little insight to get a handle on that cost.
  We look not only at what workers are looking for in terms of their 
costs for health care and the costs of health care for their parents. 
Look at the costs of college education. This chart is a comparison of 
tuition at a 4-year public university: it was $3,700 in 2001-2002; now 
it is $4,700. That's a 26-percent increase since 2001.
  How can average working families afford to send their child to 
school? How do they afford their health care costs, their prescription 
drug costs, their tuition?
  Look what has happened to wages--nothing. That is the real state of 
the Union, not this ``jobs are on the rise, and the economy is strong 
and getting stronger.''
  This is the description of what is happening out there to American 
workers. What is the answer of this administration? We say, with regard 
to the lowest workers, let's see an increase in the minimum wage.
  The minimum wage has not been increased in 7 years. By the end of 
this year it will be at its lowest purchasing power, in real terms, in 
the history of the minimum wage. We say: Let's get an increase. There 
is a majority of the Members in this body who would vote for an 
increase in the minimum wage, and we have been prohibited from getting 
it because the Republican leadership will not let us get a vote on the 
issue.
  Seven million Americans are entitled, when they are working 40 hours 
a week, 52 weeks a year, not to have to live in poverty. That is what 
we believe on this side. We challenge the other side to give us an 
opportunity to let the Senate express itself.
  We have the second issue that I have mentioned, unemployment 
compensation. Mr. President, 90,000--think of that number of people--
90,000 individuals a week are losing their unemployment compensation. I 
do not know how those families do it. How does a father and mother come 
back and look into the eyes of their children when they lose that 
unemployment compensation, having worked hard all of their lives, paid 
into the fund, and it is suddenly gone? And they cannot find a job 
because we are in a jobless recovery. As

[[Page S274]]

the figures show, in the last month, this administration said there 
would be 300,000 jobs. There have been 1,000 jobs created. It is a 
jobless recovery.
  How do those parents deal with it? How do those children react? That 
is what is happening. Now we cut away their lifeline, the temporary 
unemployment compensation. No, you cannot have it. You cannot have an 
increase in the minimum wage to provide some relief. And that is a 
family value issue because most of those who work for the minimum wage 
are women, and many of the women have children. It is a family issue, a 
children's issue, a women's issue, a civil rights issue, a fairness 
issue. Yet we cannot have a raise in the minimum wage. We cannot have 
an extension of unemployment benefits.
  Beyond that, we are going to stick it to 8 million Americans in 
denying them overtime. We had the debate on that earlier, that proposed 
regulation by the administration to restrict overtime coverage for 8 
million Americans. It was rejected here under the leadership of my 
friend and colleague, Senator Harkin. It came up in the House of 
Representatives. It was rejected there. Then those provisions rejecting 
this regulation were stripped out of the omnibus bill behind closed 
doors in the middle of the night.
  That is unfair to a number of different professions. It is unfair to 
nurses, firefighters, and police officers. They are the backbone of 
homeland security. But it is unfair to others as well, including many 
professions which have predominantly women in them. It is very unfair 
to working women.
  The cruelest part of this whole proposal was the part of the 
regulations that said if service men and women, when they are over in 
Iraq defending this country, and Afghanistan or other parts of the 
world, got a little specialized training, when they come back and take 
a job, if they had that specialized training, they would not be 
eligible for overtime.
  Can you imagine that? We use these training programs as an incentive 
for people to go into these services. I have asked on the floor and 
would love to see the exchange of information between the Secretaries 
of Labor and Defense on that issue because this is a major incentive--
training programs, education--for young people who perhaps do not have 
the resources to be able to go on to college and do not want to be a 
burden on their parents. They go into the service--proudly go into the 
service--and wear the uniform of our country, and defend our country, 
but they also try to get that help and assistance in the form of 
training and education.
  I will end on this issue with this letter from Randy Fleming, a 
veteran, and what this proposal would mean to veterans. He is a Boeing 
employee worried about losing his overtime. This is what his letter 
says:

       My name is Randy Fleming. I live in Haysville, Kansas--
     outside Wichita--and I work as an Engineering Technician in 
     Boeing's Metrology Lab.
       I'm also proud to say that I'm a military veteran. I served 
     in the U.S. Air Force from August 1973 until February 1979.
       I've worked for Boeing for 23 years. During that time I've 
     been able to build a good, solid life for my family and I've 
     raised a son who now has a good career and children of his 
     own. There are two things that helped make that possible.
       First, the training I received in the Air Force made me 
     qualified for a good civilian job. That was one of the main 
     attractions when I enlisted as a young man back in Iowa. I 
     think it's still one of the main reasons young people today 
     decide to enlist. Military training opens up better job 
     opportunities--and if you don't believe me, just look at the 
     recruiting ads on TV.
       The second thing is overtime pay. That's how I was able to 
     give my son the college education that has opened doors for 
     him. Some years, when the company was busy and I had those 
     college bills to pay, overtime pay was probably 10% or more 
     of my income. My daughter is next. Danielle is only 8, but 
     we'll be counting on my overtime to help her get her college 
     degree, too, when that time comes. For my family overtime pay 
     has made all the difference.
       That's where I'm coming from. Why did I come to Washington? 
     I came to talk about an issue that is very important back 
     home and to me personally as a working man, a family man, and 
     a veteran. That issue is overtime rights.
       The changes that this administration is trying to make in 
     the overtime regulations would break the government's bargain 
     with the men and women in the military and would close down 
     opportunities that working vets and their families thought 
     they could count on.
       When I signed up back in 1973, the Air Force and I made a 
     deal that I thought was fair. They got a chunk of my time and 
     I got training to help me build the rest of my life. There 
     was no part of that deal that said I would have to give up my 
     right to overtime pay. You've heard of the marriage penalty? 
     Well I think that what these new rules do is to create a 
     military penalty. If you got your training in the military, 
     no matter what your white collar profession is, your employer 
     can make you work as many hours as they want and not pay you 
     a dime extra.
       If that's not bait and switch, I don't know what is.
       And I don't have any doubt that employers will take 
     advantage of this new opportunity to cut our overtime pay. 
     They'll tell us they have to in order to compete. They'll say 
     if they can't take our overtime pay, they'll have to 
     eliminate our jobs.
       It won't be just the bad employers, either--because these 
     rules will make it very hard for companies to do the right 
     thing. If they can get as many overtime hours as they want 
     for free instead of paying us time-and-a-half, they'll say 
     they owe it to the stockholders. And the veterans and other 
     working people will be stuck with less time, less money, and 
     a broken deal.
       I'm luckier than some other veterans because I have a union 
     contract that will protect my rights for a while anyway. But 
     we know the pressure will be on, because my employer is one 
     that pushed for these new rules and they've been trying hard 
     to get rid of our union.
       And for all those who want to let these military penalty 
     rules go through, I have a deal I'd like to propose. If you 
     think it's okay for the government to renege on its deals, I 
     think it should be your job to tell our military men and 
     women in Iraq that when they come home, their service of 
     their country will be used as a way to cut their overtime 
     pay.

  You can't say it any better than that. And the cruelest part of it 
all is that the Labor Department puts out a publication to show 
employers how to go about cutting his overtime pay.
  Mr. President, just finally, I want to make mention of something we 
ought to be concerned with--and we ought to be concerned about all 
workers--but it just came to my attention that the administration's 
overtime proposal will affect the U.S. Capitol Police.
  The Capitol Police was first created in 1828 with the sole mission of 
providing security for the U.S. Capitol Building. These dedicated 
officers protect our lives, the lives of our staff, and the security of 
the Nation's Capitol every single day.
  Nearly 2,000 officers are responsible for these duties, and hundreds 
of them could lose their overtime pay under the Bush plan.
  After September 11, many of these officers worked around the clock to 
secure our safety. During the anthrax attacks, the officers dedicated 
hours and hours away from their families to secure the Capitol against 
further biochemical attacks.
  If you walk through these halls, you can hear the buzz among these 
officers: Are we going to be affected by this overtime proposal? How 
could they do this to us?
  Not every officer would be affected, but many with the specific 
duties listed in the Bush proposal could lose their overtime 
protections. Denying overtime protections to even one Capitol Police 
officer is too much.
  Sergeants and other officers who spend most of their time on 
nonmanagerial activities but who supervise two other officers could 
lose their overtime protection.
  And for the first time in the history of the Fair Labor Standards 
Act, nearly 40 percent of the Capitol Police force--those earning above 
a certain amount who meet just one of the exemption criteria--will not 
have access to overtime protections.
  Well, this is where we are. We want to give the assurance to the 
American workers, to their families, to parents and their children that 
we are going to battle.
  We are going to battle to make sure this administration doesn't 
implement those overtime rules. We are going to battle every moment we 
have, every opportunity we have, to extend unemployment compensation. 
And we are going to battle time and time again to increase the minimum 
wage. Let there be no mistake about it. It is going to come up in the 
Senate time and time and time and time again, until we provide some 
justice for workers in America.


                Amendment No. 2264 To Amendment No. 2233

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending

[[Page S275]]

amendment be set aside for the purpose of offering another amendment 
that has been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Nickles and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], for Mr. Nickles, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2264 to amendment No. 2233.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with respect to the status 
                       of private pension plans)

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON STATUS OF PRIVATE PENSION 
                   PLANS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:-
       (1) The private pension system is integral to the 
     retirement security of Americans, along with individual 
     savings and Social Security.
       (2) The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is 
     responsible for insuring the nation's private pension system, 
     and currently insures the pensions of 34,500,000 participants 
     in 29,500 single-employer plans, and 9,700,000 participants 
     in more than 1,600 multiemployer plans.
       (3) The PBGC announced on January 15, 2004, that it 
     suffered a net loss in fiscal year 2003 of $7,600,000,000 for 
     single-employer pension plans, bringing the PBGC's deficit to 
     $11,200,000,000. This deficit is the PBGC's worst on record, 
     three times larger than the $3,600,000,000 deficit 
     experienced in fiscal year 2002.
       (4) The PBGC also announced that the separate insurance 
     program for multiemployer pension plans sustained a net loss 
     of $419,000,000 in fiscal year 2003, resulting in a fiscal 
     year-end deficit of $261,000,000. The 2003 multiemployer plan 
     deficit is the first deficit in more than 20 years and is the 
     largest deficit on record.
       (5) The PBGC estimates that the total underfunding in 
     multiemployer pension plans is roughly $100,000,000,000 and 
     in single-employer plans is approximately $400,000,000,000. 
     This underfunding is due in part to the recent decline in the 
     stock market and low interest rates, but is also due to 
     demographic changes. For example, in 1980, there were four 
     active workers for every one retiree in a multiemployer plan, 
     but in 2002, there was only one active worker for every one 
     retiree.
       (6) This pension plan underfunding is concentrated in 
     mature and often-declining industries, where plan liabilities 
     will come due sooner.
       (7) Neither the Senate Committee on Finance nor the Senate 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), 
     the committees of jurisdiction over pension matters, has held 
     hearings this Congress nor reported legislation addressing 
     the funding of multiemployer pension plans;
       (8) The Senate is concerned about the current funding 
     status of the private pension system, both single and multi-
     employer plans;
       (9) The Senate is concerned about the potential liabilities 
     facing the PBGC and, as a result, the potential burdens 
     facing healthy pension plans and taxpayers;
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor and Pensions should conduct hearings on the 
     status of the multiemployer pension plans, and should work in 
     consultation with the Departments of Labor and Treasury on 
     permanent measures to strengthen the integrity of the private 
     pension system in order to protect the benefits of current 
     and future pension plan beneficiaries.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as I indicated, this amendment has been 
cleared on both sides. I ask for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2264) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there have been some inquiries about 
other amendments. We have some other amendments on which we are 
working. I will file them. Then I believe that would be the end of 
consideration of this legislation today. I will come back later on to 
do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to offer a comment or two 
about the legislation before us and express my thanks to two Members of 
the Senate who have been very involved in shaping this legislation, 
Senator Grassley and Senator Kennedy. I thank them for the work they 
have done.
  There is a lot of concern in this country about the exodus of 
manufacturing jobs and technology jobs. The legislation before us is a 
thoughtful, timely response to a number of employers, large and small, 
who are concerned that unless we address this problem with respect to 
selecting an appropriate successor to the 30-year Treasury bond, an 
appropriate measure to determine what magnitude of money should be 
contributed to pension funds, we are going to otherwise increase the 
exodus of jobs, manufacturing and otherwise.
  We are doing good work. My hope is we will be able to finish this 
legislation this week and get on with our business and allow employers 
to get on with theirs.


                 Energy Efficiency for Air Conditioners

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, about a week or so ago I learned that a 
U.S. circuit court of appeals, I believe for the Second District, had 
released a decision that is a major victory for energy efficiency. It 
offers significant savings for consumers of electricity. It is 
important for our Nation's energy future. Finally, it will help to 
improve the quality of air we breathe.
  Let me take a moment to talk more about this decision and its impact. 
To provide a bit of background, among the U.S. Department of Energy's 
responsibilities is to establish energy efficiency standards for 
electrical appliances. Central air-conditioners, the type that cool 
most of our homes and offices, must meet the appropriate seasonal 
energy efficiency rating, better known as SEER. During warm summer 
days--which seem a long way away now--central air-conditioners account 
for more than half of the electricity we use. Increasing the efficiency 
of these necessary modern comforts will result in significantly less 
stress on our Nation's electricity grid and reduce the occurrence of 
blackouts.
  According to the Alliance to Save Energy, requiring energy-efficient 
air-conditioners would avoid having to construct as many as 48 new 
electric powerplants over the next 16 years. It would also result in 
less greenhouse gases and harmful air pollution being released into the 
atmosphere because of reduced electricity demand.
  Some of you may recall at the close of the Clinton administration, 
after exhaustive research, review, and comment, the Department of 
Energy set forth a new standard known as SEER 13. In doing so, the 
Energy Department directed that central air-conditioners, sold 
beginning in 2006, would need to be 30-percent more energy efficient 
than those currently available.
  Unfortunately, that standard was withdrawn a couple of years ago when 
the current administration took office. That standard was replaced with 
a less efficient, less rigorous requirement. The revised standard, 
known as SEER 12, would have required just a 20-percent increase in 
energy efficiency.
  In response to the administration's actions, 10 States, several 
consumer groups, and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed suit 
at that time in an attempt to overturn this weakened standard.
  It was 2 years ago, as the Senate was beginning to consider the 
Energy bill, that I was encouraged that the legislation we are 
considering should have restored the higher SEER 13 standard originally 
embraced by the Clinton administration. Unfortunately, that language 
was removed during the debate on the bill and the weaker SEER 12 
standard was allowed to stand.
  Last year, I discussed options for reinstating the higher SEER 13 
standard but decided to hold off until the pending court case was 
decided. As I said, I was gratified to learn last week that the U.S. 
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had decided in favor of 
the original, more rigorous standard. The court's decision means that 
consumers will be able to purchase energy-efficient air-conditioners 
that could cut electricity bills for them by over $1 billion per year. 
The administration could decide to appeal the court's decision to the 
Supreme Court. I urge them today not to do so.
  As we debate again and again the future of energy policy, this court 
decision is one that should be embraced and encouraged, not appealed. 
We

[[Page S276]]

should take every opportunity to increase our energy security. This is 
one of those opportunities.
  I yield the floor and thank Senator Durbin for his consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                     CBS Rejection Of MoveOn.Org Ad

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for his 
statement and for holding to the time limit he promised. He is a man of 
his word.
  Recently I learned that the CBS television network, which claims to 
be the No. 1, most-watched network, with more than 200 affiliated 
stations, rejected an ad for its upcoming Super Bowl broadcast that 
will be on Sunday. CBS's explanation for rejecting this ad was that 
their network prohibited the showing of advertisements that take stands 
on controversial public policy issues.
  So what was this controversial, dangerous ad which CBS is protecting 
American viewers from watching? Well, it was an ad sponsored by a 
nonprofit organization called MoveOn.Org. You can find it on your Web 
site at MoveOn.Org. You can see the ad. This 30-second ad shows several 
children working unhappily in a variety of grownup jobs.
  When you go to the Web site and bring up this ad, you can see a 
little girl cleaning the floor of a commercial building with music 
playing in the background, a boy washing dishes at a restaurant, 
another youngster working on an assembly line in a factory, another 
fixing tires at an automobile shop, and another collecting trash for 
the back of a truck.
  The ad ends with this line:

       Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion 
     deficit?

  That is the controversial ad. The ad that CBS doesn't want America to 
see, which those who are following this debate can go to MoveOn.org/
cbs/ad and see this ``dangerous,'' ``controversial'' ad that crosses 
the line, an ad which CBS is going to protect the American people from 
even getting a chance to see. These are some of the still photos from 
that ad showing kids in working situations, and closing with one short 
tag line:

       Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion 
     deficit?

  CBS is afraid of this ad. They are afraid if the American people see 
it, they would be so caught up in the controversy of this ad, it would 
just be unfair.
  Is it controversial? Is this ad too hot for network TV? Would America 
be traumatized and changed forever viewing this dangerous, 
controversial, 30-second ad? Well, clearly not. This ad makes two 
factual assertions every American knows to be true. First, it says we 
are facing a growing national debt, a debt exceeding $1 trillion, which 
has to be paid off by future generations. Guess what. Those future 
generations are going to be comprised of our children.
  Second, in those few words at the close of the ad, it says President 
Bush and his administration have to accept responsibility for creating 
this debt--a fact President Bush's own budget documents readily admit, 
a fact substantiated by President Bush's programs of tax cuts for the 
wealthy. Everybody with even a short-term memory recalls that only a 
few years ago we were dealing with a budgetary surplus under the 
Clinton administration. Now we are deep in historic debt year after 
year after year during the Bush administration. To argue the Bush 
administration's hands are clean when it comes to America's debt defies 
common sense and history. So what is so controversial about these 
unambiguous facts that our children will be inheriting a large national 
deficit created since the time President George W. Bush took office? 
Since when has stating the truth--and obvious truth at that--turned out 
to be too controversial for America to witness?
  Think about it for a moment. CBS was the network, 30 years ago, that 
dared to put on a sitcom called ``All in the Family.'' In that sitcom 
about a blue-collar, opinionated, rough-talking guy named Archie 
Bunker, we heard the reality of a family saying some things which, 
frankly, we had never heard before on television. Can you imagine if 
these timid souls running from controversy at CBS today were asked to 
look at a pilot for a sitcom with Archie Bunker? Frankly, I guess they 
would force Archie Bunker to wear a suit and tie and call Meathead his 
beloved son-in-law. Otherwise, it just might be too controversial, too 
risky for the American people.
  Maybe controversy is in the eye of the beholder, and the eye of CBS 
now runs from controversy. Or maybe there is another dynamic at work. 
Maybe network executives at CBS are so afraid of political pressure 
from the rightwing and their business advertisers who are in league 
with the rightwing politics of America that they are afraid to put 
anything on the air that might in fact make things uncomfortable. If 
that is the case, it is time for CBS to announce the name of their 
network is the ``conservative broadcasting system'' and come clean with 
American viewers.

  Look at the record, though. CBS has run controversial ads, many of 
which were good for America to see. Ads sponsored by the White House 
Drug Control Policy Agency confronted a tough issue, maybe in 
controversial terms to some, but ads that were important. The White 
House Drug Policy ad that ran during last year's Super Bowl accused 
American drug companies of directly supporting international terrorism 
that led to the taking of lives of American citizens. Risky, edgy, 
controversial? Yes. Did we have a right to see that as Americans? You 
bet we did.
  Why was CBS ready to run those ads a year ago, but won't let 
MoveOn.org address the issue of the debt of America that will be borne 
by our children? CBS also runs ads by tobacco companies and antismoking 
groups to advocate viewpoints on health. In fact, they are scheduled to 
run during the Super Bowl--ads from two different groups, which are the 
American Legacy Foundation and Phillip Morris, which are basically 
antismoking adds. I fully support these ads. Some may view them as 
controversial. But so what. If these airwaves are truly the realm of 
the public to learn, why do we run away from a controversial ad even if 
it relates to a public health policy some disagree with?
  CBS also routinely runs a whole range of controversial, if not 
downright offensive, ads during the Super Bowl. We have seen that CBS 
has no qualms about running ads featuring comely young women mud 
wrestling while a couple of beer-drinking fellows look on. 
Controversial? Perhaps to some, but they will run those ads. It appears 
CBS executives consider it important to run not one, two, but three 
separate ads promoting drugs for sexual dysfunction during the Super 
Bowl. They believe in a national debate on such sexual problems is more 
important to the public interest than a discussion about the future of 
this Nation. In the CBS eye, sexual dysfunction is a topic families 
with children can watch. But budgetary dysfunction, which our children 
will pay for, is just too controversial, too hot to handle.
  So how does CBS define controversial content? Let's take a look at 
what goes into their thinking. Remember the series on President Ronald 
Reagan? The CBS executives did a complete reversal overnight and pulled 
the plug on the miniseries, ``The Reagans,'' after spending millions of 
dollars producing it. We learned that the decision was made after 
conservative Republicans barraged the boardroom and executives and said 
we cannot run this, even though we have not seen it. In fact, CBS caved 
in, without the public ever having seen one single episode.
  These are the same executives at CBS, incidentally, who, during 1999 
and 2000 gave 98 percent of their soft money political contributions to 
the Republican Party. They decided this MoveOn.org ad, which just might 
raise a question about President Bush's policies leading this Nation, 
and the deficit and debt our children face, those same CBS executives 
said we don't think we ought to step into this controversial area.
  The major pharmaceutical companies, which will be running ads on 
three different sexual dysfunction drugs during the Super Bowl, have 
also been consistently placed among the five top spenders on lobbying 
the Republican Congress and in soft money and PAC contributions to 
Republican candidates.
  Now let's connect all the dots because there is something more direct

[[Page S277]]

and topical behind this CBS decision, from my point of view. These are 
the same executives at CBS who successfully lobbied this Congress to 
change the FCC rules on TV station ownership to their corporate 
advantage. The provision that was sneaked into the Omnibus 
appropriation bill that passed last week and has been signed by the 
President. It establishes a new ceiling of 39 percent as the maximum 
percentage of American TV viewers in a market that may be reached by TV 
stations owned by any one company. Remember that number, 39 percent.
  Before the FCC adopted rules in June to raise the cap to 45 percent, 
the cap was limited to 35 percent. Upset at what the FCC had done, a 
strong majority in the House and Senate agreed to roll back the FCC 
rule and take it back down to 35 percent. Why is this important? The 
White House and the Republicans in this conference on this Omnibus 
appropriation bill, with no Democrats present, came up with a figure of 
39 percent as the new cap--39 percent. What is so magic about 39 
percent? Allow me to explain. This wasn't chosen at random; it wasn't a 
good-faith compromise. No, it just so happens that Viacom, which owns 
CBS, currently owns stations reaching 38.8 percent of American 
households, and Rupert Murdoch's news corporation, the owners of that 
``fair and balanced'' Fox Network, owns stations reaching 37.8 percent.
  Interesting. Interesting that the White House and Republican leaders 
in Congress pushed a provision in a spending bill in the dark of night, 
without Democrats present, that benefited two corporations when it came 
to their ownership of television stations--Fox, which is a wholly owned 
subsidiary of the Republican Party, and now Viacom, CBS. Both entities 
currently violate the old FCC limitation. They needed this new 
language. They would have been forced to sell off stations if their 
Republican friends in Congress and the White House had not come through 
for them.
  So the White House and the congressional Republicans give CBS a 
significant corporate favor and CBS rewards them by killing an ad 
critical of the Bush White House during the Super Bowl. Doesn't that 
sound like a perfect subject for a ``60 Minutes'' investigation? Oh, I 
forget. ``60 Minutes'' is a CBS program. I don't think we are going to 
hear about this on ``60 Minutes.'' I don't think Mike Wallace and 
Lesley Stahl are going to be taking an undercover camera into the 
boardrooms of CBS to find out what is going on there.
  Listen to what our colleague, Senator John McCain of Arizona, said 
about this provision that was sneaked into this bill at the last minute 
to benefit Viacom and CBS, the biggest corporate favor they could ever 
ask for. I am quoting my colleague, Senator John McCain, who said on 
the floor:

       This provision is objectionable because while purporting to 
     address public concerns about excessive media consolidation, 
     it really only addresses the concerns of special interests. 
     It is no coincidence, my friends--

  And this is John McCain speaking--

     that the 39 percent is the exact ownership percentage of 
     Viacom and CBS. Why did they pick 39 percent? So that these 
     two major conglomerates would be grandfathered in, 
     purportedly, in order to reduce the media ownership, which 
     was voted down 55 to 40 in the Senate. The fact is now they 
     are endorsing Viacom and CBS's 39 percent ownership, 
     grandfathering them in because they should have been at 35 
     percent.

  In the words of Senator McCain:

       Remarkable.

  It is clear from the examples, such as the rejection of MoveOn.org's 
ad, that CBS and other media companies are dominant in a marketplace 
that exercises vast influence over what the American people can see on 
television. This is exhibit A in the case against media concentration.
  Too much power has been given to media executives who now are going 
to pick and choose and censor the content of political material which 
we as Americans can see. They can decide on one hand that their friends 
will be favored with ads and then reject ads critical of their 
political friends as just too controversial for America to witness.
  That is exactly what they have done on this MoveOn.org ad. CBS is 
able to reject MoveOn.org and anyone else whose views they disagree 
with because the executives know there are thousands of other companies 
standing in line ready to pay for ads during the Super Bowl.
  It all comes down to this: Through years of deregulation, we have 
created a situation in America where massive media conglomerates, such 
as CBS, are operating without any effective oversight and with little 
or no feeling of responsibility to the public.
  It used to be people remembered that the airwaves these TV stations 
use don't belong to these TV stations, they don't belong to the media 
giants, such as Viacom, they don't belong to CBS. They belong to you, 
me, and every American. We allow these companies to use the airwaves, 
and they make a fortune. We licensed them for that purpose. We used to 
say, before the Reagan administration changed the law: If you are going 
to use America's airwaves, you have to be fair in the use of the 
airwaves. The fairness doctrine was thrown out. Now the only standard 
is that they only have to serve the public interest.
  It is such a vague term, ``serve the public interest,'' that CBS, 
undoubtedly, can get by with rejecting ads for political reasons, such 
as their rejection of this MoveOn.org ad. But if the public interest 
standard is to mean anything, it must require broadcast licensees to 
air diverse points of view on issues of national interest.
  It is all right for me as an American to watch something on 
television with which, frankly, I disagree. Maybe I want to pick up the 
phone and call the station manager or register my complaint with one 
group or the other. Isn't that what free speech in America is all 
about? Not from CBS's point of view. From the CBS point of view, they 
will pick and choose what you can watch. Ads for beer with young folks 
doing things which maybe you don't want your children to see--not 
controversial. Ads by pharmaceutical companies for sexual dysfunction 
drugs you may not want your children to watch--not controversial. But 
an ad which says that our children are going to pay off a $1 trillion 
national debt created by this administration--over the line, way too 
scandalous, way too controversial. Children and good American families 
should not be subjected to that, in the eyes of CBS. I certainly 
disagree.
  Broadcasters and executives running broadcast stations should 
remember that, first and foremost, they are journalists. They have a 
responsibility to the American people to speak the truth, to give us 
the information and let us decide. They have a professional and ethical 
obligation to be fair and balanced, even if it means they have to set 
aside their own political views and prejudices and perhaps--perhaps--
just once in a while, step on the toes of their political allies and 
friends, even the ones who just handsomely rewarded them with the 
provision in the recent appropriations bill.
  While broadcasters may wish to exercise their discretion in selecting 
ads that would run afoul of a community's decency standards, 
broadcasters should not and must not become censors of content. That is 
the fundamental promise of the first amendment. It is wrong for the 
Government to censor content. It is wrong for corporate stewards of our 
public airwaves to do so.
  If you believe, after watching this ad by MoveOn.org, that CBS was 
wrong, that CBS should have allowed this ad, which shows children at 
work and says, in its closing frame, ``Guess who's going to pay off 
President Bush's $1 trillion deficit?''--if you think CBS made a 
mistake, you have a right, as an American, to contact them. You can 
write to them at: CBS Television Network, 51 West 52nd Street, New 
York, NY, 10019, or you can call them: (212) 975-4321. Ask to talk to 
the corporate executive who decided this ad was too controversial for 
your family to see. Make certain they understand, as I feel and hope 
you feel, that America is ready for an ad which tells the truth, an ad 
which may be controversial in the eyes of one political party but 
certainly deserves to be aired so the public can finally decide what is 
right and what is wrong.
  I hope the American people will not sit idly by and watch as these 
media giants, such as CBS, become bigger, more powerful, and decide 
just exactly what we as Americans will get to see on TV.
  I urge everyone watching to call CBS and remind the executive that 
you, the American people, are the owners of the American public 
airwaves.

[[Page S278]]

  For CBS, let me say this: The CBS eye has been closed to truth, 
closed to fairness, closed to presenting the facts honestly to the 
American people. CBS has a great legacy. It is a storied name when it 
comes to public information in America. This chapter is sad and 
disgraceful.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


         Amendment No. 2261, As Modified, to Amendment No. 2233

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kyl 
amendment be temporarily set aside and, further, that the Senate now 
proceed to the consideration of amendment No. 2261, as modified, which 
is at the desk. I further ask consent that the amendment be agreed to 
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  Mr. REID. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2261), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

   (Purpose: To extend transfers of excess pension assets to retiree 
                health accounts, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place add:

     SEC. __. EXTENSION OF TRANSFERS OF EXCESS PENSION ASSETS TO 
                   RETIREE HEALTH ACCOUNTS.

       (a) Amendment of Internal Revenue Code of 1986.--Paragraph 
     (5) of section 420(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to expiration) is amended by striking ``December 
     31, 2005'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
       (b) Amendments of ERISA.--
       (1) Section 101(e)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1021(e)(3)) is amended by 
     striking ``Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999'' and inserting 
     ``Pension Stability Act''.
       (2) Section 403(c)(1) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1103(c)(1)) is 
     amended by striking ``Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999'' and 
     inserting ``Pension Stability Act''.
       (3) Paragraph (13) of section 408(b) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     1108(b)(3)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``January 1, 2006'' and inserting ``January 
     1, 2014'', and
       (B) by striking ``Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999'' and 
     inserting ``Pension Stability Act''.

     SEC. __. CLARIFICATION OF EXEMPTION FROM TAX FOR SMALL 
                   PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 501(c)(15)(A) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) Insurance companies (as defined in section 816(a)) 
     other than life (including interinsurers and reciprocal 
     underwriters) if--
       ``(i) the gross receipts for the taxable year do not exceed 
     $600,000, and
       ``(ii) more than 50 percent of such gross receipts consist 
     of premiums.''.
       (b) Controlled Group Rule.--Section 501(c)(15)(C) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``, 
     except that in applying section 1563 for purposes of section 
     831(b)(2)(B)(ii), subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 
     1563(b)(2) shall be disregarded'' before the period at the 
     end.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Clause (i) of section 
     831(b)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 
     by striking ``exceed $350,000 but''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2003.

     SEC. __. DEFINITION OF INSURANCE COMPANY FOR SECTION 831.

       (a) In General.--Section 831 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as 
     subsection (d) and by inserting after subsection (b) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Insurance Company Defined.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `insurance company' has the meaning given 
     to such term by section 816(a)).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2003.

     SEC. __.

       On page 12, line 5, before ``or'' insert ``or the mining or 
     processing of iron ore or beneficiated iron ore products,''.
       On page 16, line 18, before ``or'' insert ``or the mining 
     or processing of iron ore or beneficiated iron ore 
     products,''.

     SEC. __. FUNDS FOR REBUILDING FISH STOCKS.

       Section 105 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations and Offsets 
     Act, 2004 (division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
     2004) is repealed.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes consideration of the pension rate bill tomorrow, there 
be 30 minutes of debate equally divided between the chairman and 
ranking member or their designees, with an additional 10 minutes under 
the control of Senator Kyl. I further ask consent that following the 
use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to a vote in 
relationship to the Kyl amendment No. 2236; provided further, that 
following the disposition of the Kyl amendment, the Senate then proceed 
to a vote on the adoption of the Grassley amendment No. 2233, with no 
intervening action or debate. Finally, I ask consent that following the 
disposition of that amendment, the bill be read a third time and the 
Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, again, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if my friend from Iowa will yield, I express 
my appreciation, for the Senate and the staff, to the leader for 
getting us out of here as early as possible. The weather is 
treacherous. There was a meeting at the White House that prevented us 
from getting out earlier. For everyone, I express my appreciation to 
the leader for adjourning at this time.
  Senator Inhofe and I just finished a very constructive conversation. 
I have spoken to Senator Jeffords and to Senator Bond. We feel very 
good about moving forward on the highway bill next week. I know the 
chairman of the Finance Committee is here. They are going to meet on 
Monday to work on a provision on taxes. We can't do the bill unless 
they do that. I have spoken to the Senators from Alabama and Maryland, 
Senator Sarbanes and Senator Shelby. They are going to mark their 
provision up on Tuesday as it deals with mass transit.
  I hope this most important bill, creating hundreds of thousands, if 
not millions, of jobs over the next 5 years can be completed before we 
go for our break in the middle of February.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks the 
distinguished assistant Democratic leader just made about the highway 
bill. It is one of the most important jobs bills we can have before the 
Senate this year. It should have been done last year. We couldn't get 
it done. But we can do that now and the Senate is committed to that. I 
think the leadership in the House is committed to it. Obviously, we 
need to get it done.
  I thank the Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________