[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 20 (Thursday, February 16, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1403-S1406]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           PENSION CONFERENCE

  Mr. REID. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I hope we have the opportunity as soon as we get back to move forward 
on the pension conference. I hope we can do it even tonight. I don't 
want to see this pension bill, which is a matter that has been moved to 
this point on our legislative calendar on a very bipartisan basis, 
turned into a partisan issue. There has been too much work on a 
bipartisan basis to advance this bill, and it is very important to the 
American business community and to American workers. Billions and 
billions of dollars are at stake.
  In fact, once the majority got serious about pension reform, 
consideration of this bill in the Senate has been a model of bipartisan 
cooperation. It would not have passed late last year without the 
Senate's Democratic caucus pushing for its consideration and working 
with Republicans to create a process by which a bipartisan consensus 
could be forged and acted upon by the Senate in a reasonable amount of 
time.
  I agree that there have been unnecessary delays with regard to this 
legislation, and I regret that the full Senate could not act on this 
legislation until late last year. Consideration in the House and Senate 
was delayed last year for two reasons.
  First of all, the administration pension proposal was narrowly 
focused on improving the solvency problems at the PBGC and failed to 
strike the necessary balance between improving pension funding and 
continuing the attractiveness of defined benefit pension plans to 
employers. It would have hastened the demise of defined pension plans, 
which today cover about one in five workers and provide workers greater 
retirement security because they provide a guaranteed stream of 
retirement income. The administration proposal generated little support 
among Republicans, but they weren't willing to buck the White House on 
policy grounds and instead deferred action on this legislation. That 
was unfortunate, but that is the way it is.
  Consideration of the bill was also delayed by the decision of the 
House Republican leadership to hold pension reform hostage in order to 
advance their failed Social Security privatization plan. The House 
Republican leadership, as late as June of last year, was still delaying 
even committee consideration of the pension bill and wanted to couple 
pension reform with the proposal to privatize Social Security. It 
wasn't fair to hold this important bill hostage in order to advance the 
politically unpopular Social Security privatization plan. The political 
message to all those who cared about fixing the pension system was: Get 
behind our privatization plan for Social Security or you won't get your 
pension bill.

[[Page S1404]]

  For example, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on April 30 of last 
year that ``House Republican leaders vowed Friday to push through 
Congress an overhaul not just of Social Security but `retirement 
security,' grabbing the baton President Bush handed them at his 
prime.'' In fact, Mr. President, not only prime time but at a news 
conference he held promising to run with it.

  The prime is past.

       The savvy legislative tactician who thrives on complex 
     issues, Thomas outlined a much broader legislative front than 
     President Bush has proposed. Thomas suggested changes to 
     private savings and pensions outside of Social Security as 
     well as to the 70-year-old program, saying he would deliver a 
     ``retirement package for aging Americans.''
       Chairman Thomas suggested this wide ranging proposal could 
     splinter the Democrats.

  The Boston Globe reported months later in June:

       Republicans in Congress want to turn aging baby boomer 
     fears of pension defaults heightened by the well-publicized 
     failure of the United Airlines plan to their advantage with 
     plans to link broad-based pension overhaul with elements of 
     President Bush's plan for personal Social Security accounts, 
     a move GOP leaders hope will break a logjam on Capitol Hill.
       The strategy reflects a realization by GOP leaders that 
     their Democratic colleagues and even some Republicans are 
     steadfastly opposed to private accounts funded by a portion 
     of Social Security payroll tax.
       Republican leaders hope to build on momentum generated by 
     the pension defaults and the shaky state of the federal 
     agency that insures pensions to make a case that retirement 
     security needs an across-the-board makeover and the type of 
     personal security accounts Bush has talked about should be 
     part of the solution.

  Consequently, pension legislation languished in the Senate until the 
end of July. The inability of Senate Republicans on the Committee on 
Finance to produce a majority in favor of Social Security 
privatization, pressure by Senate Democrats to move ahead separately on 
pension reform, and high profile bankruptcies in the airline industry 
created enough pressure to break this logjam in the Senate.
  Again, it was on a bipartisan basis. There was no filibuster, no 
obstruction, just inaction by the majority.
  Despite these delays, Senators Grassley, Enzi, Boxer, and Kennedy, 
the chairman and ranking members of the Committees on Finance and HELP, 
worked through the committee and on the floor to draft and pass a 
bipartisan pension bill. The Committee on Finance reported its bill at 
the end of July. The HELP Committee reported its bill at the beginning 
of December. Committees agreed on a bipartisan basis to a compromise 
bill that merged the two approaches at the end of September.
  The actual legislative work on this was relatively short, certainly, 
for something as complex as this. The bill passed the full Senate on 
November 16. At that time, I commended Members on both sides for the 
diligent work in hammering out a consensus bill, and again questioned 
why the Senate waited until November to address this important issue. 
In fact, I worked with the distinguished majority leader in making sure 
there were not a lot of extraneous amendments, and we could move 
forward.
  There is no reason the Senate cannot move forward on this. We need to 
agree on a reasonable number of conferees. This is a bill, a very 
complex bill. What I am asking is there be three people from our HELP 
Committee who are Democrats, and four from the Committee on Finance, a 
total of seven. This is a very important bill. The reason we are not 
going to conference is the majority is not willing to give the 
Democrats another member--that is, they refuse to go with the ratio 
which the Republicans get, the best of that deal; they get two extra 
Senators. Now they say we have to do it with--I assume they want me to 
do two from HELP and three from the Committee on Finance. That is 
unfair.
  I need, the country needs, a pension reform bill. That can only be 
done by going to conference. I plead with the majority, let's work this 
out. There is no reason we should not have a ratio of 8 to 6 that 
allows me to have three people from the HELP Committee who are experts 
in this field. They will move quickly. They are willing to work 
unending hours to resolve this matter.
  A report in this morning's Congressional Quarterly suggests that 
outside interests are pushing for a very small conference, the smaller 
the better, in order to prevent some Senators who have positions on 
this most important issue, Senators who have worked on it for many 
years, from participating in the conference. That is too bad.
  This legislation has reached this point and we are here today because 
of strong bipartisan support for moving forward. It has not been a 
partisan process thus far and I hope it will not become a partisan 
process. I expect the conference to be conducted in a bipartisan 
manner, no matter who gets appointed on what side. I am afraid the 
Republican majority has decided they want to create a political issue 
instead of trying to find a way around the impasse. The way around it 
is easy, 7 to 5 or 8 to 6. I hope we can continue working in a 
bipartisan way in order to get this bill to conference and enacted into 
law. It is an important piece of legislation.
  It does not seem to me to be asking too much that the HELP Committee, 
which is so vitally important to the moving of this legislation, have 
three Democrats on the HELP Committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 12 minutes in order to introduce a bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2311 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Katrina Emergency Assistance

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to express my 
appreciation to my friend from Maine, Ms. Collins, for the passage of 
the Katrina Emergency Assistance Act of 2005. This important 
legislation passed the Senate by unanimous consent on Wednesday, 
February 16, after several months of negotiations. I commend her 
efforts and the efforts of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs to take the initiative to address the recovery 
issues still facing the gulf coast.
  Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman have both visited Mississippi 
and Louisiana and have seen the devastation and the progress that has 
been made and the work still left to be done.
  Hurricane Katrina was certainly one of the deadliest and costliest 
natural disasters in United States history.
  On Monday, August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall in 
Louisiana as a category 4 hurricane, with winds up to 145 mph, then 
turned eastward towards Mississippi, making landfall at 9 a.m., with 
winds of 125 mph and with a storm surge over 20 feet high. At its peak, 
the storm stretched 125 miles across the gulf coast
  Almost 6 months later, the Congress and numerous Federal departments 
and agencies are still working to help those affected by the hurricane.
  The Katrina Emergency Assistance Act will help people in a variety of 
important ways.
  This legislation provides an additional 13 weeks of Federal Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance for those who lost their jobs as a result of 
Hurricane Katrina, extending the duration of benefits from 26 weeks to 
39 weeks.
  Thousands of residents of the gulf coast lost their jobs as a result 
of Hurricane Katrina. It is important to continue to provide this 
assistance while businesses, both large and small, reopen and expand.
  The Katrina Emergency Assistance Act authorizes the Federal 
Government to reimburse local communities and community organizations 
for purchasing and distributing essential supplies during a disaster 
situation. Mayors, supervisors, local emergency managers, first 
responders, and others in

[[Page S1405]]

the disaster area should be free to purchase necessities such as food, 
ice, clothing, toiletries, generators, and other essential items.
  These individuals are often the first to respond to a disaster, and 
they should be assured that their city, county, or organization will be 
reimbursed for these essential services.
  This legislation also requires the Department of Homeland Security to 
establish new guidelines for inspectors determining the eligibility of 
individuals for Federal disaster assistance. This provision will help 
ensure the timely delivery of assistance, while prohibiting conflicts 
of interest.
  This legislation also expresses the sense of the Congress that the 
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement should refrain from 
initiating removal proceedings against international students due to 
their inability to complete education requirements as a result of a 
national disaster.
  Numerous students from around the world are studying in this country 
at any given time. These students should not be punished as a result of 
disaster that interferes with their legitimate educational plans.
  Senators Collins and Lieberman and the members of the Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee have worked hard to provide 
assistance and respond to Hurricane Katrina.
  The committee is close to completing its exhaustive investigation of 
the response of the entire Federal Government will soon begin the 
process of drafting legislation to improve future Federal response 
efforts.
  I look forward to working with them to address the concerns of 
Mississippians and to improve the process of response and recovery.
  I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to give every 
consideration to this important legislation. The Katrina Emergency 
Assistance Act is the result of months of drafting and negotiating by 
Senators Collins and Lieberman and has the full backing of the United 
States Senate.
  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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Pension Reform

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, a few moments ago the minority leader was 
on the floor following up on a discussion that we had had earlier 
today. I would like to take a moment to respond to his request 
regarding the pension reform bill conference committee.
  It looks as though we will have to continue to discuss this over the 
next 24 hours because we have not made very much progress on a bill 
that is critically important to the safety and security of the American 
people. It is being postponed for no good reason. That is what it boils 
down to.
  These feeble attempts to explain why we keep putting the bill off are 
unacceptable at this point. We have to go back to the time line because 
the facts do speak for themselves.
  The Senate passed the pension reform bill on November 16 of last 
year. So that is--November, December, January, February--almost 3 
months ago exactly, or close to it. It was passed by a vote of 97 to 2. 
Almost all of our colleagues in here, 97 to 2, voted for this bill. The 
House passed its bill about a month later, on December 15. They passed 
it overwhelmingly, 294 to 132. Shortly after the House passed the bill, 
we proposed going to conference with a ratio of 7 to 5. That was back 
in December. It took the other side of the aisle until yesterday to 
respond.
  It looks as if it is, again, a pattern of delay and obstruction. They 
have had over 2 months to broach this concern and resolve the dispute 
within their caucus as to who would serve on this conference. Our side 
had to make tough choices, as we talked about this morning. My 
colleague from Mississippi and another colleague who wasn't on the 
floor spoke to me thereafter and said: Why wasn't I on that tax 
reconciliation bill conference?
  Yesterday, we appointed conferees--two from our side of the aisle and 
one from their side of the aisle, a total of three. To make these 
decisions, it takes leadership and calls for leadership just to say 
this is going to be the number, and let's proceed ahead, and with both 
the Republican and Democratic caucuses we have to make tough choices 
and tell our colleagues that not everybody can serve on every 
conference committee.
  It may be that there is a legitimate dispute on the other side of the 
aisle about who should get to serve. But, again, I question this 
pattern of obstruction and delay and postponement. This may well be 
another instance of election year delays to slow down the legislative 
process and try to attempt to keep us from governing in a responsible 
way.
  If there is a legitimate disagreement about who they should get to 
serve on their side of the aisle, I have a proposal that might resolve 
that matter. We can talk about it tomorrow. I would propose appointing 
six Democratic conferees, which would address their problem, and nine 
Republican conferees. This should more than accommodate the request of 
the Democratic leader, while allowing us to maintain equal 
representation of the two committees, the HELP Committee and the 
Finance Committee, which have jurisdiction of this bill.
  In the meantime, as we discuss and debate this issue, the clock is 
ticking. We need to appoint conferees right away because, as was 
explained earlier on the floor today, the first quarter of the fiscal 
year ends on March 31. Within 2 weeks of that happening, companies have 
to make contributions to their pension plans. If we don't go ahead and 
pass comprehensive pension plan reform before then, those contributions 
may result in bankrupting those companies.
  So I close with simply saying that time is of the essence. We cannot 
delay. We need to act now to once and for all get this done, to get to 
conference so that we can resolve the issues on this particular bill.
  Mr. President, in direct response to a number of issues that have 
been raised on the bill on the floor right now, the PATRIOT Act, I have 
a few comments to make. Once again we have a slow-walking of the 
policymaking process on the floor. We are slow-walking the PATRIOT Act, 
a bill that we absolutely know will make this country safer and more 
secure--an improved bill.
  Tuesday night, cloture was filed on the motion to proceed to S. 2271, 
which is a stalling tactic or a filibustering tactic. On the USA 
PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006, which is 
the formal name of this important bill, we had to file cloture because 
otherwise this bill will continue to be filibustered and postponed 
indefinitely. Today, we invoked cloture. I think the vote was 96 to 3; 
I believe that is correct. That shows there is overwhelming support for 
this bill. I think that reflects what should be the reality, and that 
is that this bill is going to pass with overwhelming majority support. 
Yet we have, in essence, wasted yesterday and today, tomorrow, Monday, 
and Tuesday, until we are allowed to vote on this bill Wednesday 
morning following the break.
  Once again, the other side seems to be throwing up roadblock after 
roadblock, demanding unnecessary procedural steps to slow down, to 
hinder reauthorization of what law enforcement has described as its No. 
1 terrorist-fighting tool, the PATRIOT Act.
  If the delays in any way would change the outcome or alter the 
outcome, I could understand it, but that is simply not the case. The 
outcome of this bill is not in any doubt. The PATRIOT Act will pass 
with overwhelming bipartisan support. It is just being delayed for 
delay's sake and, to me, that is simply unacceptable. The American 
people, unfortunately, pay a price for all of this in two ways.
  First of all, the improved PATRIOT Act, which strengthens that 
ability to remove those burdens between the law enforcement and 
intelligence act, is one dimension.
  Second is, all the pressing issues of securing America's freedom, 
America's health, improving education, promoting progrowth policy to 
increase and promote the prosperity of America, all of that gets pushed 
off to the future.
  The original PATRIOT Act passed with overwhelming, near unanimous 
support in its original version. We know it has been instrumental in 
the

[[Page S1406]]

successful tracking and arrest of key terrorist figures.
  Just last week, we learned how, in 2002, a terror plan to hijack a 
commercial airliner and fly it into the Los Angeles Library Tower was 
thwarted. Authorities discovered that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the 
mastermind of 9/11, had recruited a suicide hijacking cell to bring 
down the 73-story skyscraper--the tallest building on the West Coast.
  Authorities were able to hunt down and capture Khalid Sheik Mohammed, 
along with his accomplice, Hambali, the leader in al-Qaida, in 
Southeast Asia, the leader of the terrorist cell, and three of its 
terrorist members.
  It was a tremendous victory in the war on terror, and it saved 
countless innocent lives. But it also reminded us that our enemies are 
ruthless. It reminded us that they are determined to kill scores of 
Americans, hundreds of Americans, right here on American soil. They are 
determined to exploit any weakness or slip through any potential 
loophole.
  We cannot let our guard down. We must never, ever let our guard down. 
We have to stay on the offensive. On 
9/11, the enemy was able to allude law enforcement, in part, because 
our agencies weren't able to share key intelligence information. That 
is why, within 6 weeks of the attacks on America, Congress passed the 
USA PATRIOT Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was near 
unanimous. The vote was 98 Senators voting in favor.
  The PATRIOT Act went to work immediately, tearing down the 
information wall between agencies, and it allowed the intelligence 
community and law enforcement to work more closely in pursuit of 
terrorists and their activities. Since then, it has been highly 
effective in tracking down terrorists and making America safer. Because 
of the PATRIOT Act, the United States has charged over 400 suspected 
terrorists. More than half of them have already been convicted. Law 
enforcement has broken up terrorist cells all across the country, from 
New York to California, Virginia, down to Florida.

  In San Diego, officials were able to use the PATRIOT Act to 
investigate and prosecute several suspects in an al-Qaida drug-for-
weapons plot. The investigation led to several guilty pleas. The 
PATRIOT Act also allowed prosecutors and investigators to crack the 
Virginia jihad case involving 11 men who had trained for jihad in 
Northern Virginia in Pakistan and in Afghanistan. We need to continue 
to provide these tools to track and foil terrorist plots before harm 
can be done to innocent Americans.
  The PATRIOT Act has been debated thoroughly. It has been negotiated. 
It has been drafted, and it has been redrafted again. It is time to 
bring this process to a close. The bill before us is the result of 
sincere, good-faith efforts and builds on the work that was 
accomplished last year to renew the PATRIOT Act. It strengthens our 
civil liberties protections as well as the core antiterrorist 
safeguards that have been so critical in fighting the war on terror.
  In 2006, the USA PATRIOT Act, as written, once passed, will help us 
to combat terrorist financing and money laundering, protect our mass 
transportation systems and railways from attacks such as the one on the 
London subway last summer, and to secure our seaports. It will help us 
fight methamphetamine drug abuse, America's No. 1 drug problem today, 
by restricting access to the ingredients used to make that poisonous 
drug, methamphetamines.
  So the question before us now is pretty straightforward. It is 
simple. Why delay all of these provisions any longer? Why wait to move 
forward to make America safer? Why wait to give law enforcement the 
same tools they already use against white-collar criminals and drug 
offenders? It doesn't make sense to postpone, to delay, to wait.
  Those who are delaying the bill claim they are taking a stand for 
stronger civil liberty protections. Yet they admit that the renewal of 
the PATRIOT Act is a vast improvement over current law. Again, why wait 
to enact the dozens of civil liberties protections in this bill that 
they have supported for so long. We have a duty and responsibility to 
protect our fellow Americans. Indeed, it is our highest duty as 
Senators.
  I urge my colleagues to move forward to renew the PATRIOT Act. The 
time to act is now. It is the only, the best, and the right thing to 
do.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________