[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23756-23760]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 10) to provide pension reform and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle (for Hatch/Baucus) Amendment No. 2170, in the 
     nature of a substitute.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Chair indicate how much time is 
remaining on this matter?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 14 hours 40 minutes.
  Mr. REID. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2202 to Amendment No. 2170

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2202 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2202 to amendment No. 2170.

  (Purpose: To strike the provision related to directed scorekeeping)

       Strike section 105(c).

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I put before the Senate an interesting, 
simple amendment that we as a Senate should adopt. I hope this 
amendment is aired for a while. Because Senators have asked me not to, 
I do not have

[[Page 23757]]

any intention to move rapidly. Other Senators are presently indisposed 
and they might come and perhaps become cosponsors. We will see what we 
can do.
  But I want to make sure the Domenici amendment No. 2202 will not be 
mistaken for anything other than what it is. This amendment is not a 
killer amendment with reference to the underlying amendment. The 
railroad retirement bill will in no way be damaged by this amendment. 
This amendment is just a very simple recognition that the bill has some 
language in it that shouldn't be in it. As much as we want to do for 
the railroad retirees and for all of those who have joined in a rather 
mass number of Senators who want to see this happen--that is, passage 
of the bill--they actually should join in saying we want to do this. 
But we want to be honest with the American people in terms of what the 
bill costs and how you should score the actual costs against the 
Treasury.
  My amendment would strike what we call directed scorekeeping language 
out of section 105. This technical language inserted just before the 
House passed the bill instructs the Office of Management and Budget to 
deviate--let me go slow here so everybody will get it--from the 
standard accounting practice when implementing this bill.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the provision allowing 
private investment in equities would increase outlays by $15.3 billion 
in 2002. That means, if you follow the way we do things in a normal 
manner pursuant to the rules and guidelines in the law, this bill adds 
$15.3 billion in increased outlays.
  That is a matter of the Congressional Budget Office doing its work 
and telling us the answer when they are asked the question, How much 
does the bill cost? What do you put on the books of the United States?
  They did their work. Now this bill, at the last minute, deviates from 
the standard accounting to the extent of $15.3 billion.
  If my amendment is agreed to, which strikes the language permitting 
the deviation and permitting the violation of the Congressional Budget 
Office, it does nothing, except it puts before us the reality, the 
truth. It doesn't cause the bill to be any more or any less in 
conformance with the rules and the Congressional Budget Office. It 
doesn't make the bill subject to a point of order. It is already 
subject to that. That has nothing to do with this amendment that I am 
offering to clarify and make consistent this bill, and make it 
consistent with what we ought to do in following the language and 
process and past procedures with reference to the estimated cost.
  Once again, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 
provision allowing private investment in equities would increase 
outlays by $15.3 billion in 2002. It doesn't say you can't do it. It 
doesn't say you shouldn't do it. It just says if you do it, report it. 
Just put it in here. Ask the Congressional Budget Office and report 
their answer. Don't ask the Congressional Budget Office and then say, 
regardless of their answer, which we are supposed to follow, we are 
going to determine and declare that we are not going to follow it.
  That is called directed scoring--telling them how to score things 
contrary to the rules, contrary to reality, and contrary to the way we 
have been doing it.
  That is pathetic. We shouldn't do that on any bill.
  I repeat that it does not kill the bill. It does not damage the bill. 
It just reports the reality of the bill for bookkeeping and 
scorekeeping, which I believe the American people want. They don't want 
one bill, as good as it is, to have inserted in it just before it 
passes the House language saying that whatever the reality and the 
truth is, don't report it this time for this bill. Just report it 
another way.
  All I do is strike that language saying report it that way. It is a 
very simple idea. It is simple to understand. Just take that language 
out, return it to language which an ordinary, everyday bill of this 
type would have had in it and should be expected to be part of what we 
do.
  By preventing the OMB from reporting that expenditure as an outlay, 
this, in fact, deviates from; it distorts. It makes us look at 
something and say it isn't what it is. That is a good way to say it. We 
just put language in saying no matter what it is, it isn't. I am saying 
no matter what it is, it is, in taking out the language that would do 
the contrary.
  The Government has always recorded any investment from equities to 
research and development and to education and training as an outlay. 
The Government should get a good rate of return on all types of 
investments. In contrast to private sector accounting, we record these 
investments as an expenditure because the Government operates under 
cash accounting rules. We certainly cannot use that fact as a reason 
for changing it. If we are going to choose to change that system of 
accounting, we shouldn't do it selectively for one bill, no matter how 
good the bill is, and no matter how much support it has. You ought to 
change the whole system after a thoughtful evaluation of whether we 
should continue to use that kind of an approach.
  I will not go into the reasons why the Federal Government uses the 
cash accounting system instead of an accrual accounting system. But I 
will say that the Federal Government has operated under cash accounting 
rules since 1789, the first year Congress appropriated $639,000 to 
cover the expenses of our new government. This isn't the time to change 
the rules. Obviously, it is neither the time, nor the bill. It is a 
bill with great support. I am going to support it. It seems to have 
huge support. We will get it done, but we ought not choose the bill to 
change the rules of accounting that have existed for our Government 
since 1789, the first time Congress appropriated $639,000 as our 
expenditure.
  We know, from example, in the private sector that bending the 
accounting rules creates confusion for the same reason we should not 
bend the accounting rules of the Federal Government to suit our 
purpose. Doing so reduces transparency and misleads the public.
  If my amendment is not agreed to, this bill will set a troubling 
precedent for Social Security. Under current accounting practices, both 
the Government and the privately controlled investments of Social 
Security funds in stocks are treated consistently. They would increase 
outlays. If Government-controlled investments were not reported as 
outlay proposals to collectively invest in Social Security, the assets 
would have a significant advantage over proposals to create individual 
accounts. I don't think that should be done. Certainly we wouldn't want 
to use this as a precedent for that.
  That is one of the problems when you violate precedent and pluck 
something out and say, we are not going to use it now, for whatever 
reason. We would rather not show the accounting as it is or for real.
  Specifically, the proposals to have the Government invest in Social 
Security assets would be free, whereas proposals to establish 
individual accounts would cost trillions of dollars.
  We understand that is not justified. This bill should not be used as 
something that gives impetus to that conclusion in a completely 
different area of huge confusion.
  Regardless of whether you support individual accounts for Social 
Security, as the President's commission is about to propose, or 
collective investments such as President Clinton proposed, it doesn't 
make much sense for budget rules to save one policy over another. That 
is why I think we should be consistent, and do what is right.
  Finally, the directed scorekeeping language in the bill creates a 306 
budget point of order against the entire Railroad Retirement Act.
  The point of order prevents Congress from changing the budget rules 
unless the proposal is reported from the Budget Committee. My 
amendment, by dropping the directed scorekeeping language, will ensure 
that we follow the right accounting proposals.
  But understand, I do not make a point of order. There are plenty of 
votes for this bill. But I think plenty of those votes ought to be used 
to correct the accounting so there is no black

[[Page 23758]]

mark that follows this bill around as to why did we have to do that. We 
do not have to do that. We just do not have to do it.
  At the point it went through the House, maybe it was some way to 
affect the cost and make it easier to get through because we were not 
going to charge so much against the surplus of the country. All of 
those kinds of problems have long gone away. As the occupant of the 
chair knows, we have been spending the surplus for many months. All of 
the spending that took place on behalf of the New York incident was out 
of the surplus there. We began to break the bank, so to speak.
  So if there was some reason to manage or distort the real cost, it 
does not exist any longer. In fact, we should not have done it anyway. 
But if that was the reason, it is not needed and we ought to fix it. 
That one change will not kill this bill. It has nothing to do with the 
life. Whether it is good or not so good, this action just gets rid of 
something that puts a little black mark or maybe even a big black mark 
on this bill as seeking some superattention by way of the budget rules 
that follow this.
  That is all I have to say. But I note the presence of the chairman of 
the Budget Committee in this Chamber. From my standpoint, I am ready to 
proceed. But I do not want to cut anybody out of either joining me as a 
cosponsor or speaking.
  So with that, I make a parliamentary inquiry. Was there a certain 
amount of time allocated to the Senator from New Mexico for this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under cloture, the Senator is limited to 1 
hour. The Senator has consumed about 14 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Inhofe tried to arrange some time 
last week to speak when we had lots of time. The time is a little more 
constrained today, but he has always been so easy to work with, and I 
ask unanimous consent that following my remarks and those of Senator 
Conrad, the Senator from Oklahoma be recognized for up to 40 minutes. 
Of course, the time would be charged against the 30 hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for me to speak against Senator Domenici and 
Senator Conrad is difficult. I work very closely with Senator Domenici. 
We have been on the Appropriations Committee working side by side on a 
number of issues, including the Energy and Water Development 
Subcommittee, of which I have been chairman and he has been chairman, 
back and forth. Of course, Senator Conrad and I came to the Senate 
together. There is no one I have more respect for than Senator Conrad 
and for his integrity and his absolute brilliance. So for me to speak 
against something on which they agree is difficult. But as much respect 
as I have for both of these outstanding men, it does not mean they are 
always right. I respectfully submit that what they are trying to 
accomplish now is wrong.
  Leave it in the bill is basically what my message is. I know I speak 
for the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, and I know I 
speak for the majority leader, Senator Daschle, when I say this.
  The House-passed bill includes directed scorekeeping language. This 
language would require the CBO and OMB to treat the purchase of private 
sector securities by the new railroad retirement trust as a means of 
financing rather than as an outlay. OMB sets the official rules right 
now. Under those rules, the purchase of private sector securities is 
scored as an outlay just as any other purchase of goods and services 
would be scored.
  However, the issue of how to score the purchase of private sector 
securities is really a very gray area. Unlike the purchase of goods and 
services, the purchase of private sector securities does not diminish 
the financial and budgetary wealth of the Government. So a case could 
be made that these purchases should not be scored as outlays. In such a 
case, a means of financing Federal deficits is a technical term for the 
budgetary category of the purchases. The primary means of financing 
Federal deficits historically has been Federal borrowing.
  Those who would like to continue the current OMB scoring rules would 
argue that almost all the Federal budget is on a cash basis. From that 
perspective, the purchase of private sector securities requires cash 
and should be treated the same as any purchase of goods and services.
  I do not have an opinion as to which is the best approach, which is 
superior. I think they both work. However, from a pragmatic point of 
view--and that is where I am today--this legislative session is winding 
down. We are facing a serious time constraint if we are going to be 
able to enact this important legislation this year.
  The railroads have been working and trying to get something such as 
this done for decades. For once, now we have victory in our grasp. The 
railroad companies and the unions, which rarely agree on the time of 
day, have agreed on this package. I think it is a victory that we 
should not let fall from our grasp.
  If this amendment passes, it is gone. Everyone should understand, it 
is gone. Why? Because this bill will not pass this year.
  There are very few days left in the calendar. The House has already 
passed this legislation, the legislation that is basically before us, 
that includes directed scorekeeping, by a vote of 384 to 33. It was not 
a close call in the House: 384 to 33.
  If we pass a bill that does not have directed scorekeeping, then we 
face one of three scenarios. No. 1, we have to go to conference. If 
this happens, curtains this year, this legislation is all through. No. 
2, the House could send back our bill with an amendment in 
disagreement. In that case, there would not be enough time on the 
Senate floor to deal with this possibility. No. 3, the House could 
agree with our bill.
  Under two of the three outcomes, the bill would not be enacted this 
year. We do not know which of the three outcomes will occur, but I have 
an idea. It is just too risky to proceed in this way. The prudent 
course of action is to leave the directed scorekeeping language in this 
bill, the legislation before us.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. President, we have come a long way to arrive at a point where we 
actually have in our grasp this bill on which we can vote. I hope this 
amendment, while well intentioned by two fine Senators, both of whom 
want to protect their budget jurisdiction--I just think, in this 
instance, they are wrong. I think it would be much better if we went 
through with this legislation, followed the lead of the House.
  The House, as I indicated, passed this bill overwhelmingly. I think 
if we did that, we would have a lot of happy widows, we would have a 
lot of happy railroad retirees; of course, we would have a railroad 
industry that would be much stronger and firmer.
  I know in Nevada we have watched the railroads come through our 
State. We had a merger of Union Pacific coming through the northern 
part of the State on very shaky ground. But they were able to pull 
themselves out. We have done a number of remarkable things with the 
railroad to help them move more traffic because of the merger. One 
example is that they have come forward and we are building a depressed 
railroad sector through Reno to make it a much better, quieter program 
than we have had with railroads in the entire history of railroads 
coming through Nevada. All this amendment will do is set that back, and 
then many other things we have been able to accomplish. But of course 
the thing that really hurts has to do with the railroad retirees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment of 
the Senator from New Mexico, the distinguished ranking member of the 
Budget Committee. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to 
his amendment.

[[Page 23759]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Conrad. As chairman of 
the Budget Committee, it is really welcome that he would join me in 
this endeavor.
  As a matter of fact, I believe by his joining, he makes the case that 
we are not trying to kill this bill. He has been a staunch advocate. I 
just told railroad retirees I am voting for the bill. I didn't tell 
them, nor did I tell the Senator, that I used to work for the railroad. 
I was a baggage clerk when I was 22. It was a fun job. I didn't work 
long enough to be part of any of this program. I want everybody to 
know, I have no interest. It was a great summer job. I became friends 
with some wonderful railroaders.
  I repeat, so that nobody misunderstands the Senator's views, this 
takes out of the bill some language that is not needed for this bill 
and that in essence treats this bill in a way that says what is isn't; 
it is going to cost this much, but it is not going to cost it because 
we wrote language in the bill saying it isn't.
  That is not the way to pass a bill. We don't do that for anybody on 
anything.
  I welcome the Senator's support. I think it is a good way for him to 
start his chairmanship, saying that he is going to watch the rules 
carefully and abide by them. I thank the Senator so much for joining 
me.
  (Mrs. CARNAHAN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. My great-grandfather was a foreman 
on the railroad. My great-grandparents, when they went on their 
honeymoon, went on a pushcart for 100 miles on the railroad.
  I do strongly favor this bill. I have to answer to my responsibility 
as chairman of the Budget Committee and as a Member of this body to be 
accurate with our colleagues as to the scoring of this legislation.
  Directed scoring, if we are to be blunt about it, is to say something 
doesn't cost when we know that it does. I have an obligation to my 
colleagues to report accurately to them this legislation. I have been a 
staunch supporter of this bill the entire time it has been before the 
Senate. It represents an extraordinary effort by the rail companies and 
their employees and labor to work together to improve the lives of 
thousands and thousands of rail workers and their families.
  I agree this legislation provides an important opportunity to 
modernize the rail pension program. I have received countless e-mails, 
phone calls, faxes, and letters from North Dakota rail workers and 
their spouses who have told me how important this legislation is to 
them and their families.
  Some of my dearest friends and strongest supporters are in favor of 
this legislation. I am in favor of the legislation. But I have a 
special responsibility as chairman of the Budget Committee to give an 
accurate assessment to our colleagues of the cost of legislation that 
moves through this Chamber. That is an obligation I take seriously.
  The directed scorekeeping provision creates the impression that the 
cost of this legislation in fiscal year 2002 has dropped from $16 
billion to $250 million. In reality, with or without directed 
scorekeeping, the impact on the budget in 2002 is precisely the same. 
It is not $250 million; it is $16 billion.
  That is the reality. That is the fact. With this amendment, the 
Senator from New Mexico has provided us with a second chance to review 
the directed scorekeeping provision of this bill. He is right to do so. 
That is why I have joined him in this effort.
  Traditionally, those of us with special responsibility for the budget 
have vigorously opposed directed scorekeeping because it fundamentally 
undercuts the entire system of budget controls and budget discipline 
that is so important to the United States being fiscally prudent and 
wise. We cannot do our job of being stewards of the finances of this 
country if we don't report accurately and honestly to our colleagues 
the cost of legislation.
  That is the most fundamental responsibility of any Budget Committee 
chairman and ranking member. Senator Domenici and I are meeting our 
responsibility by saying to our colleagues the simple fact is, this 
bill is going to cost $16 billion in fiscal year 2002 no matter what 
the directed scorekeeping provision says. You can make it up, but it is 
not true. The fact is, the impact on the federal budget will be $16 
billion.
  That is a cost for which I am willing to vote and support, but I am 
not willing to say it is something it is not. That is not, in my view, 
the appropriate role for any Budget Committee chairman.
  It is not just a matter of $16 billion in fiscal year 2002; it has 
much greater significance than that. If we establish the precedent that 
through directed scorekeeping we can say a $16 billion expense is 
really a $250 million expense, what is next? I predict what is next is: 
When we get to the reform of Social Security, some will say we can 
simply take a trillion dollars of the Social Security trust fund and 
move it over into private accounts and say there has been no 
expenditure. That is the implication of this vote and why it matters. 
If we say on this bill you can take something that cost $16 billion 
and, by legislative language, direct the scorekeeping and say it 
doesn't cost $16 billion, it costs $250 million, then others may try to 
take a $1 trillion transfer of Social Security money and say it is cost 
free.
  If we start down that path, we will rue the day, if we go down the 
path of creating fiscal fictions in this Chamber in order to accomplish 
even the best of intentions.
  This is a good bill. It is worthy of support. But the price cannot 
be, should not be, must not be that we say to the American people that 
a bill that costs $16 billion only costs $250 million. That cannot be 
the way we do business in the Senate.
  If that is the direction we take, I repeat to my colleagues the 
implication because I believe the next step will be in the Social 
Security reform debate, that others will try to say: A trillion dollars 
taken out of the Social Security trust fund and moved into private 
accounts doesn't cost anything. It is cost free.
  That would not be true. That would be totally misleading. The money 
that is in the Social Security trust fund that has been credited to the 
Social Security trust fund, to be more accurate, has been credited to 
that fund to meet current promises, promises already made. We can't 
take that money and make a new set of promises and use the money that 
was raised to keep the previous promises. It won't work. We can't use 
the same money twice.
  You can't use the same money twice. That is what will lead us into 
the swamp of deficits and debt and disastrous economic decline. Make no 
mistake, what is at stake here is a big deal. This matters. This is not 
a free vote. I remain committed to this legislation, but I also remain 
committed to being straight with our colleagues and our countrymen as 
to the cost of the legislation that is before us.
  Our friends in the House included this directed scorekeeping back in 
July. It was a mistake then; it would be a mistake for us to repeat it 
here. Those who say, well, this kills the bill --I don't accept that. 
This legislation has to go back for further action in the House in any 
event because of the way it has come before us. It has to go back to 
the House for action in any event.
  Let's pass this legislation, but let's do it right and let's do it by 
being straight with our colleagues and our countrymen as to its cost.
  Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. CARPER. I, too, am a strong advocate of this legislation. I have 
spoken for it in the Chamber and in our caucus meetings as well. As the 
Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from New Mexico have 
indicated about their relatives, my grandfather was also on the 
railroad. My grandmother lived many years on a survivor's pension from 
his service. Whenever the chairman of the Budget Committee and the 
ranking member on the

[[Page 23760]]

Budget Committee stand to endorse an amendment, it gives me pause. I 
want to make sure in the next several minutes--maybe hours--that we 
consider this legislation I understand the full ramifications of the 
amendment or the failure to adopt the amendment.
  Let me ask the chairman of the Budget Committee this. When I first 
learned of the directed scorekeeping in the House of Representatives, 
which, as he said, is an extraordinary act, I tried to understand why 
they may have done that. Was it chicanery or was there real logic 
behind it?
  As I studied the issue more, my understanding is if we were not on a 
cash basis of accounting, but an accrual basis, this probably would not 
be an issue. Most States used to be on a cash basis of accounting. The 
majority of States now use the accrual basis, and most States direct 
the retirement funds into U.S. Treasury obligations. Today, it is a 
whole array of investments, including equities, or stocks, bonds, and 
the kinds of things envisioned here under this legislation. There are, 
as we know, tier 1 benefits under the railroad and tier 2.
  This is my question: The tier 1 benefits mirror Social Security 
benefits. Tier 2 are more private sector benefits. The moneys that go 
into those tier 2 funds for payout come from the railroad companies 
themselves--from the tax assessed on them--and also a payment by the 
railroad employees themselves. My understanding is that those monies 
that go into that retirement fund, paid into by the railroad companies 
and by the employees through the payroll deduction--those monies in the 
future will be invested not in U.S. Treasury obligations, but in a wide 
variety of investment options. But because of the peculiarity of our 
accounting rules, because those monies will now be not spent for roads 
or any other purpose, and not for space exploration, they will still be 
invested in the same pension benefits, but because of our accounting 
rules, those monies--simply by saying you can now invest those pension 
monies, the trust fund monies, in non-Treasury obligations triggers a 
$15 billion outlay. Is that what this is all about? I know that is a 
long question, but let me lay that question at the feet of our Budget 
Committee chairman.
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to respond. First of all, we use a cash method 
of accounting for the Federal budget. We do not use an accrual system. 
You can't mix the two or you start misleading people. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, the Senator's question sounds as though it is prospective in 
nature; as though simply going forward, Tier II revenues would not be 
invested in Treasurys. That is not the case in this bill. In this bill, 
CBO estimates that approximately $16 billion currently invested in 
Treasurys by the Federal Government would be sold and instead invested 
through an investment trust in private-sector assets. Again, the amount 
is $16 billion and they would be free to invest it in other ways. I 
support that.
  But we have to be straight with people. It costs $16 billion to the 
Federal Government in the fiscal year 2002 under the accounting rules 
that apply to every program of the Federal Government. It doesn't cost 
$250 million; it costs $16 billion. The money moves out of Government 
Treasuries and moves into a railroad investment trust, with the ability 
under a board, to invest those moneys in higher rate of return assets. 
I support that basic notion.
  But the hard fact is that it costs the Federal Government $16 
billion. It means the fact is the Federal Government will have to 
borrow $16 billion more in fiscal year 2002 than it was otherwise going 
to borrow.
  Mr. CARPER. If the Senator will continue to yield, I have two glasses 
of water here. We will say one is the railroad pension fund as it 
currently exists, and it is full of U.S. Treasury obligations. There is 
another glass here and we will pretend it is empty for our purposes. 
What I think we are talking about doing is taking some of the moneys 
invested in these Treasury obligations in this one pension fund and, 
presumably, the railroad retirement fund would have to sell those 
obligations and then use the money from the sale of those obligations 
to put in their new pension fund. When they sell those, they are going 
to sell them to somebody--individuals, funds, banks, corporations. It 
is difficult for me to understand how that transaction I have just 
described should cost the Treasury $16 billion. A lot of us are 
struggling on this one.
  Mr. CONRAD. Let me say it as simply as I can state it. The reason it 
costs the U.S. Treasury $16 billion is because the money moves out of 
U.S. Government Treasury and moves over to the control of a board that 
is run by private sector representatives to be invested in non-
governmental assets. That is about as easy as I can make it.
  The fact is that the Federal Government is going to have to borrow, 
as a result of that transaction, not $250 million more, but $16 billion 
more in 2002. For us to have our colleagues say ``but it really doesn't 
mean that'' is not accurate and it is not factual. To say to our 
colleagues, by direct scorekeeping, by legislative fiat, that it won't 
cost $16 billion, that it won't mean the Federal Government has to 
borrow $16 billion more in 2002, that it is only going to cost $250 
million more, is just not the truth. I don't know how more direct I can 
be.
  Mr. CARPER. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
statement of Senator Inhofe, Senator Stabenow be recognized for up to 
15 minutes, and the time be charged against the 30 hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 
40 minutes.

                          ____________________