[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 292-305]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   PENSION FUNDING EQUITY ACT OF 2003

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, pursuant to the order previously

[[Page 293]]

agreed to, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the 
consideration of H.R. 3108, the pension bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Pursuant to the previous order, the Committee on Finance is 
discharged from further consideration of the measure and the clerk will 
report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3108) to amend the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
     temporarily replace the 30-year Treasury rate with a rate 
     based on long-term corporate bonds for certain pension plan 
     funding requirements and other provisions, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of this piece of 
legislation. I join the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, along with the senior Senator from the Democratic party on 
my committee, Mr. Kennedy, and I believe Senator Baucus. We worked long 
and hard to address this issue--and it is a critical issue--of how we 
make sure the pension system in this country, or especially relating to 
defined benefit pensions, is maintained in a viable and strong way.
  The pension system in this country is, regrettably, in trouble. But 
the amendment being offered today is designed to restore stability to 
the pension system and give us the time to solve the broad, difficult 
problems facing the pension system.
  Last week, when the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation released its 
annual report outlining record losses, Labor Secretary Chao put the 
issue in proper perspective when she said:

       While PBGC [Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation] is not in 
     crisis--the agency has sufficient assets to meet its 
     obligations for a number of years into the future--it is 
     clear that the financial integrity of the federal pension 
     insurance system is at risk. It is equally clear that 
     comprehensive reform of the nation's pension funding rules 
     must be enacted to strengthen the financial health of the 
     defined benefit pension system.

  Time is the key thing here. That is why we need to legislate today. 
The amendment gives critical players the time they need in the area of 
reform to accomplish the changes necessary to get through this period 
in front of us.
  There is in this bill a temporary interest rate fix which gives 
Congress time to review all of the options and make the right decisions 
on funding, reporting, and many other issues facing the troubled 
pension system.
  There is also in this bill something called the deficit reduction 
contribution relief area which gives airlines and steel companies the 
time they need to get their affairs in order after a unique and unusual 
period of pressure.
  Further, there is reform in the area of the multiemployer pension 
system which will give relief to management and labor to get their 
agreements in order relative to collective bargaining in order to make 
sure those funds are solvent.
  No one--Congress, employers, nor unions--is absolved of 
responsibility under this amendment. By granting time, we do not 
reduce--that should be stressed--anyone's debts nor allow anyone to 
avoid liability for debts they have voluntarily accepted.
  What we do is provide the necessary breathing room so reforms and 
repayments are made in a responsible and manageable fashion and not 
under the threat of ``the sky is falling'' situations we confront 
today.
  The amendment has essentially four elements, as I have outlined. 
First is reform of the 30-year Treasury note as being the vehicle by 
which we assess pension funding. Second is temporary relief for 
specific single-employer pension plans from deficit reduction 
contributions, such as airlines and steel. Third is a 2-year delay in 
the amortization of recent investment losses experienced by 
multiemployer pension plans and the imposition of significant 
improvements in the disclosure of information requirements of those 
plans to their participants, which is critical.
  Turning to the interest rate fix issue, this is the key issue for me. 
I have spoken about this a number of times on this floor. In fact, back 
in May I said: Now is the time to address this. I guess ``now'' has 
become now. But the fact is, we have today a system where 30-year 
Treasury bond rates are required in the current pension law for funding 
purposes.
  We will replace that with a conservative rate pegged to the high-
quality bond corporate basket. The reason for this is that 30-year 
bonds essentially do not exist anymore so we have an artificial rate 
under which we were requiring companies and pension funds to be funded. 
The practical effect of that was that the bond rate was artificially 
low, which meant the return on these funds was artificially low and the 
funding requirements became, unfortunately, in real terms, 
extraordinarily high and inconsistent with what a realistic rate would 
be.
  By shifting to a corporate basket of high yield corporate bonds, we 
will correct this problem, significantly improve the viability of the 
pension system, and allow the corporations, for a period of 2 years, to 
use this temporary fix. It is a temporary fix.
  Two years is a risk, I admit. Whether or not we can put in place the 
necessary law changes and reach agreement between the various players 
that are involved at the table, including the unions, corporations, and 
the guaranteed fund is a question.
  It is a short timeframe to resolve this issue. I would have preferred 
more time so we could be sure we would reach an accommodation and a 
timeframe that were realistic, but that is not what others wanted. It 
was not what we were able to accomplish. As we all know, legislating is 
sometimes the art of compromise, and in this instance that was the 
case.
  So we have a 2-year hiatus using a basket of high yield corporate 
bonds as the new benchmark for funding. That will be positive relief, 
and it will mean, in practical terms, that funds which would have been 
artificially flowing into funding pension funds--and unnecessarily 
flowing into those funds as a result of having to use the low Treasury 
rate--will now be flowing into capital investment which translates 
directly into jobs. That is what this is about, protecting jobs and 
protecting pensions.
  The second area is the deficit reduction contribution relief 
function. The amendment grants 2 years of relief to the airline and 
steel industries from mandatory deficit reduction contributions. Other 
companies may also apply to the Treasury Department for similar relief. 
Companies getting relief must remain current on their pension 
obligations and cannot increase the benefits that they create under 
their pension funds during this period.
  Airlines are the main focus of the deficit reduction contribution 
relief. Airlines are the main focus because of the unique stress these 
companies have suffered. In recent years, profit pressures within the 
U.S. airline industry have been amplified by severe pricing 
competition, the recession, and, most importantly, by the effects of 
terrorism and the war in Iraq. Severe acute respiratory syndrome, SARS, 
also created pressure on the entire industry, especially those flying 
overseas.
  The industry is in transition. The public has been reluctant to 
return since September 11 to the level of travel we had before 
September 11. Two airlines have already filed for bankruptcy 
protection. Others may follow suit. It is our intention with this 
amendment to ensure that pension rules are not the determining factor 
in selecting which airlines survive and which fail. We should not be 
kicking airlines over into bankruptcy on the issue of pensions. If that 
happens, it should be a function of their operating activity in the 
area of competing for passengers.
  The PBGC is also concerned about the steel industry, especially two 
specific companies which have filed bankruptcy. Last year the agency 
absorbed the largest pension plan in its history when it trusteed the 
Bethlehem Steel plan. Only a few steel company pension plans still 
exist.
  The DRC portion of the amendment gives these plans in this troubled 
industry a chance to get their finances in order without the imminent 
threat of a

[[Page 294]]

takeover by the PBGC. The DRC provisions are important safeguards to 
the system and especially to the PBGC. Plans taking the relief must pay 
20 percent of their obligation in the first year and 40 percent of 
their obligation the second year or the plan's expected current 
liability for the year, whichever is greater. This ensures that no plan 
will lose ground and become worse off than it was when we started this 
process. Plans that are funded at only 75 percent or less are also 
prohibited from increasing benefits during this 2-year moratorium. 
There is strict accountability. Furthermore, there has been talk of 
freezing the PBGC guarantee for these plans.
  The multiple employer benefit plan relief is another area that this 
bill addresses. What the amendment does is allow plans to suspend 
amortizing their experience losses for 2 years. Multis may amortize 
experience losses over 15 years under current law. Multiemployer plans 
also would be required, under the amendment, to send annual notices to 
all participants disclosing the funding status of the plan. This is an 
important reform. It will mean that we will have transparency in 
multiemployer programs--something we don't have today--so employees can 
find out the status of their plans. This reform will have a very 
positive impact.
  Without this relief, many companies participating in multiemployer 
plans will face significant taxes and monetary penalties. This is an 
attempt to address that problem over the next 2-year period. It is done 
as a result of pressure which we are seeing within the industry to move 
out of these types of plans and, in fact, abandon the field of pensions 
completely in the area of defined benefits plans.
  We understand that if we do not reform these plans and their funding 
more substantively over the 2-year hiatus being granted to us, we will 
have lost a huge opportunity to make available to employees effective 
pension benefits.
  Our goal is to make sure we don't arbitrarily force a number of 
employers out of the pension area simply because we have an artificial 
rate at which they have to fund their plans; that we don't create an 
atmosphere where, in the area of airlines and steel, we are essentially 
forcing these industries into bankruptcy because of their pension 
structure but, at the same time, not create an atmosphere where we 
unduly undermine their commitment to their pension structure; thirdly, 
not create an atmosphere where multiemployers basically abandon the 
field of pension activity and we end up with many employees not having 
the opportunity to participate in pensions.
  That is our goal. Our basic goal is to assure that we have a viable 
pension system for our employees and the option, as part of that viable 
pension system, that we have a strong defined benefit element of the 
system. We know, regrettably, that as we came out of the period of the 
bubble of the 1990s, tremendous pressure was put on these different 
pension plans because of their investment experience. It was not unique 
to pension plans. Many American citizens who invested in the 1990s 
found the same problem. At the end of the 1990s, most of these plans 
were extremely solvent and strong. Today they are weak. They need this 
type of relief in order to get through this period.
  We have been through this type of experience before. I point to the 
Chrysler bailout process as an example of how the Government, through 
intelligent approaches toward companies that are in stress, could 
maintain those industries and be sure that they work their way through 
the process during the hard times and, as we move back into a strong 
economy, have the opportunity to do the reform necessary to strengthen 
those plans so they get them back up to speed.
  This is a much more logical approach than the haphazard, sky-is-
falling approach of forcing the plans through reorganizations, through 
dramatic funding events that are artificially created through the 
interest rates or by making the plans much less attractive because the 
pension costs are so high. So I think the bill makes sense. There is 
consensus on it and we should move forward with it.
  Before I yield the floor, I thank the chairman of the Finance 
Committee for his commitment to this effort and the strong work of his 
staff in this area, and the cooperation which the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee has had on this effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in turn, I thank the Senator from New 
Hampshire as the chairman of the committee dealing with some pension 
legislation. I thank him for his cooperation. That cooperation has been 
over a long period of time, going back to at least a year when we 
started efforts to work together on pension legislation so we would 
have a solid approach on the floor of the Senate.
  Mr. President, the replacement of the so-called ``30-year Treasury'' 
interest rate has reached an emergency. This is the statutory rate used 
to value pension liabilities.
  There is an inverse relationship between interest rates and pension 
liabilities: As interest rates go up, pension liabilities go down. 
Conversely, as interest rates go down, pension liabilities go up. Small 
changes in interest rates mean big differences in pension 
contributions.
  Current interest rates are at historic lows. Low interest rates have 
caused pension plan liabilities to skyrocket. To make matters worse, 
the recession that began in 2000 brought down stock values.
  The combination of unusually low interest rates and the decline in 
stock values have combined to worsen the pension plan funding problem. 
Just when you think things can't get any worse, they do.
  In October 2001, the U.S. Department of the Treasury discontinued the 
30-year Treasury bond. The 30-year bond is the statutory rate used by 
pension plans to value their liabilities. While the Treasury Department 
still calculates the yield on the 30-year Treasury bond, the number is 
increasingly ``soft.''
  To help plans cope with high funding requirements, Congress adjusted 
the rate to 120 percent of the 30-year Treasury shortly after the 
terrorist attack of September 2001. That adjustment was effective for 
2002 and 2003. Plans were depending on Congress to extend that relief 
before December 31, 2003. We missed our deadline.
  At the end of the last session, we needed unanimous consent to pass 
an interest rate bill, but we did not have UC to proceed. The 
objections were not over replacing the rate, they were over deficit 
reduction contribution, or ``DRC relief'' and over relief to 
mutliemployer plans.
  Let me talk about DRC relief for a moment. There is an honest 
difference of opinion in the Senate over whether or not to grant DRC 
relief to underfunded pension plans.
  The real answer to the question of whether underfunded plans should 
be given DRC relief is: It depends.
  If a company is otherwise healthy but in a cyclical industry, should 
the combination of the economic downturn and an arbitrary pension rule 
force them into bankruptcy?
  I respectfully suggest that DRC payments should not force an 
otherwise healthy company into bankruptcy. Remember, the company could 
survive if the Government takes its thumb off the pension DRC scale for 
a little while.
  So what should Congress do?
  The Senate Finance Committee decided that we should provide temporary 
relief to overburden plans. The HELP Committee did not take action on 
this issue.
  Out of respect to the HELP Committee, we agreed to winnow back the 
relief to qualifying airlines and steel firms, but to allow others to 
apply to the Government for relief so long as they meet the 
qualification requirements. The bill provides only 2 years of limited 
DRC relief. Relief for 2004 is limited to 80 percent of the deficit 
reduction contribution.
  In 2005, the DRC relief is further limited to only 60 percent of the 
otherwise payable deficit reduction contribution.

[[Page 295]]

   Plans that were poorly funded in 2000 are not eligible for this 
relief. We are concerned that for the healthy companies, the DRC 
creates an artificial cash demand on companies. The DRC is well-
intentioned, but it may be a flawed requirement.
   We wish we had time now to simply reform the DRC. If we had 
anticipated the amount of time it has taken us to get to this point, we 
would have reformed the DRC. As an alternative to reform, we are 
providing short-term DRC relief to qualifying companies.
   Now, let me turn to the multiemployer plans.
   The same fiscal and financial conditions that have caused the 
pension funding crisis among single-employer plans are working against 
the multiemployer plans.
   Since we have already given 2 years of relief to single-employer 
plans (in 2002 and 2003), it is only fair that we now provide some 
relief to the multiemployer plans.
   This amendment gives multiemployer plans an extra couple of years to 
amortize their experience losses. If we don't give them relief, excise 
taxes will cascade down the employers who contribute to the plan. The 
excise taxes and penalties will hurt the employers--not the unions. The 
excise taxes start at 5 percent, but they quickly increase to 100 
percent.
   These taxes do not help fund the pension plan. They just enrich the 
Federal Government.
   The reason that this relief is a little different from the single-
employer language is that the multiemployer plans are structured very 
differently than a single-employer plan.
   A multiemployer plan consists of tens, or hundreds, or a thousand 
employers contributing to the same fund. Each employer may have a 
slightly different arrangement for its work force. With all those 
employers and all the potential differences in the individual 
arrangements, the plan cannot change overnight.
   The language that we are bringing to the floor gives the 
multiemployer plans a little extra time to rearrange their 
contributions and benefits before these excise taxes would take effect. 
It gives the plans time to go back to the bargaining table and 
renegotiate.
   This package has been drafted to give temporary funding relief to 
both single-employer and multiemployer defined benefit pension plans.
   Currently these plans are straining to pay their contributions. 
Relief is limited in duration. It will expire at the end of 2005.
   Our objective is always to balance the requirement that 
participants' benefits be funded and guaranteed, but to do so without 
driving otherwise healthy employers into insolvency.
   Pension funding rules need to be revised. We know that. While we 
work toward that goal, however, this proposal will lessen the burden 
that usually low interest rates place on plan funding.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the members 
of the Finance Committee, and in particular for Senator Max Baucus, and 
for members of our committee. I think now of our good friend and good 
ally to the chairman of the committee and to the other members of the 
Finance Committee who have been working on this legislation for a 
significant period of time.
  Most of us remember the mishap that happened to Senator Baucus some 
time ago, during an event that very few, if any, of us would 
participate in--a 50-mile road race. During that race, he slipped and 
had a small accident, or so he thought at the time, but still continued 
the race. Then, because of complications that took place a number of 
weeks after the mishap, additional treatment and care was necessary. So 
he is not present with us today.
  Senator Baucus wanted the Senate to move ahead on this legislation, 
which is typical of Senator Baucus. He encouraged us to go ahead and he 
told the leadership on our side and on the other side, that he wants 
the Senate to work its will on this legislation because it is 
enormously important.
  All of us are very mindful today that Senator Max Baucus has been 
facing a challenge in terms of recovery. He is doing well. He is 
getting better. He will soon be back with all of us.
  I certainly thank him--and I think I speak for all of us on our 
side--for all the good work he has done in terms of the development of 
this legislation. His work has been indispensable and extremely 
important.
  I also thank the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, 
and the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Gregg, for their work 
on this legislation. This legislation has an enormous impact on workers 
in this country, and it has an incredible impact on small businesses 
and other businesses in this country that are trying to be responsible 
and do the right thing.
  All of us understand that retirement income is dependent on a three-
legged stool comprised of Social Security, personal savings, and a 
pension. Those are the three elements which men and women, who have 
worked hard and played by the rules, look to in terms of their future 
and of their golden years. That is why it is so important that we 
preserve Social Security.
  We are all mindful of what has happened in recent times in terms of 
personal savings, where savings have been reduced as a result of a lot 
of different factors and forces. The market has been off. And although 
it has come back to some extent in the last few weeks, overall there 
has been a loss among many of those who had 401(k)s.
  Then there is the serious challenge to the whole pension system. It 
is indispensable that we find common ground and work to deal with this 
issue which is of such incredible importance. The fact we have been 
able to work on both sides of the aisle on this extremely important 
legislation is, I think, enormously significant.
  The chairman of the Finance Committee and I have enjoyed working with 
my colleague and friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg. We haven't 
cosponsored or worked together all that many times, but I always enjoy 
it when we do, and even when we differ, I enjoy that as well.
  I can't underscore enough the importance of this legislation, and we 
are extremely hopeful that the kind of agreement we have had so far 
will continue to be the basis of the legislation as it moves forward.
  Defined benefit pension plans are, as I mentioned, a key part of 
retirement security for millions of Americans. They promise a monthly 
benefit starting at retirement and continuing for the rest of your 
life. Defined benefit plans are different from defined contribution 
plans and all the other pension plans. Only a defined benefit plan 
provides benefits backed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
  Americans in every industry benefit from these plans. Nearly 35 
million workers and retirees are covered by single employer plans, and 
9.7 million more are covered by the multiemployer plans. One in every 
five workers participates in a defined benefit plan.
  But today the secure retirement of these workers is at risk. As we 
have heard from many experts, a ``perfect storm'' is overtaking defined 
benefit plans. The longest downturn in the stock market since the Great 
Depression, combined with a troubled economy, and historically low 
interest rates have led to the underfunding of many of these pension 
plans, and the storm threatens to wreck the pension dreams of millions 
of Americans.
  This amendment that Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, Senator Gregg, 
and I are offering will provide immediate short-term measures needed to 
deal with this temporary crisis.
  The amendment has the broad support of Democrats and Republicans, 
employers and unions. Despite our differences, all of us agree that 
employees deserve to receive the benefits promised by their pension 
plans. To protect the security of their retirement, we need a solution, 
and we need it quickly.
  Our amendment takes three steps to help defined benefit pension 
plans. First, it temporarily replaces the 30-year Treasury bond rate 
used to calculate employers' contributions to pension plans with a 
corporate bond rate.

[[Page 296]]

  As the interest rate on 30-year Treasury bonds has fallen, the 
decline has created huge uncertainties for pension plans. As many as 20 
percent of defined benefit pension plans are at risk of being 
terminated or frozen. Temporarily replacing the 30-year Treasury bond 
rate will stabilize these plans and enable them to continue to provide 
the benefits they have promised.
  Second, our bill provides for additional deficit reduction 
contribution relief.
  Although the Bush administration keeps speaking of an economic 
recovery, the recent economic growth has not translated into job 
security for Americans--indeed, only 1,000 jobs were created in 
December. Many sectors, such as the airline and steel industries, 
continue to struggle.
  The men and women in the airline industry are well aware of the 
threat to their jobs. Over 100,000 airline workers have lost their jobs 
in the last 2 years, and thousands more are accepting cuts in pay and 
benefits to preserve their jobs. These workers have done their part to 
keep the skies safe and keep their companies flying and they need our 
help to protect their jobs and pensions.
  The steel industry is also struggling to find new ways to increase 
efficiency and compete in the world market. But the industry continues 
to face serious challenges, and relief is essential.
  The deficit reduction contribution relief in our amendment would 
provide relief from these payments to companies that had well-funded 
pension plans in the past and need extra assistance now. These are 
companies that have met their responsibility and through the confluence 
of events are today challenged. This helps provide temporary relief.
  This relief is needed to help protect the pensions and jobs of 
workers in these industries. These are industries that can come back--
and must come back--to help drive our economic recovery.
  Our amendment also includes important relief for the multiemployer 
plans, which fill major needs in our pension system by providing 
pensions to many low-wage workers, as well to short-term and seasonal 
workers who might not otherwise be able to earn a pension.
  Forty percent of these workers are in construction, building homes 
and offices. They worked around the clock at the World Trade Center 
site after the tragedy of September 11. Because many construction jobs 
are short term, these workers rely on multiemployer plans to guarantee 
their retirement.
  Thirty percent of these workers are in retail or service industries. 
They clean hotel rooms and corporate offices. They bag groceries and 
serve food in restaurants. They do not have golden parachutes or 
executive stock options. Without a multiemployer plan, many of them 
would have no pension at all.
  Ten percent are in the trucking services, traveling across the 
country at all hours of the day and night to deliver goods safely to 
stores, factories, and homes. A multiemployer plan helps them reach 
their retirement destination safely, too.
  Multiemployer pension plans also help employees of small businesses. 
Only 8 percent of companies with fewer than 100 employees offer a 
defined benefit pension plan. Many small businesses find it most 
affordable to provide such benefits through a multiemployer plan. As 
one pension expert testified before the House, multiemployer plans 
``provide literally tens of thousands of small employers with the 
opportunity to provide competitive and comprehensive benefit plans to 
their employees . . . which would otherwise be too expensive and 
administratively complex for them to provide on their own.'' The larger 
companies can provide the self-insurance, so to speak, for the pension 
plans. The smaller ones have to be involved in these multiemployer 
plans that include a variety of different companies.
  Like single-employer plans, the multiemployer plans have been 
devastated by the stock market. Because of these losses, the plans are 
in trouble. The modest relief in our amendment will provide both 
companies and workers with more time to negotiate contracts to meet the 
soaring funding needs.
  These three bipartisan steps provide a vital temporary solution to 
the problems faced by the Nation's pension plans. Once these problems 
have passed, more must be done to preserve and expand the defined 
benefit system that means so much to so many employees today. Our 
amendment provides 2 years of relief enough to allow us to begin.
  I urge my colleagues to join in providing this much-needed protection 
to the millions of hard-working Americans who have worked for and 
earned a secure retirement.
  To review the highlights of this legislation one further time, there 
are 35 million Americans who are covered by the single-employer defined 
benefit pension plans. This gives some idea of the importance. There 
are 9.7 million, effectively 10 million, more who are covered by 
multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. This is effectively 45 
million employees who are going to be affected, and obviously thousands 
of employers. Only defined benefit plans provide a secure monthly 
benefit backed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
  What are the factors? Why is this legislation necessary? Why is it 
needed? I mentioned in my other comments about the ``perfect storm,'' 
the series of events which have taken place. These are the factors 
which have impacted these pension programs in an adverse way.
  First, the prolonged downturn of the stock market during this 
administration, the longest since the Great Depression; extremely low 
30-year Treasury bond interest rates. Bond interest rates have been 
low. That has had some positive impact, obviously, in terms of the 
refinancing of automobiles and homes, which has been extraordinarily 
important, but adverse in terms of these pension programs. The weak 
economic conditions mean the companies cannot afford to make the 
additional payments and pay excise taxes imposed by our pension laws. 
Because of the economic pressures, the companies are hard pressed to 
meet their responsibilities. They have been responsible in trying to 
set up these pension plans. They want to provide for their workers. 
They want to do the right thing. This helps them, at least in a 
temporary way, to deal with those issues.
  Those are basically the reasons why this legislation is necessary. 
This is a temporary program, but it affects almost 45 million of our 
fellow Americans.
  I want to mention one other factor, and that is that multiemployer 
plans provide literally tens of thousands of small employers with the 
opportunity to provide competitive, comprehensive benefit plans to 
their employees, which otherwise would be too expensive and 
administratively complex for them to provide on their own.
  This really helps the small businesses in a very important way. I 
will give some idea to our colleagues about the people who are affected 
by this action. Multiemployer plans provide pensions to low-wage 
workers, and workers in seasonal or short-term employment. They provide 
pension plans for workers in many industries. 38 percent are in the 
construction industry, clearly the largest industry. Truck 
transportation is 9.8 percent; services, 15 percent; retail trade, 14.5 
percent; 15.2 percent of all of those workers are in manufacturing. I 
think all of us understand the challenge this Nation is facing in 
retaining manufacturing jobs in America. This is enormously important 
in helping preserve it. There are a lot of different elements in terms 
of what we are going to have to do to preserve manufacturing jobs, but 
this is vital.
  This chart gives the idea. It is manufacturing, it is retail and 
service, it is transportation, again, it is construction. For 
individuals who are moving from project to project, by the nature and 
definition of the construction industry, they absolutely need the 
multiemployer plans. They work. They have been successful. But they are 
hard pressed, as I mentioned.
  This is a balanced program. It is a temporary program. It has the 
broad support of employers, large and small.

[[Page 297]]

It has the support of workers from large companies and large unions to 
small companies and individual workers. It responds to a very important 
and significant issue, which is, I think, at the heart of the American 
dream, and that is how we are going to view retirement. The Greeks used 
to define a great civilization by how it cared for its senior citizens. 
These are the men and women who have sacrificed, the ones who helped 
bring this Nation out of recession, who fought in the various wars in 
which we have been involved and, most important, they have sacrificed 
for their children. They have sacrificed for their children's 
educations or for whatever challenges they had.
  But they have been working hard, over a lifetime. They have been 
prudent and they have saved. Now, at the time when they are getting 
close to retirement, because of forces and factors far beyond their 
control--that retirement is threatened in a very significant and 
important way.
  This legislation makes sense. It has broad support. I am hopeful we 
can pass it. It is necessary and it is important.
  I commend our leader, Senator Frist, for scheduling this as an early 
priority in this session. I think it is a matter of enormous importance 
and consequence, and it is a great priority. I commend the leaders for 
giving the Senate the opportunity to take action on it.
  Mr. President, I yield.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to follow on what Senator Kennedy 
said in his opening remarks about this bill being here through a great 
deal of cooperation between two committees, and Republicans and 
Democrats within those committees. It also gives me an opportunity to 
thank Senator Baucus because I always have a very close working 
relationship with him on our Finance Committee. This is a result of 
that cooperation. But, as I previously said, and it has been alluded to 
by Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg, this is an issue where two 
committees, the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee share jurisdiction. So we have had a remarkable 
cooperation between the two committees, and that includes Senator 
Kennedy's cooperation to get this bill out and hopefully not only get 
it to the floor but that this sort of cooperation helps us expedite 
this bill.
  This is a very important piece of legislation and is needed by a lot 
of segments of the economy in order to keep companies viable.
  In addition, I hope we will be able to have Senator Baucus back with 
us quickly. Originally when he left the hospital we heard it might be 2 
weeks' recovery. I hope that is coming along OK and he should be back 
here with us very shortly.
  Mr. President, I will suggest the calling of a quorum.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will withhold, we understand the leaders 
have set this time now for debate. We are here and ready for debate and 
discussion. This is enormously important. The leaders wanted us to try 
to consider the concerns of the Members on both sides of the aisle 
today. We are going to be at our posts, Senator Grassley and myself, 
today and also on Monday.
  I think it was the leader's desire to stack the votes for Monday 
afternoon. It is now Thursday afternoon, quarter of 2. We are here and 
ready for action. We know some Members have spoken with us about their 
concerns about different provisions. We are ready to deal with those 
issues, or at least be able to debate them and make sure that our 
colleagues are going to be fully informed about them by the time we 
vote.
  I certainly hope those who do have amendments would come over here 
and present them so we might be able to consider them, work on them 
through the afternoon or through the evening, and make as much progress 
as we can. I hope we are not going to be left for these to come in at a 
later period. We are prepared to consider these issues at the earliest 
possible time.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, the unanimous consent provision does allow for 
amendments, an equal number on both sides. We hope the people who are 
interested in following that rule will come over. I have been told 
there is at least one Member on my side of the aisle who should be here 
shortly to offer an amendment. I urge that to happen.
  Obviously, we will be glad to have debate and accommodate everybody 
in any way we can.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? I wish 
to speak on the pending legislative issue, the pension bill. Is the 
floor open for comments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise in support of this legislation. I 
commend the Senators who have been involved in working out most of the 
disagreements, including Senators Grassley, Baucus, Gregg, Kennedy, 
and, of course, our leaders, Senator Frist and Senator Daschle, who 
have all been involved in working through the difficulties of this 
legislation.
  Quite frankly, this is complicated and difficult legislation to 
understand. A lot of times, people start referring to issues by 
acronyms such as COLA or DRC. If you are not really involved in the 
intricacies of pension issues and, particularly, this area of deficit 
reduction contribution, you can get lost in the details. You can even 
be misled as to what the reason for it is and what the impact will be.
  I have followed this issue because I am a member of the Finance 
Committee, which has jurisdiction in the area of pension plan 
contributions, and also as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee of the 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. I do believe the 
airline industry is in a difficult situation now, but I think they are 
a critical part of America's economy and our transportation system. 
There is no question that they have been greatly impacted by fuel 
costs, the events of 9/11, and even, temporarily at least, by the war 
in Iraq. They have been struggling to deal with those issues. They also 
have had mistakes in their past, in management decisions. Some of the 
contracts they have with labor put real pressure on them in terms of 
being able to make enough money to pay all the costs of delivering this 
service. Regardless of that, I think it is hugely important for America 
that we have a viable and available airline industry.
  We have been doing things to try to help them. Right after 9/11, we 
passed major airline relief, leading up to the war in Iraq. In the 
aftermath of 9/11, we provided direct assistance to the airlines. Late 
last year, we passed the Federal Aviation Administration 
reauthorization, a significant multiyear legislation that was hard to 
get through, but we got it done. It was supported by management and 
labor and the administration in the end. That gives some certainty 
about what the administration will be doing, what they can do. We 
opened up some areas that needed some changes. This area is also very 
important to the survival of some of our airlines.
  Some will argue that it gives the major airlines an advantage over 
the smaller airlines. I certainly am not in a position to want to do 
that. I want all of our airlines to be able to meet the 
responsibilities and commitments of their pension plans but also to be 
able to stay in business and provide service. We need the shorter 
routes, the ones that fly from point to point, and the hub airlines. I 
want a healthy airline industry. This is one step in that process.
  Some people will attack this legislation and say the airlines brought 
it on themselves. Sure, they have made mistakes, but a lot of things 
they are being hit with cannot be put at their doorstep as being their 
fault. They didn't cause 9/11. They have not been

[[Page 298]]

responsible for the increasing and up and down prices of fuel. A number 
of factors that have played into their economic situation they cannot 
be blamed for. They have certainly made mistakes, but this is not 
something they brought on. This is a requirement in the law that we put 
on them. This is a part of the PBGC legislation, where they have to pay 
into the pensions, and we capped how much they could pay in.
  A few years ago, in 2000, the airlines were committed and paying, I 
think, 100 percent of what was needed. But in the last year or two, 
they have fallen under severe pressure, and, as a result of the quirks 
in the law, they now would have to pay an accelerated penalty, even 
more money, because of the 30-year Treasury bond calculation process to 
determine how much they paid in. That has come to a conclusion. They 
have to go to a new system.
  My point is that I think this DRC relief is the right thing to do. It 
is a temporary 2-year deal. They are not absolved of all of their 
responsibilities. It is an 80-60 percent--80 percent relief in the 
first year, 60 percent in the second year, and only plans that were not 
subject to the deficit reduction contribution relief in 2000 would be 
eligible for this relief.
  The plans would not be able to increase benefits if they were 75 
percent funded or less. An application process would allow companies 
that are not in those industries to request DRC relief if they were not 
subject to the DRC in 2000.
  This is a temporary modification to provide relief to allow airlines 
to work through the difficulties they are having now. I believe this 
relief will enable them to move forward and fulfill their commitments 
in the future.
  It is not going to bring in all of the plans. It is targeted at 
airlines and steel only, and I understand only a couple of steel 
companies would be affected by this.
  This legislation is bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans have been 
working to try to address some of the concerns and deal with the 
recognition that interest rates have contributed to this problem, stock 
market declines have contributed to this problem, and what would we do 
to be of assistance to the airlines. But it also makes sure the PBGC is 
not left holding the bag. I think we have come up with the right 
solution.
  Some people will argue the DRC relief will actually worsen the 
financial standing of the PBGC. I am concerned about the financial 
stability of the PBGC, but I think this temporary, limited relief will 
actually be in its best interest. If we do not do this, some of these 
airlines will go into bankruptcy and PBGC will have an even more 
difficult situation on their hands. If these companies wind up taking 
chapter 11, then the pension fund is going to have a problem.
  The point might be made: Let's wait for the bigger pension reform 
bill. I know Chairman Grassley and others want to have broad pension 
reform. We need to do that. But we are not going to be able to do it in 
the next month or two, and I don't even think we are going to be able 
to get it done this year. We need to do it. We ought to do it. This 
problem is imminent. If we don't act by April 1, these airlines and 
steel companies are going to have to pay at the accelerated rate, which 
they are not going to be able to do. So it is timely. We have to act 
now because in a very short period of time, the roof will come falling 
in on these companies.
  I understand there may be a couple of amendments. I appreciate the 
fact that Members did work with me on a provision I had concerning 
multiemployer withdrawal liability. We worked on compromise language 
that is in the legislation which I think is acceptable. Many of the 
questions that were raised by the chairman of the Budget Committee and 
by Senator Kyl of Arizona have been addressed. I understand they may 
have an amendment or two. We ought to debate those amendments and have 
a vote. But then I hope my colleagues will allow this legislation to 
move forward, go on to conference, and let's get it done in a timely 
fashion. It is in the best interest of the airline industry and, I 
believe, the PBGC, and the American taxpayer.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, is time controlled?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Is the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts a manager of 
the bill?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. We have had a good discussion by 
those who are the principal sponsors, and we are awaiting, hopefully, 
those who would like to amend the bill, but they have not indicated 
they are on their way just yet, so we have some time. If the Senator 
would like to speak, we obviously would like to accommodate him in any 
way.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I always 
like to be on God's side, and then I like to be on Senator Kennedy's 
side. If there is a choice between the two, why, I think I will pass 
for the moment.
  Mr. President, it is not hyperbole to suggest that the sky is falling 
for too many American workers. You could also say that the ship is 
sinking. You could say that the mine wall is collapsing, that the dam 
is giving way, or use any number of metaphors for a looming disaster to 
describe the current state of America's private pension system.
  The entire system is wobbling under assaults from every direction. On 
the one side, the stock market plunge has left the pensions for over 44 
million workers underfunded by an estimated $350 billion. Last year, 
the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation had to assume the pension 
obligations for scores of bankrupt companies, ranging from airlines to 
steelmakers, pushing the PBGC's balance sheet into the red by an 
alarming $11.2 billion.
  On the other side, the assault is coming from historically low 
interest rates that have triggered painful new funding requirements for 
employers. Even companies that want to provide for their employees find 
themselves unable to compete in a global marketplace against 
competitors unencumbered by the legacy costs of pension and health care 
benefits.
  U.S. employers are warning they will be forced to freeze their 
pension plans or terminate them unless the Congress provides them with 
relief from their pension obligations. Yet, with $350 billion in 
underfunded pensions and a growing deficit, the Federal pension insurer 
is warning that unless those pension obligations are funded, a massive 
taxpayer bailout, akin to the 1980s savings and loan crisis, is just 
over the horizon.
  At a time when working families are looking for assurances that their 
pensions will be protected and their retirement will be secure, the 
Congress is offering neither assurances nor security. This legislation 
provides funding relief to employers, but it does little to ensure that 
the pension benefits promised to workers will be there when they 
retire.
  While this short-term patch may be necessary to keep the ship afloat 
for a while longer, it does not change the fact that the ship is 
sinking, and the Congress has not yet readied the lifeboats.
  The Congress is telling workers that once the needs of business have 
been addressed, then it can act to ensure their pensions are fully 
funded. The Congress is wagering that the pension system will stay 
afloat that long. It is a theme I have noticed repeatedly during the 
tenure of this administration. While the top of the economic pyramid 
receives immediate relief, the hard-working middle class is given only 
vague promises, uncertain promises of uncertain relief and delayed 
benefits. I have seen it over and over and over. The corporate elite 
receives immediate tax cuts, while America's working-class families, 
the people who work with their hands, the people who get their hands 
dirty, the people who are soiled in grime when it is time to go home 
and have supper, are told to wait, wait for the economy to survive.
  The pharmaceutical industry receives billions of dollars in taxpayer 
subsidies while middle-class families wait endlessly for lower drug 
prices.
  Corporate profits continue to increase while middle-class families 
wait

[[Page 299]]

for those profits to trickle down to them. In asking middle-class 
Americans to wait for the economy to improve, wait for health care 
costs to go down, wait for their wages to rise, it confirms that this 
administration of corporate CEOs and Texas oilmen do not have the 
slightest comprehension of the plight of American workers, the people 
who work with their hands, who get their hands dirty, who get their 
fingernails dirty, whose shirt sleeves are dirty. They are the American 
worker.
  It is a grim, bleak time for working Americans. Two and a half 
million jobs have disappeared under this administration's economic 
stewardship. Most of them are in our once powerful manufacturing 
sector, which has lost jobs for 41 consecutive months. Just come to 
West Virginia and see what has happened. The glass plants have gone. 
The pottery works have gone. The steel mills, to a large degree, have 
gone. The coal industry, which used to employ 125,000 men when I first 
came to Congress, today employs perhaps 15,000, 16,000, 18,000 workers 
who mine just as much coal as in the days when there were 125,000 men 
working in the mines.
  Yes, 1 million jobs have been lost. Where have they gone? They have 
gone overseas. Eight million workers are unemployed, without hope for 
tomorrow, listening to their children, listening to their spouses, 
saying: Where will we go? What will we do? What will happen to us?
  Eight million workers are unemployed. Half a million discouraged 
workers have dropped out of the labor pool saying there is no hope; 
hope is gone; the hope to which I held for these many days, these many 
weeks, these many months is gone. Three and a half million workers are 
collecting unemployment benefits, with an average 350,000 workers 
signing up for benefits each week. At the same time, 80,000 jobless 
workers are exhausting their unemployment benefits each week, forcing 
them to cut back on health care, forcing them to cut back on food 
purchases. Workers are losing their health insurance. Two and a half 
million more people joined the ranks of the uninsured last year, the 
largest single increase in a decade. Think of that.
  Put yourself in the shoes of these who go to bed hungry, who go to 
bed with heavy burdens, the burdens of forlorn hopes. With health care 
costs spiraling out of control, 44 million people must do without 
health insurance. Retired workers are forced to do without lifesaving 
drugs, without digoxin, without Coumadin, without Singulair. For those 
workers with health insurance, the out-of-pocket costs are soaring, 
more than doubling for employees of large companies since 1998. Costs 
are up sharply and going up more, too, for workers who pay monthly 
premiums but rarely see a doctor. Worker pensions are in danger, with 
the Federal pension insurer taking over 122 plans last year, slashing 
the pension benefit promised to over 200,000 workers. Two million 
additional Americans fell into poverty in 2002.
  Yes, we can afford to rebuild the oil pipeline, the oil wells in 
Iraq. Yes, we can afford to rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq. What 
about our own people? What about our own workers, who with their sweat 
and their toil have built this country and made it the wonder of the 
world? Not coincidentally, almost 2 million workers earn wages at the 
statutory minimum, $5.15 per hour. These are real people. It may be 
hard to comprehend that there are people who are working for that 
minimum wage, and that that minimum wage is the only thing that stands 
between them and their children and starvation. These are real people. 
These are real stories about working people in this land of the free, 
this home of the brave. These people earn their wages at the statutory 
minimum of $5.15 per hour. Think of it. Their wages are eroded every 
year by inflation, with the real value of the minimum wage dropping. 
While the wealthiest taxpayers receive tens of thousands of dollars in 
tax cuts, the administration denies a meager $1.50 per hour raise to 
our most impoverished workers. These administration people who oppose 
an increase in the minimum wage come from the other side of the tracks.
  To quote President Franklin Roosevelt, the test of our progress is 
not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is 
whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
  After three colossal tax cuts, this administration has denied much to 
those who have little in order to provide more to those who have much. 
The American worker--have you ever been a worker? The American worker 
has once again become the forgotten man. While the administration is 
offering only vague promises of hope, the American workforce is forced 
to endure the most hostile assault in decades. The Bush administration 
has tried to repeal the 40-hour workweek and strip workers of their 
right to overtime pay. Think of that. It has attacked the civil service 
system. It has repealed the safety rules necessary for the protection 
of America's workers. It has neglected their health and safety in the 
workplace. Now the administration is blocking an increase in the 
Federal minimum wage.
  It is blocking efforts to provide unemployment benefits to jobless 
workers. It is trying to push through a rule to strip 8 million workers 
of their hard-earned overtime pay. And it does so always with the 
promise that these benefits for businesses and the corporate elite will 
one day trickle down to the middle class. This is not the record of an 
administration that understands the needs of working families.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator be good enough to yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I commend my friend from West Virginia on speaking of 
the forgotten man, the worker of this country, because he has just 
listed the series of actions which threaten the well-being and the 
livelihood of millions of families. As he says these words, I think it 
is important that our colleagues and the American people understand 
their significance.
  He mentions, for example, the failure to act on the minimum wage. It 
has been 7 years since we have acted on an increase in the minimum 
wage--7 years. The purchasing power of the minimum wage now is just 
about as low as it has ever been. The minimum wage, as it is defined, 
is for people who work hard, who play by the rules. This is an issue 
which affects women because the majority of recipients of the minimum 
wage are women. It affects their children because many of the women 
have children. So it is a children's issue. It is a family issue. It is 
a civil rights issue because many of those who receive the minimum wage 
are men and women of color. It is a fairness issue because if you work 
hard and play by the rules, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, in 
the country that has the strongest economy in the world, that is the 
United States of America, you should not have to live in poverty.
  We have been blocked, as the Senator remembers, by our friends on the 
other side from even having a vote. We have a majority in this body who 
support an increase, but we are blocked.
  The Senator speaks about unemployment compensation. The Senator well 
knows there are 90,000 workers a week who are losing their unemployment 
compensation. Our friends on the Republican side, have blocked even a 
temporary extension on it--90,000 a week.
  Overtime? Eight million. I discussed this earlier today. I am not 
sure whether the Senator is familiar, I am not sure how many Americans 
are familiar, with the definition of professionalism in the Labor 
Department's proposed regulation, which will make American workers 
ineligible for overtime. This definition will include training received 
in the Armed Forces of this country. There are 200 different training 
programs that men and women receive in the Armed Forces. They go for 
this training, they serve in Iraq with the finest military in the 
world, and then they come back, and are hired here, and under the Bush 
proposal on overtime, can be denied overtime pay because they have 
received training in the military.

[[Page 300]]

  Can someone possibly tell us why? Why would the administration 
include training programs in the military? An important incentive for 
many young people to join the military is to get the education and 
training. I see my friend from Tennessee, who served as a Secretary of 
Education. He knows the value of education and training. Here we find 
the training which veterans of our military have received while serving 
our country will make them ineligible for overtime pay. This proposed 
rule would also deny overtime, to firefighters, police officers, and 
nurses.
  The Senator, when he speaks about the forgotten man, speaks wisely 
about his people in West Virginia, but he speaks for all those workers 
in my State, too, and I daresay for workers around this country. He 
mentions these words, these words that have real meaning: before 
eliminating overtime pay, consider the family that is struggling to pay 
the mortgage, feed their family, clothe their family--people who are 
working hard.
  The final point I want to mention to the Senator, although I know he 
knows this already, is that this proposed regulation works against 
women. Many of the professions which will be denied overtime pay are 
professions dominated by women, wives, mothers, working hard, trying to 
provide for their families, playing by the rules.
  There are many things wrong with our economy. But maybe the good 
Senator from West Virginia can tell me, of all the things that are 
wrong with our economy, why is it that singling out these working 
families for a reduction in pay is so important? I just cannot 
understand it. The Senator was here when we voted in this body against 
the administration's proposal. The House of Representatives voted 
against it. Then in the middle of the night the provision preserving 
overtime pay was stripped out of the omnibus bill. I know that is an 
enormous concern to many families.
  I just want to know whether the Senator doesn't believe we ought to 
be addressing issues in this Congress that are necessary to protect the 
interests of the working people. Does he join in the challenge this 
presents? Does he join me in saying to those workers who are listening 
to the Senator from West Virginia, we are not going to let them down, 
we are going to battle on these issues on the days ahead?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the very able Senator from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Kennedy, has led this fight to increase the minimum wage time and 
time and time again. I admire him for it.
  Yes, this administration has joined in the maiming and the raping of 
the Constitution and the rules of the Senate and in doing as it did 
with respect to the items that were changed in conference, the items 
that were added in conference, the items that passed each of the two 
Houses and were deleted in conference. What a shame. What a disgrace. I 
have been a Member of Congress 51 years, going into 52 years, and I 
have never seen such a disgraceful act as that which was done while 
you, the American working people out there, were asleep--were asleep. 
These changes were being made behind closed doors. The minority was not 
present.
  What would John Taber, the Republican chairman of the House 
Appropriations Committee when I came to the House--what would he think 
of this underhanded method of operating? What would Joe Martin, Speaker 
of the House of Representatives from Massachusetts in that day--what 
would he think? The Republicans of that day would not have stood for 
it. They believed in the American system. They believed in the 
Constitution. This is a disgrace. It is a shame, the way this Congress 
has acted, the way the Republican leadership in both Houses, and the 
White House, has acted in dealing with the taxpayers' money, the 
working people, the common people.
  You know, I say to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, I 
came into this world and was an orphan after 1 year.
  I grew up in a coal miner's home. I married a coal miner's daughter. 
Some leaders of this administration ought to know what it is to have to 
buy a stick of pepperoni, a piece of longhorn cheese and a box of 
crackers, sit down on railroad rails and eat that humble fare, and what 
is left put into a paper bag to eat the next morning for breakfast. 
This crowd down here in the White House doesn't know what it is. They 
come from the other side of the tracks. They do not know what it is to 
get their hands dirty working long hours at night, working to scratch 
out a living for their spouses and their children. They do not know 
what it is to walk into a coal miner's home and go to the cupboard and 
look and see what that family has left to eat. No. They grew up in the 
corporate boardrooms of this country. They do not know what it is.
  When God turned man out of the Garden of Eden and told him to earn 
his bread by the sweat of his brow, that has been the lot of the 
workingman. Then to see that workingman further trampled by the 
policies and programs of this thoughtless administration is a story in 
itself.
  This is not the record of an administration that understands the 
needs of working families. American workers are sinking on the Titanic 
and this administration can only promise workers to send back the 
lifeboats once the first-class passengers have been taken to safety.
  I recall the great Titanic. It went down I believe on April 15, 1912. 
I believe 1,517 passengers and workers on that great Titanic went to 
their deaths in the depths of the deep blue ocean. Now this 
administration promises workers to send back the lifeboats, but only 
after the first-class passengers have been taken to safety.
  Americans would have to look back to the Hoover administration during 
the nadir of the Great Depression to find an administration that has 
treated workers more shabbily. I grew up in that Hoover administration. 
The first 20 years I was in politics, I campaigned against the Hoover 
administration. It was gone but not forgotten. I have seen those window 
shades, those boarded-up windows on the store buildings and business 
places and homes of people in southern West Virginia. They were called 
``Hoover window shades.''
  In 1932, Presidential candidate Franklin Roosevelt blasted the Hoover 
administration and blasted the Republican-controlled Congress for 
ignoring the plight of American workers, workers who Roosevelt claimed 
had become the ``forgotten man'' under the Hoover administration's top-
down economic policies.
  I am glad I lived in the Great Depression. I am sorry we had to have 
one, but since we had one, I am glad I lived in the Great Depression. I 
am glad that there are a few people still alive in this country who 
remember the Great Depression.
  The ``present condition of our Nation's affairs is too serious to be 
viewed through partisan eyes for partisan purposes,'' the future 
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt charged. ``These unhappy times call 
for the building of plans that rest upon the forgotten, the unorganized 
but the indispensable units of economic power, for plans . . . that 
build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their 
faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic 
pyramid.'' The forgotten man.
  I urge Senators to heed those words and to offer workers more than 
just ideologically based promises that would have us view the plight of 
America's workers from the top down, rather than from the bottom up.
  This year, the Congress must extend unemployment benefits. It must 
protect workers' pensions. It must increase the minimum wage. It must 
protect the overtime pay of our Nation's workforce.
  The administration has invested its energies, its resources, its 
political fortunes in those at the top of the economic pyramid, and 
this administration has abandoned--abandoned--the workers at the bottom 
of the economic pyramid. The elected representatives of the people in 
this Chamber must not do the same.
  I close with Edwin Markham's poem.

                       The Right To Labor in Joy

     Out on the roads they have gathered,
     A hundred-thousand men,
     To ask for a hold on life as sure
     As the wolf's hold in his den.


[[Page 301]]


     Their need lies close to the quick of life
     As rain to the furrow sown:
     It is as meat to the slender rib,
     As marrow to the bone.

     They ask but the leave to labor
     For a taste of life's delight,
     For a little salt to savor their bread,
     For houses water-tight.
     They ask but the right to labor,
     And to live by the strength of their hands--

     They who have bodies like knotted oaks,
     And sinews like iron bands.

     And the right of a man to labor,
     And his right to labor in joy--
     Not all your laws can strangle that right,
     Nor the gates of hell destroy.
     For it came with the making of man,
     And was kneaded into his bones,
     And it will stand at the last of things
     On the dust of crumbled thrones.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know we will have more opportunity to 
debate this legislation in the coming days. I wanted to come to the 
floor for a few moments to express my gratitude and my admiration to 
those colleagues who have worked so diligently to bring us to this 
point. We deal with a lot of divisive issues in the Senate. We just 
dealt with one moments ago, the Omnibus appropriations bill. People 
sometimes ask me, as I travel the country and in my home State: Why 
don't you all ever get together on something?
  Here is an illustration where Republicans and Democrats have gotten 
together with a work product that I think merits our support, and I say 
our enthusiastic support. Senator Kennedy, of course, one of our key 
sponsors of this legislation, particularly deserves great thanks and 
great recognition for the work he has done to get us to this point.
  We have a pension time bomb in this country. That time bomb is going 
to explode with even greater impact on the lives of millions and 
millions of Americans unless we begin dealing with the issues of 
retirement security.
  A couple of nights ago, when I had the pleasure of responding to the 
State of the Union, one of the points that I made and I know is shared 
by my colleagues, especially on this side of the aisle, is on the issue 
of pension security. Retirement security is increasingly becoming an 
issue of great interest and concern to not only our retirees but to so 
many of our workers who are today concerned about whether they can 
retire at all as a result of the problems with pensions.
  I have some charts I know have already been used, but in case others 
missed the opportunity to walk through these charts and to hear the 
explanation of this legislation, I want to share a couple of 
observations, first about our circumstances, and then why I believe 
this bill is as good as it is.
  This chart talks about the defined benefit plans that are currently 
available, and we have defined benefit plans that have worked well over 
the course of the last 50 or 60 years, in particular. Thirty-five 
million Americans are covered today by plans that have been 
incorporated and utilized within corporations and businesses to provide 
a defined benefit at retirement.
  Mr. President, 9.7 million Americans are covered by multiemployer 
pension plans, only a fraction of what single-employer defined benefit 
plans entail, but both the multiemployer and single-employer plans are 
currently the ones that are causing employers, employees, and retirees 
very serious concern.
  Only defined benefit plans provide a secure monthly benefit backed by 
the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and that is where we begin to 
run into some very serious problems.
  We have 35 million Americans covered by single-employer plans and 9.7 
million Americans covered by multiemployer defined benefit pension 
plans.
  What has happened, of course, over the last couple of years in 
particular--but it goes back longer than that--is that a perfect storm 
has been created that has caused grave concern to those analyzing the 
viability of these pension plans. The perfect storm involves a number 
of factors that threaten the very essence of defined benefits as we 
have known them now for so long.
  The first factor in the defined benefit plan was a prolonged downturn 
of the stock market during this administration, the longest downturn we 
have had since the Great Depression, almost 70 years ago. We have had 
extremely low 30-year Treasury bond interest rates, and that, too, has 
contributed to the funding problems some defined benefit plans face. 
Then we have had weak economic conditions, which means companies cannot 
afford to make the payments and pay the excise tax imposed in the 
pension laws themselves.
  So we have one of the worst economic circumstances that could 
possibly befall these pension plans as pension designers and pension 
officials were attempting to struggle with the responsibilities and the 
direct legal requirements provided of these pensions.
  That is why this legislation is so important. This legislation 
addresses that perfect storm. It addresses the circumstances we are now 
facing across the country.
  What the Grassley-Baucus-Gregg-Kennedy legislation provides is only 
temporary relief but, nonetheless, important and essential relief if we 
are going to deal with this perfect storm of circumstances.
  The legislation temporarily replaces the 30-year Treasury bond with a 
corporate bond rate. That will help stabilize these circumstances and 
begin putting some greater confidence within the system.
  It provides targeted additional deficit reduction contribution relief 
to the hardest hit industries. We can walk through those, but there are 
some, such as the airline industry, that are really suffering very 
serious consequences as a result of this perfect storm. Some industries 
have been hurt worse than others. Airlines, perhaps, have been hurt the 
hardest of all.
  The legislation also provides temporary relief to the multiemployer 
pension plans by giving employers and workers time to negotiate changes 
to the contributions and benefits in order to preserve these pension 
plans in the first place.
  Again, this is a very commonsense approach, an opportunity for us to 
say, at least in the short term, that we recognize the problem. We 
understand this is not going to be resolved with only these actions, 
but this will go a long way to providing that temporary relief and that 
confidence that is going to be required if we can ensure we begin to 
turn around the circumstances we are facing in this perfect storm 
today.
  One of the most important aspects of this legislation, in my view, is 
the third piece of the proposal that I have just described which deals 
with multiemployer plans. I am concerned, frankly, that we may 
sometimes minimize the importance of these plans and not fully 
appreciate the magnitude of their importance to millions of workers. 
Those 9.7 million workers have only this to fall back on. We need to be 
fully appreciative of the importance these plans have in the daily 
lives of the American workers today.
  What they allow workers to do is earn pensions under many different 
employers, as I said a moment ago, helping workers in short-term or 
seasonal employment. We are talking about construction, hospitality, 
entertainment, sometimes retail. This is their only opportunity. They 
have no real access to retirement security unless they have access to a 
multiemployer plan. They couldn't earn pensions in the single-employer 
system. It doesn't exist for them. Multiemployer plans provide pensions 
to low-wage workers--hotel workers, restaurant workers, janitors, the 
people who work through the night oftentimes so that the buildings are 
clean when we come back; the people who oftentimes are the workers in 
the kitchen.
  This is a critical source of pensions for employees in small 
businesses as well. In South Dakota, that is the bulk of our business 
community--small business. We have thousands and thousands of small 
business employees who have absolutely no access to pensions

[[Page 302]]

today were it not for the multiemployer system that we created.
  We are talking about a serious concern and, I would say, a serious 
response to that concern as we consider this legislation today.
  I think this chart lays out very vividly in a picture what I just 
described in more rhetorical terms. The multiemployer plans provide 
some help to workers in virtually all industries: 15.2 percent of those 
9.7 million Americans are in manufacturing; 14 percent in retail trade; 
15 percent in services; almost 10 percent in truck transportation; and 
38 percent in construction.
  This chart in particular caught my attention because we are talking 
about South Dakota, and we are talking about rural States in 
particular, but we could be talking about any State. Multiemployer 
plans provide literally tens of thousands of small employers with the 
opportunity to provide competitive, comprehensive benefit plans to 
their employees, which would otherwise be too expensive and 
administratively too complex for them to provide on their own.
  As so many of my colleagues know, one of the concerns we have in our 
State is young people taking flight, leaving our State, once having 
been educated. We oftentimes in our State compare it to a good crop. 
The crop is grown, it is nurtured, and then somebody from out of State 
comes along with a combine, harvests the grain, takes it to another 
country, sells it, and makes a profit.
  In some ways that is a little bit like our young people. We educate 
them, nurture them, teach them our values, and then somebody comes 
along and hires them away before the first employer has a chance. One 
of the reasons they are able to hire them away is oftentimes they can 
provide better wages and better benefits.
  Well, this is an opportunity for South Dakotans, South Dakota small 
businessmen and other rural small businesses, to say, look, we have an 
opportunity to keep you in our State, to provide you with a competitive 
pension benefit, so you do not have to leave and go to a big city. That 
is important as well to small businesses that otherwise are not able to 
be competitive.
  So this is not just a retirement bill; this is not just a pension 
security bill. This is legislation that will provide competitiveness to 
small businesses, whether it is in any one of the industries I 
mentioned. We have to find ways to ensure that we level the playing 
field between big business and small. In part, this legislation will do 
it.
  So I will end where I started. I am very appreciative of the efforts 
made by our colleagues to get us to this point, to contribute to public 
policy in a way that I think will send hope to millions of workers and 
retirees who are concerned about being right in the center of that 
perfect storm today, and, of course, to millions of small 
businesspeople who want very much to be able to provide benefits in a 
meaningful way and therefore compete, as they do so effectively each 
and every day, in our free market system today.
  So I likely will have more to say about this legislation prior to the 
time we vote on final passage. I again thank my colleague Senator 
Kennedy for his leadership and those who have brought us to this point. 
This is good legislation. It merits our support.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2233

 (Purpose: Substitute amendment to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
    1986 and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to 
  temporarily change the determination of the interest rate used for 
 funding and other purposes from use of the 30-year treasury bond rate 
      to a composite corporate bond rate, and for other purposes.)

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], for himself, Mr. 
     Baucus, Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2233.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 2234 to Amendment No. 2233

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2234 to amendment No. 2233.

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

   (Purpose: To limit the liability of the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
    Corporation with respect to a plan for which a reduced deficit 
                        contribution is elected)

       At the end of section 3, insert:
       (__) Limitations on PBGC Liability for Plans to Which 
     Alternative Deficit Reduction Contribution Applies.--
       (1) In general.--If a plan with respect to which an 
     election under section 412(l)(12) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code or section 302(d)(12) of the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974 (as added by this section) is made 
     terminates during the applicable period, the maximum 
     guarantee limitation under section 4022(b)(3) of such Act, 
     and the phase-in rate of benefit increases under paragraph 
     (5) or (7) of section 4022(b) of such Act, shall be the 
     limitation and rates determined as if the plan terminated on 
     the day before the first day of the applicable period.
       (2) Applicable period.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     term ``applicable period'' means, with respect to any plan, 
     the period--
       (A) beginning on the first day of the first applicable plan 
     year with respect to the plan, and
       (B) ending on the last day of the second plan year 
     following the last applicable plan year with respect to the 
     plan.

     For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``applicable plan 
     year'' has the meaning given such term by section 412(l)(12) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and section 302(d)(12) 
     of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (as 
     added by this section).

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me describe briefly what the background 
of this amendment is and what the amendment will do--the effect of the 
amendment is actually quite simple--and then I will discuss the reasons 
for it.
  As you are aware, the background of this legislation is the House-
passed bill, H.R. 3108. An amendment to that bill has been offered by 
the chairman of the Finance Committee, the ranking member, and others 
that would make some corrections to the House bill, H.R. 3108 and, 
among other things, provide for a partial waiver of some payments that 
otherwise would be made into the fund that helps to guarantee the 
pension benefits of employees.
  We are aware of the fact that the Federal Government has undertaken a 
responsibility for ensuring that pensions which are funded by employers 
will actually be there when the employees need to collect on those 
pensions. But in some cases, corporations run out of money, go 
bankrupt, go out of business, or otherwise can't meet these 
obligations. In that situation, the Federal Government has to step in 
and has agreed to do so under certain terms through the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation. As a result, we have an obligation to ensure that 
the

[[Page 303]]

funding for these contingent liabilities is secure. Part of the way we 
do that is to ensure that the employers that make the obligations to 
their employees pay in enough money to be able to pay for the benefits 
they have promised.
  The problem is that some of these corporations are not in very good 
shape. As a result, there is a fear that they are not going to be able 
to make the contributions they need to make in order to pay the 
benefits to their employees when the time comes.
  As a result of this concern, what we have done is to say these 
corporations need to make some catchup payments to ensure the money 
will be there. This is necessary in part because of a technical problem 
in the way that the funding was fixed based upon a U.S. Government 
security that is no longer issued, as a result, we are having to 
substitute a different basis for the payment which will be a blended 
corporate bond rate, a technicality, but that is going to be the basis 
for a couple of years of contributions for corporations until another 
method is devised.
  In the meantime, corporations whose pensions are underfunded are 
being required to make up some of these contributions, and it is called 
the deficit reduction contribution, or the DRC, to reduce the deficit 
that has been created and that we need to make up if the money is going 
to be there for the employees when it comes time to collect their 
pensions.
  This deficit reduction contribution, according to the amendment 
offered by Senators Grassley, Baucus, Gregg, and Kennedy, as I 
understand it, would apply to those entities that are 90-percent funded 
or less. In other words, where the plan does not fund its benefits at 
100 percent, can't pay 100 percent, it can only pay 90 percent or 
perhaps even less. So for those entities that are in this kind of 
financial shape, they are going to have to make a deficit reduction 
contribution, a special catchup contribution.
  Under the amendment, they are going to actually be given a waiver of 
part of this contribution. The idea is that they can't afford to make 
the full contribution; therefore, we are only going to make them pay 
part of it. In fact, we are going to waive 80 percent under the 
amendment--80 percent of this obligation--in the first year and 60 
percent of the obligation in the second year. That means they are only 
making 20 percent in the first year and 40 percent in the second year 
of the obligation they have. These are corporations that are in 
difficult financial condition right now and cannot pay the full 100 
cents on the dollar that their employees would be entitled to when 
those employees attempt to collect their pensions.
  We clearly have a difficult situation here. The purpose of the 
amendment, obviously, is to have them pay something in and try to stay 
economically viable in the meantime. The concern, of course, of the 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and others is that all we are 
doing is digging the hole deeper or, in effect, throwing bad money 
after good is another way of putting it.
  What we are doing is giving companies that might well fail a chance 
to incur further obligations, not pay for those obligations, and then 
put the taxpayers at risk for the additional obligations incurred 
during this 2-year period of time. That is the risk. That is the 
concern we have.
  Clearly, if that transpired, there would be several losers. In the 
first place, this partial waiver would be harmful to the workers 
themselves because they jeopardize the expected pension benefits, 
especially for those workers who are supposed to receive larger 
pensions than the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation will actually 
guarantee.
  One category of people is airline pilots, for example. So companies 
should be required, in my view, to fund their pension promises to their 
employees. They should not be excused from these promises because, in 
effect, what they are doing is making bargains that are easy to make 
with unions and with others, promising to make payments, and then 
saying: We are sorry, we can't make them, but we would like to have the 
Federal Government bail us out.
  The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation right now estimates $400 
billion in unfunded liabilities. That is a lot of money to be backing 
up. Last year their deficit was $11.2 billion.
  The amount of the waiver we are talking about is about $16 billion in 
benefits. So according to the relief that is being granted by this 
partial deficit reduction contribution waiver, the PBGC, or the Pension 
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, would lose about $16 billion worth of 
funding relief. That is money that obviously may be required at some 
future date but will not be there because we are not asking these 
companies to pay in that amount of money.
  Another loser: We think it is unfair to the healthy plans, to those 
corporations and employees who have actually been part of businesses 
that have paid attention to their economics, have ensured they are 
putting enough money into their pensions to fund the benefits that 
their employees are due.
  If the underfunded plan fails to pay the amount they are supposed to 
and the insurance premiums then go up, the healthy plans are the ones 
that end up paying that difference. I believe it is unfair to excuse 
these companies that have made the promises and then not require them 
to go ahead and pay that money and fulfill their promises.
  It is also unfair to competitors. Stop and think about an airline, 
for example. I feel this may well be the situation because the waiver 
is granted to certain airline companies that need it, allegedly, and to 
a couple of steel companies. It is a very selected kind of waiver. The 
competitors of the airlines--the airlines that have been trying to 
watch their pennies and not overcommit themselves in their pensions--
will be at a disadvantage. They have made their commitments to 
employees. They have paid the money into their pension plans to make 
sure they can pay those commitments to employees, and now their 
competitors, that maybe have overpromised or are now going to be 
underfunding, will be able to take that difference and apply it to 
other aspects of their business to compete with the airlines that have 
done a good job.
  There is nothing that says they cannot take the difference and 
undercut the other airlines in terms of their fare structure. That 
could easily happen, and there is nothing we have here that precludes 
that from happening. That is a very big concern I have.
  We should not be playing favorites, one company against another, in a 
particular business, and the airline business is certainly one in which 
this might apply. In effect, it is a backdoor bailout for some 
companies, those who have not been able to fund the benefits they have 
promised to their employees. It seems to me, therefore, another 
potential loser are the competitors of the airlines we would actually 
be benefiting here. Finally, it is a big loss to the American taxpayer 
if the taxpayer ends up on the hook for these deficits.
  As I said, the PBGC reported a deficit of $11.2 billion in its 
single-employer insurance plan for fiscal year 2003, which is a record 
deficit. Even though it estimates it will have assets sufficient to 
meet obligations for the foreseeable future, the PBGC estimates the sum 
total of all the single-employer pension plan underfunding amounts to 
about $400 billion, and it is Congress, meaning Congress on behalf of 
all U.S. taxpayers, who will be held responsible to bail out the 
Pension Guaranty Board rather than to allow the entire insurance system 
to collapse.
  In my view, these waivers are the wrong thing to do for the 
employees, for the competitors, for the system, and certainly for the 
American taxpayer. Companies that habitually underfund plans should not 
be bailed out at the expense of others. I think the primary reason we 
are even thinking about doing this is because at least one of the 
companies that would be eligible simply cannot post the security or the 
bond that is required to obtain a general funding waiver from the 
Treasury Department.
  Let me make a point that in the law there is already an ability of 
these companies to seek a waiver. It is the general waiver authority 
that can be

[[Page 304]]

sought from the Treasury Department. To do that, you have to prove some 
things. You have to post a bond and you have to prove some things to 
the Department of the Treasury. Why can't these companies go through 
that process? Why do they need special relief from the Congress to bail 
them out? Is it too much to ask that they just follow the current law 
and apply for the regular waiver as they have the right to do today? It 
seems to me that would be the appropriate way to handle this.
  We have the amendment before us, and the reason I have offered this 
second-degree amendment is at least in one small way it limits the 
liability of the taxpayers should things go wrong. That is the purpose 
for this amendment.
  Now what is it? It is called a hold-harmless provision. What it says 
is the PBGC, the guaranty board, would be held harmless for any benefit 
accruals that occurred during the waiver period--the waiver period is 2 
years--or that occur 2 years after that. If a plan fails during this 
DRC waiver period, or within 2 years after the waiver period, then the 
PBGC would only have to fund the benefits that accrued up to the time 
the waiver was claimed. It would not have to finance any benefits that 
accrued after the waiver was claimed. If you stop to think about it, 
this makes very good sense. It is obviously important to protect the 
going businesses, the healthy plans, and the taxpayers with this kind 
of hold harmless.
  One of the big dangers with this waiver of these companies that are 
not funding their pensions adequately is these plans claiming the 
waiver are going to fail, anyway. The whole point of doing this for 
them is they are very close to failing, and the argument made on their 
behalf is they are about to fail. You do not want them to fail, do you? 
You do not want the Government to have to make good on all of these 
pension guarantees. Let's keep going for a little while longer, and if 
we waive the pension benefit they have to pay in, the amount of the 
contribution they have to pay in, then maybe they can stay in business 
a little longer.
  Well, maybe they can; maybe they cannot. That is a big gamble we are 
taking. What we are saying in the legislation is, all right, we will 
try to help keep you afloat for another couple of years, but if you 
fail during that period of time or within 2 years of that period of 
time, we should not be on the hook. We are doing our part to bail you 
out, but we are not going to pay all of your past benefits, all of the 
benefits that have accrued to date, plus the benefits you accrue from 
now forward by virtue of the fact that we have put in the money, or 
conversely we have granted a waiver to you so you can stay in business 
during this period of time.
  We would in effect be saying we will help you stay afloat to incur 
new benefits that then we are going to pay for, and it would be unfair 
for the taxpayers to be on the hook for that. So this hold-harmless 
provision would mitigate this potential. It would limit the drains on 
the healthy plans. It would limit the amount of the money the taxpayers 
would be on the hook for, and I think it is eminently fair. It seems to 
me to be impossible for these companies to argue that not only should 
they have this special benefit nobody else has, that gives them an 
advantage over their competitors, that keeps them in business a little 
while longer, not only should they have that and put at risk for the 
American taxpayers that they are going to have to get bailed out, but 
also during this period of time that they are trying to get back on 
their feet charge the taxpayers with the new benefits that are accrued 
during that period of time. That is what the hold harmless is designed 
to try to protect against. We will take care of the benefits you have 
incurred up to now, but nothing incurred from now forward during this 
4-year window of time. That seems to be eminently reasonable to me, and 
what I hope is that even though this will not be voted on until 
probably next Tuesday, my colleagues could take a look at this, 
consider whether it is worth supporting, and perhaps we could--I will 
not even call a rollcall vote if Members are willing to support the 
amendment and we can prevail on it, but I do insist we get this passed.
  There is another amendment I will file, but I do not intend to send 
to the desk at this time, that I think would further strengthen the 
situation so it is not quite as big a potential drain on the taxpayers. 
It has to do with the fact that I think it totally reasonable to ask 
these companies if they are going to ask for this waiver today that 
that be it, that they not be asking for any more waivers in the future.
  The other idea I have that I will perhaps offer later is a plan that 
accepts this DRC funding waiver we are offering in the original 
amendment would then not be able to apply for a general funding waiver 
for 2 years after the waiver period ends. Otherwise, all we are doing 
is essentially postponing the inevitable. If they intend to file for a 
general waiver after 2 years, they can clearly file for a general 
waiver today. If they think they can prove the case that they need to 
get that general waiver from the Department of the Treasury in 2 years, 
then they could do it today.
  In effect, under the manager's amendment, they have a 2-year holiday 
for making their full DRC payments, which are designed to bring their 
plans into full funding. I believe it would be inappropriate to allow a 
plan that claims this 2-year DRC waiver at the end of that period to 
then seek the general waiver for 2 more years, and would note the fact 
that the companies that apply to the Treasury for this have to show 
there is a substantial business hardship--they ought to be able to show 
that--that it is temporary. If it is not temporary, then I do not know 
why we are throwing taxpayer money at the problem in the first place.
  It is reasonable to expect the plan cannot continue unless the waiver 
is granted. That is in effect what at least one of these companies has 
been telling Members of Congress that they have to have this relief or 
else they are not going to be able to stay in business. At that point 
then the Secretary of the Treasury can demand of them some security, 
some kind of bond, and grant this waiver.
  I do not know why that general authority in the statute today is not 
adequate to take care of this problem and why we have to grant this 
specific waiver. It seems to me if we grant this specific waiver, then 
it is not unfair to ask them to commit to us that they are not going to 
seek additional waivers after that.
  But, again, that is something that I think makes sense. I may offer 
that amendment later. But the amendment that I do offer, which I think 
is eminently reasonable and which I cannot imagine my colleagues would 
not support, is simply an amendment that would hold the taxpayers 
harmless for events that occurred during the period of time this 
specific waiver is in effect, and for a period of 2 years after that.
  I conclude by saying I think we are on a bit of a slippery slope with 
this entire approach. It was entirely appropriate for the House of 
Representatives to focus on the need for some kind of temporary 
substitute formula for contributions because the old formula clearly 
couldn't work anymore. The Government was no longer issuing the 
securities on which the formula was based.
  There were different choices we could have made. I thought the 
Treasury Department had the best solution, but that solution would have 
required the companies to pay in more money than they were willing to 
pay in. That probably is the most fiscally sound. But what was decided 
on as a compromise was this temporary corporate bond rate. I do not 
think that is enough to assure the corporation pension benefits will be 
secure, but that is what is before us.
  By itself, I would be willing to support that for a couple of years. 
But what I am not willing to support is this waiver of the payment for 
just two companies in one business, steel, and certain airlines that 
say they need it and for some reason don't want to go the general 
waiver route. I think this is entirely too generous.
  But if we are going to do that, then I say at least let's ask for a 
``hold harmless'' during the period of the

[[Page 305]]

waiver and for a period of 2 years afterward so at least we, the 
taxpayers, are not liable for new benefits accrued during this period 
of time that we are trying to help these companies out. That, I think, 
is the least we could expect.
  I hope we will have a chance to visit a little bit more on this with 
colleagues when they are here on Tuesday or perhaps on Monday morning, 
and we can have a vote at that time. Therefore, for the time being, 
that is the extent of my discussion on this particular amendment.
  Mr. President, seeing no other Member here, I suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________