[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6821-6851]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         PENSION FUNDING EQUITY ACT OF 2004--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
3108, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the 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, 
     having met, have agreed that the House recede from its 
     disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to the 
     same with an amendment, signed by a majority of the conferees 
     on the part of both Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the proceedings of the House of 
the Record of April 1, 2004.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding there are 4 hours equally divided; 
is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. This is an important piece of legislation which deals with 
the solvency of a large number of companies and benefits that are paid 
to those companies' employees. The core, the essence of this bill is 
the fact that traditionally, companies have been required to fund their 
defined benefit plans in relationship to the rate of return that is 
accounted for on a 30-year Treasury bond. That affects how much money 
they must pay into these plans.
  Unfortunately, for companies that have such plans, the 30-year bond 
no longer exists as a viable benchmark. That is because we as a 
government are not issuing 30-year bonds. Therefore, when people value 
a 30-year bond, it has become, in the last few years, an understated 
value. It is not reflecting what the true interest is, the true rate of 
return is, in the marketplace any longer.
  If we continue to use the 30-year bond as a benchmark, an inflated 
payment is required by those companies which come under this rule.

[[Page 6822]]

  The effect of that is a large amount of money--it is estimated to be 
$80 billion--would flow inaccurately or inappropriately as a result of 
the fact that the decision as to that payment is based on the 30-year 
bond which no longer exists and is understated. It understates returns.
  That $80 billion, if it is artificially moved around, becomes a 
problem because it means companies actually have to come up with the 
money. When they do, they are taking money away from investments which 
create jobs. If a company is planning to create a new plant or buy new 
equipment to create new efficiencies or simply to pay its people more--
the people who work with that business with that activity--find they 
can't do that. As a result, the jobs which would be created through 
that $80 billion infusion of money will not be created. And it will 
have a fairly significant chilling effect on the economy generally, if 
we do not make this change in the calculation of the interest rates.
  This bill replaces the 30-year bond with a market basket of high-
grade corporate bonds as a reflection of what the appropriate interest 
rate should be. I think there is general consensus on that part of the 
bill, and it is the most important part of the bill.
  The bill also has a series of rifleshot changes for some single-
employer plans and for a small number of multiemployer plans.
  That is where the contest over the bill occurs most intently because 
those single-shot changes affect a few industries, a few airlines, a 
couple of steel companies, and a large multiemployer plan in the 
Midwest.
  But that was not my reason for aggressively pursuing this piece of 
legislation. I wanted to fix the 30-year bond rate. I have been trying 
to do that now for almost 9 months. I feel very strongly if we don't do 
it we will end up losing jobs in America. We will end up making 
ourselves less competitive. We will end up with less investment, and we 
will end up with fewer people in our country working for businesses 
which are efficient and, therefore, can compete internationally.
  I think it is critical that we pass this piece of legislation.
  These other items which are part of this legislation are obviously 
important to those employees who participate in those different areas--
the airlines, the steel companies, and the multiemployer plans that are 
impacted.
  But for me, the core of this bill is fixing the 30-year bond rate and 
the problem it has in artificially affecting the playing field as to 
where investment flows in America.
  It is very critical in a market economy that you allow dollars to be 
invested where they can be most efficiently used. When you have a 
system which creates an artificially inaccurate benchmark or how these 
various funds must be funded by using the 30-year bond, you undermine 
the ability of the marketplace to adequately discipline through market 
forces the investment of dollars. The practical effect of that is to 
produce inefficiency, less capital investment, and less jobs.
  This is a very important bill. In fact, it is the ultimate jobs bill. 
Eighty-billion dollars of investment is a lot of investment which is 
going to create lots of jobs. There are important jobs bills, but 
amongst the jobs bills we are taking up in Congress, this is certainly 
one of the most important. It is subject to some significant time 
restraints. If we don't do this by April 15, then some of this 
miscalculation of resources begins to occur, and we end up losing the 
investment in jobs we need.
  That is the essence of this bill.
  As I understand it, Senator Kennedy, who is the senior Democrat on 
the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, intends to speak 
on the bill. A number of other folks also wish to make points on the 
bill.
  At this point, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our 
time and hope we can get to a vote fairly promptly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time? The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would welcome the opportunity to yield 
such time as our friend and colleague from Louisiana would care to use.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand we have about 2 hours on 
the Democrat side to debate this important bill. I appreciate the 
Senator from Massachusetts giving me such time as I might use. It will 
probably be 15 or 20 minutes, perhaps longer but hopefully not.
  I want to start by asking my colleague from New Hampshire--I 
appreciate his work on this important piece of legislation. I actually 
agree with him. The people who are covered in this bill need relief in 
the pension provisions which we govern through our laws covering ERISA 
as well as in our Tax Code. I don't disagree with him that we have 
provided much needed and extremely important relief. But I want to ask, 
before I start my remarks, if he could comment on the approximately 9.5 
million Americans who seem to be left out of this act and are working 
in the construction industry. If we seek to create jobs in America, 
that is one of the sectors we have the potential--as the economy 
begins, hopefully, to recover--where we could see some people actually 
going back to work.
  I was wondering if maybe the Senator could comment about the 
multiemployers. I think there are about 9.5 million. Would he care to 
comment about why they have been left out?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have a right to propound 
questions to other Senators who do not have the floor.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will leave the question out there. I 
appreciate the clarification.
  As we debate for the next 4 hours, I hope someone might come to the 
floor who is arguing that this bill is as good as it can get. I happen 
to believe this bill was pretty good when it left the Senate, and it 
has come back fairly effective. I would like to leave that question 
open to any of my colleagues who would care to come to the floor and 
explain in front of the cameras and for all to review why when it left 
here everyone was covered--all of the single employers and 
multiemployers--and as it has come back, why they have only received 
partial relief.
  I have a reason, but I am not sure my reason is correct. I am going 
to leave that question out there and hopefully my good friend from 
Massachusetts and I can get an answer to that question before this 
debate concludes in 4 hours.
  I am going to begin by refreshing our collective memory about what 
the President said. When President George Bush was elected in one of 
the closest elections ever in our Nation, he said it was time to rise 
above a house divided and to move together to create economic 
opportunity and economic hope.
  When this bill had as its core very good purposes, when it left the 
Senate we were united. It had 86 votes, a majority of both the Democrat 
and Republican caucuses to give relief to every pension. Times have 
been tough. There were certain rules that were in place that prevented 
some of these multiemployer pension plans from stashing away money in 
the good times. They were prevented from doing that by our laws, rules, 
and regulations. When the market turned down and they started losing 
some of their investments, they had to kick in extra contributions, 
which caused them to take money away from employment and put it into 
their pension plans.
  They asked for relief. Our Senate Republicans and Democrats said that 
large corporations as well as multiemployer pension systems deserve 
that relief. It left here with 86 votes a couple of months ago. It has 
come back, however, with only one group included and the other group 
left out.
  I am concerned and worried. I am not confused. The answer is not 
pretty. I am told by the experts there is no economic justification for 
this. There is no cost to the Treasury to have those plans included. 
Although their plans are not run the same way, they deserve the same 
help and same relief because they are invested in the same stock

[[Page 6823]]

market. I don't think there are two separate stock markets, one where 
the large corporations are invested and then another for everyone else. 
They have suffered the same up-and-down swings of the market.
  However, I have to believe, unless my question is answered, the only 
reason they did not get help is simply because the White House did not 
want to help them. It would not cost the Treasury anything to give help 
to these plans. It would not cost the Treasury a nickel. It is a change 
in the law that buys them additional time that the actuaries and the 
experts believe would be responsible and safe, that would still make 
sure the pensions are safe and the money is there.
  The bill left the Senate, with Democrats and Republicans working 
together. It went to what is seeming to be every day the most 
politically driven White House, where they were simply eliminated from 
the bill.
  I ask, during the four hours we are discussing this, if any Member 
would be willing to come to the Senate and state why this has happened 
to 9.5 million workers, many of whom are union workers but not all, and 
some businesses that are affected, that are employing people, not 
minimum-wage workers?
  These are workers who wake up early before the sun comes up, 
construction workers. Even when the temperatures go below freezing, 
they put their gloves on and an extra jacket and they go out and work. 
These are the workers we see on tops of buildings. These are the 
workers we see digging deep holes under the ground, driving electric 
lines, making sure the infrastructure in this country is what it should 
be, making sure when buses go over a bridge, the bridge does not 
collapse.
  I ask anyone in the Senate to tell me why these workers have been 
left out. The only reason I am given is it is a political directive 
from the White House. These are evidently Americans who the President 
either does not like, does not want to help, does not think they 
deserve it, does not think they need help. If this is the kind of 
administration we are a part of, then I don't want to be a part of this 
kind of administration. I want to be part of an administration that 
helps everyone when everyone can be helped unless there is some real 
good reason not to.
  I can understand we cannot afford to give everybody the same kind of 
tax cuts when there is money coming out of the Treasury. I understand 
about making priorities. It is my understanding that does not cost the 
Treasury a penny. It is my understanding, having served as State 
treasurer of my State for 8 years and served on my pension boards, and 
having some knowledge of the way pensions are made and the estimates 
and assumptions actuaries make in terms of pensions that control how 
much contributions are put in and taken out of a pension plan, it is my 
understanding the experts agree everyone could use some help.
  One plan is helped, which is included in this bill, making a 
temporary adjustment to the rate of return to give them some relief. 
Another group said, We do not operate exactly that way, but we could 
use some help just stretching out our payments for 3 years so we could 
create more construction jobs. This White House, for some reason, said 
no to 9.5 million Americans.
  Maybe we are getting to a point--I hope my colleagues will come down 
here and correct me--maybe we are getting to some ridiculous point in 
this Capitol where before you can get relief you have to show your 
voter registration card. When Democrats are in control, if you are a 
Republican, if you do not show a Democratic card, you do not get 
relief. Most of the people who were left out were union members. Not 
all of them, but most of them were union members. Again, there are 
businesses that were affected.
  If it was the White House's intention to punish this group of people 
because they are not overwhelmingly supportive of administration 
policies, this is not an administration I want to be a part of. I would 
not for 1 minute walk to the Senate and say some of the corporations 
that are getting help in this business, because they are not 
overwhelmingly supportive of Democrats, do not deserve a fair shake by 
this body. They got a fair shake when it left the Senate.
  We had Democrats and Republicans come to the Senate and say, yes, 
these large corporations that have suffered terrible losses in the 
stock market--and we all did; whether you were a little or big 
investor, everyone took a big loss--yes, we want to create jobs. Yes, 
they deserve relief. Democrats came down. Senator Baucus from Montana 
argued passionately for this bill and 87 Members voted for it. It comes 
back with 9 million people missing, and they just happen to be part of 
multiemployer pension plans, most of whom are union but not all, and 
some small businesses have been cut out with no explanation.
  It is a very ugly way to do the people's business and it flies in the 
face of what this administration promised: to unite us and not divide 
us, to give help to everyone who needed it when it was in our power to 
do so, whether they were a little fry or a big fry, whether they were a 
little fish or a big fish, whether they were a union company or not.
  I don't know how others feel, but people in my State, whether they 
are for or against unions, are for jobs. We have lost almost 3 million 
jobs since this administration took office. I remind my colleagues that 
people want good jobs. They do not want jobs that pay $5.15 an hour. 
You cannot feed your children, pay rent, and put gasoline in your car 
for $5.15 an hour.
  We want to create construction jobs. My construction workers make 
good money. They usually build darn good buildings and they build them 
for little towns and big cities in Louisiana. They came up here asking 
for help--not a lot of help. It does not cost a dime. Not a dime. They 
are turned away because they might be Democrats? They might be union 
members?
  I have been to the Senate before on a number of other issues in my 
disappointment with this administration. Across the hall in some other 
building, Condoleeza Rice is testifying. We have marines being killed 
in Iraq. If the President were leading in the right direction, I think 
he would use every opportunity, even small ones such as this. This is 
not a huge deal, but it is a big deal to the 9.5 million workers who 
have been left out.
  I would think he would be using every opportunity to unite this 
country, to create jobs at home, to create goodwill so we can get 
through maybe one of the toughest times in recent history. But, oh, no, 
the bill leaves the Senate with 87 votes--of Republicans and 
Democrats--and comes back with Republican-only fingerprints all over 
it, taking 9.5 million workers out because they dared to ask for help 
in times of tough economic downturn.
  I have to hear the rhetoric coming out of the White House: They are 
trying to create jobs. Well, let me tell you, here is a good chance to 
create jobs, to help save those pension plans people have contributed 
to, to give them a little help that does not cost anything--and they 
were sent away emptyhanded.
  So I am going to sit here for 4 hours. I may have to leave for a few 
minutes, but I want my colleague from Massachusetts to know I am going 
to sit on this floor until I get an answer to my question: Why were 9.5 
million workers left out, when it does not cost us a red penny to help 
them? If it was not done for political retribution reasons, I would 
like a good explanation as to why it was done. If I can get a good 
explanation, then I will change these remarks and I will acknowledge 
perhaps I was mistaken about the reason.
  But I know the way pension funds work. I know what they asked for was 
not much to ask. I know it would not cost us any money to do it. I know 
the experts said we could help them, if we had the will to. But we just 
willed a different way. We made other choices.
  Finally, I am going to tell you, these choices--we all make these 
choices. Choices have consequences. The choices the White House made to 
leave these 9.5 million workers out--and the businesses that employ 
them--are going to cost us jobs. They are going to make people more 
cynical. They are

[[Page 6824]]

going to raise the anger level in this country, when we need to be 
pulling people together and not tearing people apart. For the little it 
would have cost to keep them in, I think there is going to be a big 
price to pay for taking them out.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Who yields 
time?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. 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.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, until some other Members come to the 
floor, I want to add for the Record that, for Louisiana, there are 56 
electrical contracting companies that participate in the National 
Electrical Workers Plan that will receive no relief in this bill. There 
are 18 Louisiana sheet metal contracting companies that have joined the 
Sheet Metal National Plan that will have their pensions in jeopardy, 
perhaps. But whether their plans are in good shape, they came here to 
ask for relief that would not have cost a penny, and they were turned 
away.
  There are 1,200 Louisiana workers who belong to the grocery store 
workers plan. They perhaps need to start worrying about when they will 
be able to retire because they were left out of this plan.
  Mr. President, 32,000 construction workers in Louisiana who have 
multiemployer pension plans have been excluded.
  Let me repeat, all of these workers--the thousands--the 18 Louisiana 
sheet metal contracting companies that employ thousands of people; the 
32,000 construction workers; the 1,200 grocery store workers; and the 
56 electrical contracting companies, which probably together employ, I 
am going to estimate, at least over 5,000 workers--all of those workers 
were included, along with these multinational corporations and large 
businesses. They were all included because they all need help. They all 
have legitimate requests that could be given by the Senate. When we 
debated this in the Senate, they were all included. And 87 of us--
Republicans and Democrats--voted to keep them in.
  So I am going to be on the floor. If someone would come to tell me 
why these thousands of workers in Louisiana have been left out, I would 
be happy to know the answer.
  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.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I now 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. KENNEDY. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 minutes.
  The issue, as my friend and colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, 
and the Senator from New Hampshire, pointed out, is the issue of 
pensions that are facing a very challenging time due to the economic 
challenges we are facing now in this particular time, and the efforts 
of Congress to try to give these pension programs some time to be able 
to recover. As the Senator from Louisiana pointed out, that is a very 
worthwhile goal we should embrace.
  As she pointed out in an excellent presentation, we had passed 
bipartisan legislation to help all those at risk, those workers who 
were going to be in single-employer plans and those who were going to 
be in the multiemployer plans. We passed legislation 86 to 9. Rarely 
does the Senate, particularly in the present climate, come together and 
recognize there is an immediate problem and then begin to face up to 
it.
  As we were listening to the Senators from Louisiana and New 
Hampshire, and thinking about points to be made regarding this 
legislation, I am once again reminded Senators' pensions are not at 
issue. All our pensions are adequately funded. I dare say, if the issue 
arose where we were going to leave over 20 percent of the Members of 
the Senate out, as this bill does for workers, there would be more 
Members in this Chamber right now than there are.
  The American people understand the pensions the Members have here are 
adequately funded. What we are talking about is a proposal that has 
been advanced, with the support of the White House, that is going to 
take care of about 80 percent of those who are in trouble and leave 
over 20 percent out.
  The Senate, in a bipartisan way, included everyone. This proposal 
excludes over 20 percent. This doesn't mean we are not for the remedies 
that are available to the other 80 percent. We are. We are strongly in 
favor of those. But we do think fairness demands we also include the 
other 20 percent. We understand if we were able to defeat this 
particular proposal today, it would take about 5 minutes to remedy this 
in a way that would provide fairness and equity for all those who are 
vulnerable. The House of Representatives would take that so fast, 
people's heads would turn. It would be on the way down to the White 
House as well.
  That is the question, whether we believe we ought to have a solution 
that takes care of not only workers in the Fortune 500, but workers who 
are in the fortune 10,000. That is the issue. The issue is fairness. 
The issue is workers.
  I will mention very briefly, to set the stage, what the challenges 
are with regard to pensions nationally at the present time. The 
troubled economy is jeopardizing workers' retirement. There are 3.3 
million Americans who have lost pension coverage since the year 2000. 
Only 53.5 percent of the Nation's workers are participating in a 
retirement program, the lowest level in over a decade. The declining 
quality of jobs in our country also means declining benefits for 
American workers. Part-time and low-wage workers are far less likely to 
have a pension than full-time workers. This is what is happening in the 
real world.
  We don't have enough pensions to cover all workers, and many of the 
workers who are covered are losing it. The pension system is in crisis. 
Rather than addressing the whole problem, our Republican friends say: 
We are not going to do that; we are only going to take care of some.
  We believe everyone who is part of a pension system ought to get fair 
and equal treatment.
  This chart points out the issue. We have 35 million Americans who are 
covered by single-employer defined benefit programs. These workers will 
be protected. The Senator from Louisiana and I are for giving that kind 
of protection. But we don't understand why, if we are going to give the 
protection to 35 million Americans, we leave out the 9.7 million 
Americans who are covered by multiemployer defined benefit pension 
programs.
  The Senator from Louisiana asked exactly the right question. Why are 
we taking care of 35 million and leaving out effectively 10 million. 
There is absolutely no other answer than the White House decided it was 
going to be punitive and pulled the strings on the conference--of which 
I was a member, and I will go through that shortly--and said: We are 
not going to do it because so many of these are union members and we 
don't like unions.
  That is telling us something new in the Senate, when we know what has 
been happening recently?
  Before I get into that, this chart shows what has been happening with 
regard to general benefit pensions. We have what you call a perfect 
storm of

[[Page 6825]]

factors hurting pension plan funding levels: The prolonged downturn of 
the stock market during the Bush administration, the longest since the 
Great Depression; extremely low 30-year Treasury bond interest rates; 
weak economic conditions which mean companies cannot afford to make the 
additional payments and pay excise taxes imposed by pension laws.
  These factors have affected the single-employer and the multiemployer 
the same. That is why the Senate decided to deal with both single and 
multiemployer plans. But not the conference committee. Although we made 
real progress, the fact is, we are facing an administration that at 
best is indifferent and at worst hostile to working families.
  I don't make that statement lightly. But you cannot look at the 
record of this administration with regard to working families and not 
come to that conclusion. If you look at what has happened with the 
creation of jobs, we have an administration that said, yes, we are 
going to create 5.2 million jobs. They made that statement in 2001. But 
we have seen the loss of 2 million jobs because of their economic 
policies.
  This chart shows there are 2.4 million more unemployed workers now in 
2004 than there were in 2001. Workers are losing their jobs, and there 
are 10 million workers who are in the multiemployer plans who are going 
to get shortchanged as well. They are losing their jobs. If we look at 
the job growth over the last 3 years, as compared to other economic 
recoveries, from 1991, this shows the expansion of jobs, the recovery 
from 1991 to 1993. This chart indicates the current recovery is 
virtually flat.
  How are workers reacting to this? American workers are working longer 
and harder than ever before. Look at this chart that shows what is 
happening for workers in industrial nations. These bars represent 
different countries. These are mostly the European countries: Denmark, 
France, Ireland, United States, Italy, and Germany. Look at the United 
States, about 400 hours more per year than any other industrial nation. 
Workers are working longer. They are working harder. More and more of 
them are losing their jobs. Of the new jobs that are being created, 
they are paying 21 percent less than the jobs that were replaced.
  The average wage in 2001 was $44,000 a year. Now it is $35,000, a 21-
percent loss. Workers working longer, harder. And if they lose their 
job and come back into the market, look what happens to them. They are 
suffering under this administration's economic policies.
  We ask, I wonder why that is happening?
  Well, Mr. President, the answer is it is very easy to see why it is 
happening. If you look at the recoveries from the early nineties and 
before, when you had an expansion of the economy and coming out of the 
recession, what you had with the new investments, 60 percent went to 
workers' wages and 39 percent went to corporate profits. In today's 
recovery, you have 86 percent going to corporate profit and 13 percent 
going to workers' wages.
  This system is stacked against workers. We have an administration 
that has the opportunity to help American workers in with multiemployer 
pensions--they won't do it, again. This is what is happening. 
Corporations are doing very well. Under this bill, they are going to do 
very well, too. But not the smaller companies. We have seen this--if 
you look at what has happened, we have gone through this on 
unemployment compensation. Under President Clinton, even at a time when 
we were coming out of the recession of the early nineties, they kept in 
the unemployment compensation until we had seen the growth of 3 million 
new jobs.
  We have seen now the early loss of over 2 million jobs and this 
administration cuts off the unemployment compensation. What is the 
effect of that to those workers? The effect of that is there are 90,000 
Americans a week losing their unemployment compensation. That is 2\1/2\ 
times the capacity of Fenway Park in Boston. And they say that this 
administration is concerned about workers, concerned about the 
expansion of jobs, concerned about the unemployment compensation. They 
are opposed to the increases in the minimum wage. We have had that 
battle. When you look over the value of the increase in the minimum 
wage, the administration says thumbs down; we are not going to go for 
the increase in the minimum wage. If we don't have an increase in the 
minimum wage, the minimum wage will be at almost its lowest purchasing 
power ever in the history of the minimum wage. When we offered that 
amendment, the current Republican leadership pulled the bill rather 
than having a vote on an increase in the minimum wage.
  No increase in the minimum wage, no unemployment compensation, 
proposals to eliminate overtime, which is going to affect the 
firefighters and policemen and nurses in this country. That is their 
record. These are the groups that are going to be affected with the 
proposal under the administration to eliminate overtime.
  I make this point because what we are facing today is a continuum of 
the administration's indifference and opposition and hostility to 
workers, and primarily union workers, who are affected by this.
  Let me point out what is happening across this country. We are 
finding out as a result of these conditions, there are real people and 
families who are hurting. More than half of the unemployed adults have 
had to postpone medical treatment, 57 percent; or cut back on spending 
for food, 56 percent; 1 in 4 has had to move to other housing or move 
in with friends or relatives; 38 percent have lost telephone service or 
are worried they will lose their phone; more than one-third--36 
percent--have had trouble paying their gas or electric bills. That 
isn't even the beginning.
  I want to take a minute or two to talk about what is happening out in 
the countryside in terms of hunger. I don't know how many saw this. 
This is last week's Parade Magazine. ``How can we help end childhood 
hunger?'' Imagine that in the United States of America, childhood 
hunger. How can we avoid that? The Agriculture Department reported 
300,000 more families are hungry today than when President Bush first 
took office. That is going to increase. Let me read some of this 
article. This is from the Parade Magazine:

       Last year, according to the Department of Agriculture, 34.9 
     million Americans . . . were ``food insecure,'' the 
     Government's term for those who must survive on a diet not 
     nutritious enough to keep a child healthy. More than 13 
     million of those people were children. The U.S. Conference of 
     Mayors expects that requests for emergency food for families 
     with children will increase to 91 percent of the Nation's 
     cities this year. They also document that emergency food 
     outlets in 56 percent of the Nation's cities turned away 
     hungry families last year because they ran out of resources. 
     The safety net that most Americans presume is there to catch 
     children before they sink too far is torn in too many places, 
     leaving too many in free fall. ``Food is a basic right for 
     every American child,'' says Bill Schorr, executive director 
     of Share Our Strength, the anti-hunger organization that 
     works with Parade and other partners to sponsor the Great 
     America Bake Sale. ``This is the wealthiest Nation on Earth. 
     We have the resources to wipe out child hunger in our time. 
     All it takes is the political will to make the welfare of 
     children one of the Nation's top priorities. The first step 
     is coming to terms with the shattering effect the unstable 
     economy has had on the families.''
       ``Despite a recent report that the economy has rebounded, 
     our pantry soup kitchens are trying to serve a surging number 
     of families,'' says Robert Forner, CEO of America's Second 
     Harvest, a network of more than 200 regional food banks. 
     Second Harvest distributed nearly 2 million pounds of food 
     last year to 23 million hungry Americans, 9 million children. 
     ``Millions of people have used up their unemployment 
     insurance benefits, spent their savings, sold off their 
     assets, and come to us because they have no way to feed their 
     families.''

  This is happening, Mr. President. So we have a thumbs down on minimum 
wage, thumbs down on unemployment compensation, overtime, and now an 
undermining of the pension system.
  I want to mention who is being affected by the decision to exclude 
the multiemployer pension programs. By cutting the multiemployer relief 
plan, President Bush--I will review the bidding. We went to the 
conference and we had 5 days of hearings. We basically had agreed we 
could not do 100 percent

[[Page 6826]]

because the House didn't do it, so we were going to do 20 percent. That 
was reported in the newspapers. They all show we had an agreement. The 
conferees understood that, until the White House said, no, no, we are 
not going to do that. They said you are going to take 3 or 4 percent. 
We said that is not a bargain, that is an insult. They said you can 
take it, and effectively they wrote the conference report, submitted it 
to the conference, and then during the final conference, Senator 
Grassley, to his credit, tried to find common ground. He said, OK, we 
won't take the 20 percent, but let's go to 8, or 10, or 9 percent on 
this. Many of us supported that. It was not a great proposal, but it 
was at least targeted on the neediest multiemployer programs. That was 
rejected under the orders of the White House--not the conferees. We 
worked it out at 20 percent. Now we have the proposal, according to the 
Wall Street Journal today, that effectively eliminates all--except 
perhaps 2 percent of the multiemployer programs.
  Let's find out what this is all about. The 9\1/2\ million people--who 
are they? Millions of workers could find themselves in the same 
situation as 500 retired ironworkers in Buffalo, NY, whose plan is on 
the verge of collapse because of stock market losses, economic 
downturn. These retirees could lose half of their pensions if their 
plan fails. Four hundred workers from Rockford, IL, whose employers 
have drastically increased contributions, cannot guarantee future 
benefits, so workers are paying for a pension they may never receive. A 
thousand workers in Connecticut, who have 50 employers who contribute 
to their pension fund--these employers are facing collapse if the 
pension fund fails. Workers across the country, from cement masons in 
Missouri, to sheet metal workers, to carpenters in Wisconsin, and 
electrical workers in Alaska are seeing their benefits cut as they and 
their employers are trying to save their plans. The problem is growing 
too rapidly. They are seeing the collapse of the pensions under the 
multiemployer system, and we are putting a death knell to them with 
this proposal before us.
  Low-wage workers are also being hurt. Hundreds of thousands of 
grocery store workers across the country are seeing the rate at which 
they earn their pensions slashed, sometimes cut in half. Many of these 
workers' only pension is a few hundred dollars a month. They are 
earning only half of that, so they will never have enough to retire. We 
are talking about grocery store clerks and cashiers around the country 
who are facing a threat to their pension.
  These workers earn from $10 to $15 an hour. Their average pension is 
only $500 a month. They cannot afford to see those pensions cut. Mr. 
President, 30,000 grocery store clerks and cashiers in the Seattle area 
have pension funds that are hitting a funding deficiency, where their 
employers owe excise taxes that drastically reduce the contributions, 
putting that whole program at risk. Workers agreed to cut their future 
pensions in half to save the plan. They are still facing a crisis in 
their plans.
  They did not need to face this crisis. All we need is to give 
consideration to the multiemployer plans, as we did to the single-
employer plans, and at what risk to the Pension Guaranty Corporation? 
Virtually zero, as the Senator from Louisiana pointed out. Virtually 
zero risk. All they need is time. But, no, because these are workers 
and many of them belong to unions.
  In southern California, 70,000 workers have had the rate at which 
they earn pensions slashed. They are facing an imminent funding crisis. 
In the Southeast, 40,000 workers at Kroger and Bruno grocery stores in 
Georgia and neighboring States have had their pensions cut by a third. 
In Portland, OR, 20,000 workers had the rate at which they earn 
pensions cut in half. But this is not nearly enough to avert what is an 
imminent funding crisis.
  All these funds are in serious crisis, with companies facing 
increased contributions, penalties, and workers having their pensions 
cut. Not a single one of these funds is eligible for relief from the 
narrow bill dictated to the Congress by the White House in the 
conference report. These are basically the small businesses that are 
affected.
  Just a week ago, the President claimed the small business agenda is 
vibrant and foremost on his agenda. He says it is important to reduce 
taxes to small businesses so they will have more money to invest, while 
at the same time he was saying this, the staff at the White House was 
pulling the rug out from under thousands of businesses in multiemployer 
plans.
  Over half of the 65,000 multiemployers are small businesses. Small 
businesses, family businesses are the ones that will be hurt. They will 
not be able to use their money to invest and expand, and they will be 
paying excise taxes imposed by the IRS on the pension plans. These are 
just a few examples.
  Acme Industrial Pipefitting in Chattanooga, TN, which has 50 workers, 
is going to see their annual contributions to its pension plan more 
than double from $200,000 to $500,000. We had their president, Jim 
Bailey, say: I am not asking for a nickel from the Federal Government; 
just give me the time you are giving to the big boys. No, we are not 
going to do that, not for Acme Pipefitting in Chattanooga.
  The Coghlin Electrical Contractors, a fourth generation family 
business, faced increased payments of millions of dollars. Mr. Coghlin, 
and other contractors in the area, say this is catastrophic.
  Procaccio Painting in the Chicago area: Mr. Procaccio tells us he 
just cannot participate in any economic recovery.
  You know what they are basically saying, although they will not 
announce it. They are going to terminate the pension programs, and this 
is completely unnecessary. This is what we are facing.
  That is where we find ourselves. This conference report provides $80 
billion--$80 billion--for single-employer plans and $1.6 billion for 
airlines and steel, but less than $250 million for a handful of 
multiemployer plans. These provisions are punitive, unfair, and 
discriminatory. Clearly, President Bush cares more about hurting the 
union workers than helping small businesses.
  This chart shows who gets the relief. Here it is: $81.6 billion for 
the single-employer; less than $250 million for the multiemployer. That 
represents effectively 10 million workers. I can show just who they 
are.
  The multiemployer plans allow workers to earn pensions under 
different employers. This helps workers in short-term or seasonal 
employment--construction, hospitality, entertainment or retail--to earn 
a pension. Many could not earn pensions in the single-employer system.
  The multiemployer plans provide pensions to low-wage workers, 
including hotel workers, restaurant workers, and janitors. 
Multiemployer plans are a critical source of pensions for employees of 
small businesses. Without these plans, small businesses could not 
afford to provide pensions.
  This chart shows the percentage of workers in construction, about 38 
percent; truck transportation, 10 percent; services, 15 percent; retail 
trade, 14 percent; and manufacturing, 15 percent. These are workers in 
small businesses.
  As I pointed out earlier, this chart shows what has happened in this 
legislation. The Senate bill provides 100- percent relief for the 
single-employer plans. The conferees agreed to provide relief for 20 
percent of those who need it the most in multiemployer plans, and the 
White House insisted the final conference comes out with less than 4 
percent. It is wrong, Mr. President. We are talking about the same 
workers who have been the most vulnerable in the job market, who have 
lost their jobs, and if they get reemployed, they will be paid less. 
They are the ones who depend on unemployment insurance when they lose 
their jobs. That is being terminated. Many of them depend upon an 
increase in the minimum wage. That has been lacking. Many of them 
depend on overtime, and this administration is threatening them. 
Finally, they may just have been able to have something put away for a 
pension, and that is being destroyed. That is wrong. It is unfair.
  The bill that applies to the single-employer plan should give the 
same

[[Page 6827]]

coverage to multiemployer plans. That is all we are asking. We have 
fought for the single-employer, but we also fight for the 
multiemployer. All we are asking is fairness to both. This bill does 
not provide it.
  If we were able to defeat this proposal, as I said, it would take 5 
minutes to readdress it, the House would pass it, and we would have a 
bill on the President's desk. That would be fair. That would be just. 
That is the way we should proceed.
  I will be glad to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I know my colleague from New Jersey 
wishes to speak on this issue for 2 minutes. I thank the Senator for 
his generous yielding of time. I yield 2 of my 10 minutes to Senator 
Corzine, and I will then take the other 8 myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
2 minutes.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleague from 
Massachusetts to say this is an extraordinary failure to deal with 
small business employers across this country and their workers.
  I find it difficult to believe that what is necessary for the Fortune 
500 is not necessary for the small grocery stores, construction 
contractors, and others across this Nation. These pension funds are at 
risk, and there is no reason we should not apply the same rules to the 
small companies and the workers who are at risk in their pensions as we 
do for the large companies.
  We spent in 2003 $5 million on these small companies we have 
eliminated in this conference report. We spent billions on large 
companies--billions. Where is the sensibility, particularly from the 
administration and from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
who are so enamored with every economic argument they make that they 
want to support small business, and they are walking away from this.
  This is absolutely outside the context of reasonableness. We can turn 
this around and get this bill corrected and have it deal with small 
business and multiemployer pension funds, as well as the Fortune 500. 
We would make a major improvement. Thirty percent of the workers we are 
talking about who are exposed--almost 10 million--are being left out. 
As the Senator from Massachusetts so ably said, these are the same 
people who are getting pressed over and over on property taxes, the 
cost of tuition, rising gas prices--the middle class, the hardest 
working folks in America. We are turning our backs on them saying this 
is great.
  By the way, I want this for major employers. We want it. Continental 
Airlines is headquartered in New Jersey. We need to do it. I support 
this effort by the Senator from Massachusetts.
  We should oppose this conference report, fix it, and bring it back 
for a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first let me thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts for his generous yielding of time and for his leadership 
on this issue.
  There is no question about it, this is a sad day when we have to pit 
workers who work for large employers versus workers who work for small 
employers in terms of their pension.


                     Testimony of Condoleezza Rice

  I am not here to address that issue. As head of our Task Force on 
National Security and Homeland Security, I am here to respond to the 
testimony of adviser Condoleezza Rice. The hearings we have had and 
Condoleezza Rice's decision to testify is all to the good. To quote 
from the Scriptures, the truth shall set you free, and this 
Commission--half Democrat, half Republican--has endeavored, is 
endeavoring, will endeavor to find the truth.
  The bottom line is the Commission is bipartisan. The people on it 
tend to be those who look at things not as Democrats or Republicans but 
as experts, and the Commission is needed. The bottom line, too, is we 
should not look to this Commission for pointing fingers of blame. It is 
very easy, in hindsight, to say this should be done or that should be 
done, and I do not object to the fact this administration--or I 
understand the fact this administration and others made mistakes. 
Everyone in America made mistakes. So that is not the problem with the 
testimony of Condoleezza Rice.
  The problem is something else. Unfortunately, we did not hear from 
Adviser Rice three important words: We made mistakes.
  Of course, we made mistakes. This administration made mistakes. The 
previous administrations made mistakes. The inability of this 
administration and of the National Security Adviser to admit mistakes 
were made makes us fear we will make future mistakes because, after 
all, the only way we are able to understand what went wrong is to first 
acknowledge it and then say we are going to correct it.
  We may not be dealing with al-Qaida in the future. We may be dealing 
with Chechnyans or East Timorese or skinheads. Unless we realize what 
went wrong and why we failed to pick up the warning signs, we are less 
likely to pick up future warning signs that could create even greater 
terror than the terrible terror on September 11 that befell my city.
  Is it for sure that had everything been done right we could never 
have prevented 9/11, as Adviser Rice says? I doubt it. There are six 
facts that, if they all were to be put together, would have clearly 
pointed the arrow at what happened.
  First, 12 intelligence reports throughout the 1990s showed terrorists 
would use planes as missiles to attack American targets.
  Second, upon entering office in January, Dr. Rice read a memo from 
Dick Clarke indicating there were active al-Qaida cells in the United 
States.
  Third, in the summer of 2001, there was a threat spike about 
terrorist activities against American targets, including hijackings and 
warnings that something very big was about to happen.
  Fourth, on July 10, 2001, a document was sent to FBI headquarters in 
Washington from Phoenix, warning several Islamic militants had enrolled 
in flight schools in Arizona and positing that al-Qaida was trying to 
infiltrate the U.S. aviation system.
  Sixth, we missed warning signs from Special Agent Rowley in Minnesota 
about Zacarias Moussaoui, an Islamic radical who was getting special 
aviation training.
  Finally, on August 6, a White House briefing memo to the President 
stated, ``bin Laden determined to attack in the United States,'' which 
was specific examples from the FBI of al-Qaida moves against Americans.
  If, if, if, if on August 6 word went from the White House out to the 
FBI and all of the intelligence agencies, go turn over every rock and 
find out what al-Qaida is up to, it is very conceivable we would have 
been able to figure out what they might be doing, certainly disperse 
some of the terrorists, two of whom were known to be in the United 
States, from doing what they had done.
  Is it a certainty? Absolutely not. Is it a possibility? For sure. To 
say it would be impossible to add up these signs and figure out what 
happened is dead wrong, as it would be dead wrong to say it is a 
certainty you could figure that out.
  So the bottom line is simple. It is not the fact this administration 
did not try very hard on terrorism, because in the eyes of Security 
Adviser Rice they did. It is not the fact certain things were missed. 
They were missed by this administration--and let me underscore previous 
administrations--but it is the fact this administration, the President 
and his advisers, have this inability to say mistakes were made, under 
our watch and under previous watches. That leads to an attitude that we 
do not correct the problems.
  Every parent knows when their child makes a mistake, they try to get 
the child to understand they made the mistake and maybe they will not 
do it again, but somehow we have this stonewalling and that is the most 
destructive fact.
  Right now we hope and pray the messy situation in Iraq ends and ends 
quickly and that our Armed Forces can do the job against such bad 
people as this Sadr leader, but if the eyes of the

[[Page 6828]]

administration were more open to what had been done wrongly in the 
past, maybe we would be better off in Iraq today. I say that as 
somebody who has been largely supportive of fighting the war on terror, 
voting for the war in Iraq.
  What bothers me most about the testimony of Condoleezza Rice and the 
actions of this administration is not that they did not do everything 
right. Who could ask anyone to do that in this brave, new, post-9/11 
world? But there is an inability to want to gather all the truth and 
figure out from that truth what was done right, what was done wrong, 
and improve and make things better.
  The one lesson we learned in Vietnam is when our leaders did not 
accept the truth, it made matters worse. When our leaders failed to 
admit mistakes, it made things worse. Unfortunately, today's testimony 
shows an inability to admit mistakes were made and move forward and 
correct those mistakes and make America a more secure place in the 
future. I hope and pray it changes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 112 
minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. And the minority?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixty minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I had not thought this debate was going to 
enlarge itself into the issue of the testimony before the 9/11 
Commission, but it appears the other side of the aisle has decided the 
pension bill is not enough to debate today on this floor, even though 
that is what it was to be limited to, but it raises this issue. So I 
think it is appropriate to at least respond briefly, although the 
response could be much more extensive. However, I will try to return to 
the pension bill at the appropriate time since that is what we are 
debating.
  I will respond briefly to the statements of the Senator from New 
York, which I found to be outrageous. Maybe the Senator from New York 
did not listen to the testimony of Mr. Clarke. He very possibly did 
not, because he appears to have decided to make up his mind long before 
the National Security Adviser, Ms. Rice, testified.
  I think it was Mr. Clarke who said--in fact, I know it was Mr. Clarke 
who said, in response to a question from Senator Gorton, if the 
administration had put in place every recommendation you suggested to 
the prior administration and to this administration, and which you put 
in your memos and your statements upon arrival of this administration 
in office in January, if the administration had done that--in other 
words, if the administration had pursued every course which had been 
laid out by Mr. Clarke, who was the guru of terrorism in the prior 
administration, which I also wish to comment on, would that have 
stopped the 9/11 event? Would that have prevented the 9/11 event? A 
one-word answer from Mr. Clarke: No.
  Yet we have the Senator from New York say the opposite. I do not 
think the Senator from New York has the expertise of Mr. Clarke, and 
most certainly he has not presented himself as an expert on terrorism. 
Mr. Clarke has presented himself as an expert on terrorism, was the 
expert on terrorism in the Clinton administration, and did say 
definitively, in a one-word answer, no, 9/11 would not have been 
avoided had everything gone into place I wanted in place--I being Mr. 
Clarke.
  The statement by the Senator from New York is excessive, to say the 
least, when he says 9/11 could have been avoided.
  Then when he goes on to accuse this administration of not learning 
from lessons of the past--I will tell you something. This 
administration did learn from lessons of the past. The lessons of the 
past were the lessons of the Clinton administration, which were when 
our embassies were attacked in Africa and when our ship was attacked in 
Yemen, what was the response of the prior administration? They lobbed a 
missile into an empty terrorist camp in Afghanistan and then lobbed 
another missile into the wrong factory in Sudan and then washed their 
hands of Mr. bin Laden and said they had accomplished their purpose of 
defeating terrorism.
  What we learned after 9/11 was that those sorts of marginal 
responses, those sorts of tepid responses to terrorism do not work in 
the present world and certainly this administration learned that.
  I hesitate to think where we would be today had Al Gore been elected 
President. I suspect we would still be negotiating with the Taliban in 
Afghanistan.
  This administration decided not to negotiate. This administration 
decided to take action. It went into Afghanistan and it destroyed the 
base of al-Qaida operations in that country and replaced a repressive 
regime that did not even allow women out of their houses and supported 
all forms of terrorism across this globe and especially the al-Qaida 
terrorism. They learned the lessons of the prior administration, which 
were tepid response does not work.
  Then we moved into Iraq. As a government, we voted to move in that 
direction. Why? Because some of us understood that Saddam Hussein was a 
significant, dramatic threat to world peace and specifically was a 
dictator who had the capacity and had used weapons of mass destruction, 
who was oppressive at a level which hadn't been seen since the times of 
Nazi Germany, and who had the capacity to use his oppressiveness and 
his megalomania and his criminal view of the world to our detriment. He 
was a threat to us because of his ability to pass on that threat, the 
capacity to pass on weaponry, the capacity to be a sanctuary, and the 
capacity to be a feeding ground for people who caused us harm.
  We are at war, there is no question about that, and we have, as a 
government under this President, pursued that war with an 
aggressiveness which was absolutely appropriate. We have chased these 
people who wished to do us harm across the globe. We have kicked over 
the rocks under which they live and we have brought them to justice so 
today their fear, their concern, is about where they sleep, not who 
they are going to attack tomorrow.
  That is the type of response we needed as a government and as a 
nation, in light of what happened to us on 9/11. For the Senator from 
New York to come down here and say we did not learn the lessons of 9/11 
and the lessons of the prior administration--which approached terrorism 
with such tepidness--is an absolute misstatement.
  For them to come down here and say, after Mr. Clarke, who they have 
held up as the epitome of knowledge and expertise in the area of 
terrorism, testified in one word that 9/11 could not have been stopped, 
when he said ``no'' to that exact question, had all of his proposals 
been put in place--for the Senator from New York to come down here and 
make the statement we could have avoided 9/11, in light of that 
testimony, I find excessive to an incomprehensible degree.
  I didn't intend to speak on this issue, but unfortunately it was 
drawn into this debate and I think it required a response.
  The National Security Adviser today went before the Commission and 
testified under oath and made a clear and concise statement of how we 
as a nation are responding to terrorism, how we as a nation are 
fighting a war against people who have decided to try to destroy our 
culture and who have proven their willingness to kill Americans 
indiscriminately, whether they are men, women, or children.
  We are using all our resources as a result of this President's 
commitment, which is total and absolute, to bring these terrorists to 
justice. I do not think statements such as those of the Senator from 
New York are constructive to the debate on that issue.
  To return to the pension fund, a little less inflammatory subject, 
obviously not having the import of the fight for survival, which is 
what this war on terrorism is about for us as a culture, but still 
legislation we need to address on the floor.

[[Page 6829]]

  We have heard from a number of speakers on the other side of the 
aisle how the bill, as it came back from conference, to use their 
phrase, is an attack on 9.5 million union workers who were not included 
in the multiemployer reform language of the bill.
  My interest in this bill was to correct the interest rate question, 
which has been done. It was the essence of this bill. As I said 
earlier, it corrects the fact that $80 billion could be misallocated if 
we did not correct it. If we did not correct it, we could undermine 
capital investment and job creation.
  But I do want to respond, not necessarily to the debate about how 
many multi's should have been included, but to some of the language 
which was used as to why the ``multi'' language was limited in scope, 
because it was partisan, to say the least, especially from the Senator 
from Louisiana, who said that 9.5 million construction workers who are 
union people would be left out of the ``multi'' reform bill as it was 
structured.
  That is hard to do, because there are only 8.5 million people who are 
in the private sector union membership rolls, so she must have found 
another million people somewhere in the private sector union membership 
rolls to come up with that number. She must have assumed that none of 
the people who were protected--whose concerns were addressed, as was 
pointed out by the Senator from Massachusetts, where he had the number 
of 35 million people who would be positively impacted by the fix on 
interest rates--that none of those people are union people and that 
none of the people whose issues are addressed by the rifleshot DRC 
reform dealing with airlines are union people and that the White House 
somehow, according to the Senator from Louisiana, just picked out union 
people and decided to cut them out of this agreement.
  But on the face of it that doesn't fly. First off, there are not 9.5 
million people in the private sector union movement; there are only 8.5 
million or 8. That is a lot of people, 8.5 million people. A large 
number of those folks are included in the DRC program, which is a 
targeted program, which happens to be the reason the UAW supports this 
bill--another large group of these people who are included in the 
interest rate fix, which is why the UAW supports this bill. A large 
number of the union people are pilot union people and other union 
people who work for airlines who are included under the DRC section of 
this bill, so they are happy with this bill.
  This bill is not broken down on the basis of whether you are union or 
not union. To make that statement is totally disingenuous on the face 
of the fact that it can't be defended. In fact, it is so indefensible 
that when Senator Kennedy spoke he talked about how the people impacted 
here were small businesspeople and how the administration left out all 
of the small businesspeople by not including all the multi's because 
most of those are small businesspeople. You can't have it both ways. 
You can't say the White House is attacking the labor movement by 
leaving out a group of multi's in this bill claiming that was the 
case--I will get to that in a second; it wasn't necessarily the White 
House--and at the same time say you are attacking the small business 
folks by leaving out the multi's.
  That is so inconsistent on its face that it brings a smile. 
Obviously, small businesses, theoretically at least, traditionally have 
been considered to be very supportive of this President and of 
Republican philosophy. If they are saying the White House, by not 
agreeing to the full multi language, was attacking small business, then 
at the same time you can't say the bill was structured to attack 
unions, which is exactly what they said. It is exactly what the Senator 
from Louisiana said, anyway. I think the Senator from Massachusetts 
also had some comments in that vein.
  The inconsistency of the argument on its face is so apparent that it 
holds no validity. I was not actively involved in this negotiation. 
Obviously, I was in the conference, but I didn't, as they say, ``have a 
dog in this fight'' because I was focused on trying to get the interest 
rate fix through, which I think is a bigger part of the package. But 
the reason the debate on multi's got shifted around was that--I would, 
again, point this out to the Senator from Louisiana who asked why this 
didn't happen, why didn't they get their way--it is two branches of 
Government. When it left the House, this bill had no multi's, none, 
zero, zip. The White House took the position there should be no 
multicoverage. That is one-half of the legislative branch and all of 
the executive branch saying they do not want any multicoverage. The 
Senate came out with language that said all multi's should be covered.
  In the process of negotiation, compromise and conference, which 
happens to be basically how you do things in a democracy, what is known 
as an agreement was reached which gave coverage to a certain number of 
multiplans, about 50. It was a limited number; no question about it. It 
was a very small number.
  But the way that number was reached, as I understand it, there was an 
understanding that all multi's shouldn't be covered. There was a 
general consensus on that.
  Again, when the Senator from Louisiana came down here and said not 
all multi's had been covered, that this was an attack on multi's, that 
was never the understanding when we reached conference. Everyone in 
that room in the conference came to the conclusion that the multi's 
which should be covered were those at serious risk of defaulting. Those 
were the ones we were going to try to take care of. We had a real issue 
from an actuarial standpoint of figuring out exactly which that was and 
how you calculated it. It is not an easy issue to resolve.
  The Senator from Massachusetts took the very legitimate position that 
20 percent of the multi's were probably at risk. That was a calculation 
which he reached through an actuarial firm that took a look at it.
  The White House took the position there should be no multi's at all.
  Remember, these multi's are small employers. It wasn't an attack on 
unions. It was both small employers and unions.
  It wasn't a philosophical or a political decision, as the Senator 
from Louisiana said. If you have a union card, and you weren't allowed 
to play in the game, or Democratic card I think they said that is 
absolutely ridiculous. The small businesses don't carry union cards, 
and hopefully not too many carry Democrat cards, either. But who knows?
  As a practical matter, they did not divide on the issue of whether 
you voted and why you voted. They divided on the philosophical position 
of whether multi's should be included in this 2-year reform package.
  The impact of the White House position equally impacted union plans, 
union members, and affected more significantly small businesses than it 
did members of the union. It is quite obvious. I suspect there are more 
small businesses affected by the White House position that multi's 
shouldn't be included than there are members of unions. It was such a 
fallacious argument that it doesn't even stand up to the laugh test.
  But the point is, when we got into the conference, there was a 
difference between the Senator from Massachusetts who said 20 percent 
of the plans were at risk and the White House that thought no plans 
should be included. The White House initially said no plan should be 
included, but then after a while, due to the strong and effective 
advocacy of the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Iowa, a 
series of different proposals were put on the table until they finally 
got to a point where they could get a majority vote in the conference 
to support a position. It was a compromise position; no question about 
it. It was definitely a compromise position.
  Senator Grassley did make another offer that was not accepted. The 
offer that was finally accepted--because we happen to be a government 
where you have to get the Senate and the House to agree and you have to 
get the White House to agree--was the package that

[[Page 6830]]

is before us. The package that is before us has the inherently good 
benefit, as the Senator from Massachusetts appropriately pointed out, 
of benefiting 35 million American workers by correcting the interest 
rate fix issue, and of benefiting, if you are so inclined, three major 
airlines which potentially would go under if this bill didn't pass, and 
two major steel companies, which are integrated steel companies which 
would go under if this bill didn't pass, and 50 multiplans, including 
the single largest plan in the country, the Midwestern plan.
  That is how we got to this point. It is not the perfect bill. Nothing 
that ever comes out of conference is the perfect bill. We have 
certainly proven that over and over again. I think judicial note can be 
taken about that. But it is a bill that was reached by compromise 
through the process with a lot of different players at the table who 
had a very strong opinion as to where we should go. It was not done on 
the basis of any sort of retribution or attempt to single out an 
interest group and negatively impact them. On the face of it, that 
position cannot be defended because so many small businesspeople are 
impacted by the multilanguage in this bill, and also because of the 
fact so many union members are benefited by the interest rate fix in 
the bill and by the targeted rifleshot that goes into this bill dealing 
with airlines and steel companies.
  That, hopefully, puts to rest that side of the argument made on this 
case.
  If the Senator from Massachusetts has other very legitimate concerns 
in this bill, I acknowledge the fact we didn't get the 20 percent he 
wanted on the multi's that were at risk which might go into default. 
That is a legitimate reason to oppose this bill, if that is the 
position. You cannot oppose this bill, as the Senator from Louisiana 
did, on the basis that it is an attack on some group. That is simply a 
function of politics. It clearly isn't, and the facts and the debate 
from the other side prove it.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a list of the small business organizations and business 
groups that are in strong support of the conference including the 
multiemployer provisions. They include the Association of General 
Contractors of America, the Cherne Contracting Group, Energab, Inc., 
the Finishing Contractors Association, National Electrical Contractors 
Association, Printing Industries of America, Sheet Metal and Air 
Conditioning Contractors' National Association, Schnuck Markets, Inc., 
the Food Marketing Institute, the Mechanical Contractors' of America 
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipe 
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, and the Washington 
Group International, as well as others. This represents only part of 
the small business groups and associations that believe if we are going 
to provide help and relief for the single employer, we should do it for 
the multiemployer as well.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     American Federation of Musicians
     American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
     The Associated General Contractors of America
     Cherne Contracting Corp.
     Construction Industries of Massachsuetts--Labor Relations 
         Division
     Enerfab, Inc.
     International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental 
         and Reinforcing Iron Workers
     International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and 
         Asbestos Workers
     International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship 
         Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers
     International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
     International Brotherhood of Teamsters
     International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers
     International Union of Electrical Workers
     International Union of Elevator Constructors
     International Union of Operating Engineers
     Internatioinal Union of Painters and Allied Trades of the 
         United States and Canada
     Laborers' International Union of North America
     National Association of Construction Boilermaker Employers 
         (NACBE)
     Finishing Contractors Association
     National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans 
         (NCCMP)
     National Electrical Contractors Association
     NEA--The Association of Union Constructors Operative 
         Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association 
         of the United States and Canada
     Plumbers' and Pipefitters' National Pension Fund
     Printing Industries of America, Inc.
     Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National 
         Association
     Sheet Metal Workers' International Association of the United 
         States and Canada
     Schnuck Markets, Inc.
     The Food Marketing Institute
     The Mechanical Contractors' of America
     United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the 
         Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States 
         and Canada
     United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America
     United Food and Commercial Workers' International Union
     United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers
     Washington Group International

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I point out for the Record the fact 
that when the Senate considered the pension reform bill, the provisions 
in the bill that provided for the multiemployers actually provided a 
$42 million favorable score for the Federal Treasury. They made money 
while the single-employer had a cost of $1.5 billion. The multiemployer 
actually made money for the Treasury.
  The idea included in the White House letter opposing the inclusion of 
the multiemployer because it was going to put the burden on the Pension 
Guaranty just does not measure up. That is the point of the Senator 
from Louisiana. There has to be another reason. It is not because it 
will cost the PBGC.
  This chart says PBGC assistance to multiemployer plans is less than 1 
percent of assistance to single-employer fans. This is the GAO finding 
representing 35 million workers. This represents 10 million, except 
these programs, although they have not been costly--$5 billion in 
2003--are excluded. That is what is unfair. The question is, Why are we 
excluding them? It is not the additional burden. It could not be. The 
facts do not justify it. There has to be another reason. The reason is, 
I believe, the fact they are the union members which the administration 
has been strongly opposed to providing.
  We say the White House is against it. The House is against it. 
Therefore, why should we include it? The fact is, the Senate had 100 
percent, the House had nothing. You should have at least 50 percent.
  The nature of the discussion in the course of the conference was, 
let's find out what the real need is. That seemed to be a sensible and 
responsible position, whatever the percentage. So we looked at what 
they call the single corporation, which is accepted by Republican and 
Democratic--certainly, the staffers, the professionals on this--as 
being a fairminded assessment. They found one in three of the 
multiemployers are facing difficulty, but one in nine are facing severe 
difficulty. We took the one in nine and tried to translate that into a 
formula that would help those in the most serious trouble. We all 
agreed on that--get a formula. It came out to approximately 20 percent.
  That was in the newspapers. That is what the staff would certainly 
have agreed Thursday, 2 weeks ago. That was the agreement. It was in 
the Washington Post, not that that is the final word, but they have 
been following it closely. There is agreement that 20 percent of the 
worst-off plans should get assistance. That was my understanding. That 
was reported. No one contested that.
  Then we get a surprise. We are about to have a final meeting and the 
White House suddenly gets the word on this and says, no, no, we are not 
going to do that. They come up with language that will get us down to 
approximately 4 percent.
  The rest is history. The efforts that were made to try to get it up, 
move it from 20 down to 12 or 10, were all rejected as well. According 
to the Wall

[[Page 6831]]

Street Journal, taking the language and going back to Segal, it is now 
probably 2 percent. The fact is, this is not going to put an additional 
burden on the Pension Guaranty Corporation. The employer plans are more 
stable than single-employer pension plans because even if one employer 
goes out of business, the other employers continue to support the 
pension fund.
  Of the thousands of multiemployer plans that have been insured by the 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, only 33 multiemployer plans have 
ever received financial assistance from the PBGC, and the PBGC 
multiemployer program has enjoyed a surplus for a 20-year history.
  The idea is we have a fragile Pension Guaranty Corporation; we can 
only do the single employer; we cannot afford to do the other. It does 
not hold. So we have to ask, What is the other reason? Particularly 
after we reached a fair compromise to only deal with those that were at 
greatest risks. The answer was, we are not going to compromise on this. 
As I mentioned at the time of the proposal, it was not a compromise, it 
was basically an insult.
  That is it. What the conference did was admirable with regard to 
single-employer plans. It is grossly unfair to the multiemployer plans. 
It is basically excluding coverage for almost 10 million workers who 
are facing the same kind of economic challenges. The others, I 
seriously believe, we would have passed overwhelmingly, a proposal that 
would have taken into consideration those that were at the greatest 
risk in the multiple. They are the ones that are the pension programs 
that deal with the smaller businesses. Some of those small business 
associations strongly support the inclusion of the multiemployer and, 
of course, the large number of workers that will be affected.
  I still believe we ought to take a position and a stand that says, 
look, what we did for the single one makes sense. We are supporting. 
But we also think it is grossly unfair to 10 million Americans to say 
we are giving them the back of the hand when their expansion plans are 
under the similar kind of pressure and they are representing workers 
who are generally lower income and from smaller businesses and whose 
pension plans are heavily stretched, given the economic times.
  I talked to my friend from New Hampshire, and the Senator from 
Washington wanted some time. I believe the Senator from Iowa, Senator 
Harkin, wanted a few minutes, and the Senator from New York. Then we 
would be prepared to suggest to work out with the leadership an 
appropriate way to have a vote at an appropriate time and let others 
who would like to speak on another subject be able to address the 
Senate. If there are other colleagues who want to speak, if they can 
let us know forthwith, we will try to work out with the leadership and 
the other side an appropriate time for a vote.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Washington.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2236

  Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding 
some time from this important debate on pensions. Obviously it has been 
a busy day in Washington talking about a variety of different issues 
important to our country.
  One issue our colleagues ought to realize is pending business on our 
calendar that could be brought up for discussion is, what should we do 
in light of the fact that we finally got a recommendation on reports 
about the blackouts that happened in our country from New York through 
the Midwest? We now have a report saying that liability legislation is 
needed to ensure consumers can be protected from the transmission grid 
and the blackouts that have been occurring.
  Many of my colleagues may think of the latest New York blackout that 
happened just several months ago as a great catastrophe. Some of them 
may have forgotten that since 1996, we have had many blackouts 
throughout the United States. In fact, all of the States in black on 
this map show the number of blackouts we have had in various regions. 
In our Northwest region, in Washington, we had a blackout several years 
ago that cost consumers not only inconvenience, but millions of dollars 
of impact.
  The question is, What are we going to do to try to get consumers more 
reliability in electricity? While a lot of my colleagues would like to 
say we will pass an energy bill, it has been clear for some time that 
the Energy bill has gotten bogged down with a variety of items 
involving pork barrel spending. The most famous line my constituents 
remind me of in the Energy bill: Hooters, polluters and Enron looters. 
What are we doing about getting the energy policy this country needs 
and moving it forward?
  One piece of legislation that has been hung up has been the 
reliability standards legislation. We have, this week, a report issued 
by the United States-Canada Power System Task Force, their final 
report, asking, Why did the blackout happen in the United States and 
Canada and what do we want to do?
  The No. 1 recommendation from the report is make reliability 
standards mandatory and enforce them with penalties for noncompliance. 
That was the No. 1 recommendation out of that report. Why don't we do 
that? If we cannot agree on the rest of the Energy bill, why don't we 
take this stand-alone piece of legislation and pass it so we can give 
consumers the confidence that we have some rules and regulations in 
place for reliability.
  A lot of Americans woke up after the New York and Midwest blackout 
and said, geez, how did this happen?
  I think a lot of people assumed there were rules and regulations in 
place on reliability, but there are not. There is no rule in place that 
says: This is how much electricity you have to have as a backup. There 
is no rule in place that says: This is how you need to make sure Akron, 
OH, or Toledo, OH, or someplace in New York has enough electricity, 
given the kinds of demands and the peak we are going to see in those 
areas. Those rules are not in place.
  You can ask yourself why those rules are not in place, and what has 
transpired on energy policy and been debated over the last several 
years, as we moved towards deregulation. But the bottom line is, now 
that a majority of States across the country since 1996 have had 
blackouts, we have had a demand for reliability legislation. We also 
now have a task force that has said the No. 1 thing you need to do is 
pass this legislation. Yet this legislation is being held hostage to 
passing a larger energy bill.
  If my colleagues think I am overstating this case, I would like them 
to think about the legislative history here, because my predecessor, 
Slade Gorton, introduced similar legislation after Washington State had 
a blackout. We had a blackout and said: Gee, this is crazy. How can you 
not have reliability standards? How can you not have rules in place to 
make sure there is enough power for consumers at peak times? He 
proposed reliability legislation that actually passed the Senate, and 
got held hostage in the House of Representatives because people wanted 
to see more energy deregulation, so the legislation never passed. Now 
we have been through two more Congresses where no reliability 
legislation was passed.
  The interesting thing is the majority of Members in both the House 
and the Senate actually support this bill, this stand-alone bill, that 
now is sponsored by Senator Bingaman, Senator Snowe, Senator Clinton, 
Senator Jeffords, Senator Schumer, Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, and 
myself. This legislation, I believe, does have the majority of support 
by both House and Senate Members. People want to see it pass, but it 
continues to be held hostage to getting a general energy bill.
  I can tell my colleagues we have had enough of the energy debate, and 
I think even that this latest FSC/ETI bill, in which some of the energy 
package was added to that legislation, is a sign of recognition by my 
colleagues it is going to be very tough to get that comprehensive bill 
this year. So why not do the responsible thing? Why not do the 
responsible thing and have this energy legislation pass now as a stand-
alone bill and give consumers the confidence there are rules and 
regulations

[[Page 6832]]

in place before we have another blackout?
  The issue has been clear for some time now, and has been debated and 
studied by U.S.-Canada Power System Task Force. In fact, the task force 
even went on to say:

       If reliability legislation had been enacted when first 
     proposed (in 1999), I believe that a blackout would not have 
     occurred.

  That is a statement from the chairman of the North American Energy 
Reliability Council. He testified before the Energy Committee. I asked 
him this very question. I said: Do we need to pass this legislation? 
And should we pass it as a stand-alone? He said: Yes, we should. He 
was, I think, then followed by the chairman of the committee, who said: 
Well, it is not time to do that yet. Let's keep pushing on the larger 
Energy bill.
  How many more weeks are we going to let go by with the American 
consumer not having reliability standards in place, having their energy 
supply in question about whether they are going to have reliability?
  I know some people think: Well, gee, things happen. There is too much 
demand.
  You have an impact. Consumers, individuals, in various regions of the 
country have dealt with it. People should understand the New York 
blackout cost us between $4 billion and $10 billion for those days that 
businesses did not have power, when people could not conduct business, 
and could not continue with their livelihoods. That is merely what we 
ended up losing in terms of revenue. Not only is it an inconvenience to 
consumers and unsafe--an issue where we have left a lot of elderly 
people without the resources and reliability they have counted on--we 
also have negatively impacted our economy.
  While we are here in Washington talking about national security and 
how we make everyone more secure, the clearest answer is--at least with 
regard to the electricity grid--to pass this legislation, and pass it 
now before we adjourn for another recess and leave these standards 
again hostage to this Energy bill, saying we have to have a 
comprehensive energy bill to pass it. It is not responsible to the 
citizens of this country to leave them without these standards.
  The legislation specifically gives the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission the authority to make sure, working with the North American 
Energy Reliability Council, that these rules and regulations are in 
place. Again, for some of my colleagues who may not be familiar with 
our electricity grid and how the system works, we do not have somebody 
right now who determines, in the various regions of the country, how 
much power supply an organization must have, or penalties for not 
having that supply.
  The way regional transmission organizations have been formed, and the 
way they operate, is it is only one entity pushes the electricity out 
and puts more power onto the grid. These RTOs have no obligation or 
responsibility to make sure there is reliability in the system.
  I think that is shocking that our country, with a large economic 
engine and so many people depending on things such as e-commerce that 
are absolutely dependent upon electricity for millions of dollars, if 
not billions of dollars, a day in transactions, can say that we have no 
reliability standards in place to protect consumers and businesses from 
these kinds of outages that have occurred in the past.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2236

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending bill be set 
aside and that the Senate now turn to Calendar No. 465, S. 2236, a bill 
to enhance the reliability of the electric system; that the bill be 
read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on 
the table, without intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. CANTWELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam President.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in reluctant support, for the 
conference report in front of us.
  The conference agreement makes great strides towards heading off an 
impending crisis in private pensions. Requiring private companies to 
measure the solvency of their defined benefit plans with the 30-year 
Treasury bill as a benchmark has not been feasible for some time. Ever 
since the U.S. Government stopped issuing these bonds, the market for 
them, and the interest rates they pay, have been distorted. That forced 
businesses to contribute more to their pension plans than was really 
necessary. During a time when private enterprise is under so much 
pressure from foreign competition and a weak economy, these extra 
contributions have been a tremendous strain on small and large 
businesses alike. Without the changes laid out in this bill, many 
companies would be forced to end their defined benefit plans.
  Defined benefit plans are too scarce today, and we need to encourage 
and sustain their use by companies that have chosen to offer them. 
These plans, which offer a set benefit usually based on how long an 
employee has worked for a company, provide a kind of security for 
employees that market-dependent 401(k)s and IRAs cannot.
  Unfortunately, the benefits the bill handed out to all single-
employer plans were not given equally to multiemployer plans. There 
seems to be little reason for this decision, other than some of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle were unwilling to help out 
plans that benefit members of organized labor. There is some help for 
multiemployer plans in this bill, but it is not nearly enough. I have 
heard from many unions, especially the construction trades, who 
strongly oppose this bill because they believe it is mean spirited and 
will force their members to make significant sacrifices. I am reluctant 
to vote against the men and women who build our homes and move our 
goods, but I am not left much choice.
  If we delay this bill beyond April 15, businesses across the country 
will be forced to contribute large amounts of money to their pension 
plans to meet their quarterly obligations. Some of them will be unable 
to make those contributions and will be forced to withdraw the plan 
from their employees. To keep workers from losing their pension 
benefits, and to remedy a long-overdue policy, I have to support the 
bill before us.
  I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a section of the 
bill that will substantially benefit both businesses and consumers in 
Wisconsin. Included in the pension legislation is a repeal of an 
outdated section of the Tax Code, section 809, which limits the ability 
of mutual life insurance companies to deduct a policy holder's 
dividends. The intent of the original legislation, as passed in 1984, 
was to ensure equity between mutual and stock life insurance companies. 
While this concern has expired as the number of mutual life companies 
in the Nation has dramatically decreased, the damaging economic impact 
of the legislation remains. Mutual life insurers have been forced to 
reduce the amounts paid to policyholders as dividends or benefits, 
thereby increasing the cost of insurance.
  Tax savings that will result from a repeal of section 809 will be 
passed on to policyholders in the form of increased dividends and lower 
insurance costs. This comes at a critical time for Wisconsinites, where 
the effect of repeal will be twofold. In addition to providing such 
benefits to consumers, the mutual life insurance industry employs 
thousands of workers in my State. At a time when job loss across the 
country has been severe, this repeal will allow companies to avoid 
cost-cutting measures often resulting in job loss.
  Unfortunately, the conferees were not as fair or reasoned in their 
judgment when they decided to include an antitrust exemption for 
graduate medical resident matching program in this conference report. 
This antitrust exemption was not reviewed or debated by either the 
Senate or the House, much less voted upon. The exemption

[[Page 6833]]

will end many of the claims in an ongoing lawsuit brought by a number 
of medical students and residents that has already survived efforts to 
have it dismissed. The students contend that through the matching 
program, the hospitals depress wages and cause residents to work 
inordinately long hours to the detriment of patient care. This 
exemption appears to eliminate all of the students' claims with the 
exception of their allegation of price fixing.
  In general it is bad policy to provide exemptions to the antitrust 
laws. It is certainly unusual to enact an exemption that ends part or 
all of an ongoing lawsuit. We should have had the opportunity to debate 
this issue and determine whether there was any merit to the exemption, 
rather than see the exemption mysteriously appear on an unrelated bill. 
It appears that this provision, enacted in this way, is nothing more 
than a giveaway to one particular special interest. Without judging the 
merits of the issue, we should have had an opportunity to explore it 
and make that decision for ourselves.
  I have to agree with many of my colleagues who have argued that this 
conference report would have been greatly improved had Democratic 
conferees been allowed to participate fully in the conference. We have 
a bill before us now that deserves support, but is not the good and 
fair work of which this body is capable, nor is it even near the 
quality of the bill passed overwhelming out of the Senate earlier this 
year. I hope the Senate approves the measure today and continues to 
work to address the inequities continued or created in the conference 
report.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I will vote in support of the 
Pension Funding Equity Act conference agreement--although I do so with 
some reluctance. On January 28, 2004, the Senate passed H.R. 3108 with 
broad bipartisan support. The Senate-passed version addressed the 
critical need to update the interest rate for the purposes of 
calculating pension contributions. It also provided deficit reduction 
relief for single-employer pension plans, and multiemployer plan 
relief. It was a balanced bill which recognized that all companies 
holding defined benefit plans are suffering from the same market ills.
  Apparently, because of heavy-handed pressure from the White House, 
the conference agreement before us omits critical relief for all but 4 
percent of multiemployer pension plans, to the detriment of thousands 
of union workers and small businesses that participate in multiemployer 
pension plans. In my State of Connecticut, for example, the economic 
downturn has been devastating for the Connecticut Iron Workers pension 
fund. This plan, which was fully funded a few years ago, now faces a 
financial crisis, and is desperately in need of the relief which is 
denied under this bill, but which is being offered to 35 million 
workers covered under single employer plans.
  Senate conferees demonstrated an admirable willingness to reach a 
reasonable compromise on the multiemployer pension relief provision. 
This compromise would have limited the multiemployer relief provisions 
to cover only 20 percent of multiemployer plans. I understand conferees 
were willing to compromise even further. But the White House was 
adamant in their opposition to multiemployer plan provisions, which is 
hard to understand because, historically, multiemployer plans place 
very little burden on the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
  I wish the President had taken a different stance. I understand that 
my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Kennedy, will soon introduce legislation to address the concerns of 
multiemployer pension plans. I intend to support and cosponsor this 
legislation, and would hope that Congress would act swiftly to pass 
such a measure.
  In the meantime, I will vote for this bill, because I believe it is 
essential that we update the interest rate formula for pension 
calculations prior to April 15, when the first quarterly payments of 
the year become due. Without this relief, many pension plans will face 
unmanageable financial strains, and that will ultimately hurt workers. 
Companies will be forced to grapple with decisions about layoffs, 
pension cutbacks, and withholding critical investments. Like many 
companies around the Nation, Connecticut hospitals, for example, and 
other healthcare employers in my State, have been hard hit by poor 
asset returns, declining interest rates, and spiraling pension plan 
costs. Without this replacement to the 30-year Treasury bond interest 
rate, I am informed that Connecticut hospitals will face financial hits 
that they simply cannot absorb and will be forced to cut benefits.
  I will vote in support of H.R. 3108 so that millions of current 
workers covered by defined benefit plans will not see their benefits 
slashed, and so that additional resources will be available for 
investment and job creation. I urge my colleagues, however, to support 
legislation to provide relief for multiemployer pension plans, and I 
urge the White House to listen to reason.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, with so many baby boomers nearing 
retirement age, increasing the likelihood and availability of secure 
retirement savings is more important than ever. Strengthening our 
private, employer-based pension system is a critical component of this 
effort.
  Right now, our Nation's companies are confronting real challenges in 
providing adequate, guaranteed retirement benefits as the number of 
retired workers grows and global competition increases. This is a big 
part of the crisis that we are experiencing in our manufacturing 
sector. Across the Nation, 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been 
lost during the Bush administration. Michigan alone has lost over 
180,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. Our States and our Nation cannot 
continue to sustain such losses, and action is needed on many fronts to 
address the crisis.
  This bill is a small, but important, step toward helping with our 
manufacturing crisis. For the companies whose plans this bill helps, it 
will free up resources for equipment upgrades, new hires, R&D, and 
other investments in the future.
  I am troubled by the fact that the component of this bill dealing 
with most multiemployer pension plans that had overwhelming support in 
the Senate has been dropped out of this conference report. I am hopeful 
that we can provide relief to those multiemployer plans soon. That is 
why I will cosponsor Senator Kennedy's bill that would do just that.
  If I thought that defeating this bill would help the many pension 
recipients whose plans were left out of this conference report, that 
would be one thing. However, after careful thought, I have concluded 
that defeating this bill would not achieve that goal but would only 
hurt those who do get the much-needed relief in the bill.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the conference 
report for H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act, which the Senate 
is now considering. The original version of this bill that the House 
passed last year changed the discount rate used by defined benefit 
pension plans to calculate their pension liabilities from an interest 
rate based on the now defunct 30-year Treasury bond to an interest rate 
based on the average rate of return on high-quality long-term corporate 
bonds for plan years beginning in 2004 and 2005. There is a strong but 
not conclusive argument that the discount rate should be changed. 
According to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation--PBGC, 
replacement of the 30-year Treasury rate will allow companies to lower 
their pension contributions by $80 billion over the next 2 years.
  When this legislation reached the Senate, however, it became a magnet 
for giveaways to financially weak companies. The industries in which 
some of these financially weak companies operate are notorious for 
having woefully underfunded pension plans. Furthermore, select 
companies were also given additional relief. Why these companies 
deserve special breaks and others do not is not easily discernable. 
Multi-employer plans were also given a 2-year delay in recognizing 
investment losses. The most troubling section in the Senate version of 
the bill provided that

[[Page 6834]]

any company could apply with the Secretary of the Treasury to waive a 
portion of its deficit reduction contribution. Fortunately for 
taxpayers, this provision was stripped from the bill during conference.
  While the House-Senate conference report produced a pension bill that 
is much more limited in increasing PBGC's deficit than the Senate 
version, it still allows companies with underfunded pension plans to 
set aside less, thus increasing their pension deficits. According to 
the PBGC, the deficit reduction contribution waivers, special breaks to 
select companies, and the multi-employer plan relief, will allow 
companies to pay billions less into their pension plans, in addition to 
the $80 billion less because of the discount rate change. In total, the 
conference committee report probably relaxes corporate pension funding 
requirements by close to $90 billion over 2 years.
  Allowing weak companies to pay less into their pension plans than is 
required by current law would be analogous to a credit card company 
allowing a financially distressed customer to pay less than his or her 
required monthly minimum payments. Just as credit card companies 
require minimum payments to ensure consumers do not fall too far behind 
in debt, the PBGC requires companies with defined benefit pension plans 
to make deficit reduction contributions to catch up on their funding. I 
think all of my colleagues would agree, when you're in a hole, the 
first rule of thumb is to stop digging. Allowing companies with 
underfunded pension plans to dig the hole deeper could cause premiums 
for well-funded plans to rise, and retirees could face cuts in pension 
benefits if their defined benefit pension plans are terminated.
  I also am deeply concerned that the conference report does not 
include a ``hold harmless'' provision for the PBGC. The agency is 
currently in the worst financial condition in its history. Because it 
continues to absorb the losses of terminated pension plans, the PBGC 
reported a record deficit in its single employer program of $11.2 
billion for fiscal year 2003, and for the first time ever, its multi-
employer program ended the fiscal year in a deficit situation. The PBGC 
currently remains exposed to $85 billion in pension underfunding in 
plans sponsored by financially weak employers. I am thus concerned that 
taxpayers may one day be forced to bail out the PBGC.
  In September 2003, as chairman of the Governmental Affairs 
Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International 
Security, I held a hearing on the PBGC and defined benefit pension 
plans. While proponents of the deficit reduction contribution waiver 
and multi-employer plan relief claimed that funding rules are too 
strict for companies in America, what I found was just the opposite--
that current funding requirements are inadequate to fully protect the 
pensions of America's workers and retirees when their plans terminate. 
Companies can stop making contributions when their plans are funded at 
90 percent of ``current liability.'' Trouble is, the definition of 
``current liability'' is the result of past legislative compromises, 
and does not reflect the amount of money needed to pay all benefits if 
a plan terminates. ``Current liability'' assumes the company is an on-
going business, and thus does not recognize the early retirements that 
take place when an employer goes out of business and terminates its 
pension plan. Nor does ``current liability'' recognize the full cost of 
providing annuities as measured by group annuity practices in the 
private market.
  Pension benefits are measured against ``termination liability'' if a 
company goes out of business and terminates its pension plan. 
Termination liability reflects an employer's cost to settle pension 
obligations in the private market. In the example of Bethlehem Steel, 
the company reported that it was 84 percent funded on a ``current 
liability'' basis in its last filing prior to termination. When the 
PBGC took over the Bethlehem plan, however, it turned out that the plan 
was only 45 percent funded on a termination basis. In my judgment, 
therefore, further relaxing the already lax contribution requirements 
for weak companies with underfunded plans is imprudent.
  As members of Congress we should not pass laws that encourage 
companies to manage pension plans in an irresponsible manner. Companies 
with underfunded pension plans will continue to run up deficits until 
everyone loses--workers, retirees, and taxpayers. We make a mistake 
today by giving weak companies the tools to dig their holes deeper.
  Mr. GREGG. I would like to ask my colleague Senator Grassley, a 
fellow manager of the conference report and Chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee, whether he shares my view that, notwithstanding the 
enactment of this legislation, all of the existing relief measures 
applicable to multiemployer plans under ERISA and the Internal Revenue 
Code will remain available to multiemployer plans. Specifically, the 
multiemployer plan relief provisions in this legislation are in 
addition to, and not in lieu of, the existing relief measures 
applicable to multiemployer plans. Multiemployer plans that satisfy the 
criteria for relief under the existing measures are not precluded from 
obtaining relief under the existing relief measures. Is that your 
understanding?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. I share my colleague's understanding. Under 
current law, the IRS is authorized to waive all or a portion of the 
minimum funding standard requirements for a given year or, 
alternatively, to allow plans to extend the period for amortizing their 
liabilities for up to an additional 10 years, so long as certain 
required showings are made. IRS regulations also include what is known 
as the ``shortfall funding method.'' The enactment of the short-term 
multiemployer plan relief in this legislation is not in any way 
intended to foreclose the availability of any of these existing relief 
measures to multiemployer plans.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against the conference 
report on H.R. 3108. While there is much to commend in the measure, the 
conferees failed to include meaningful relief for the multiemployer 
pension plans to which thousands of mostly small businesses and their 
workers contribute. That was not the case when this measure left the 
Senate, nor was it apparently the case in the conference committee 
prior to the intervention of the Administration. Members of the 
conference committee have noted that bipartisan negotiations on this 
measure in committee had been productive prior to the insistence by the 
White House that the provisions extending relief to multiemployer plans 
be greatly restricted, leaving thousands of businesses and 9.4 million 
workers high and dry.
  Particularly disturbing are reports that while multiemployer plan 
relief was drastically reduced by the conferees, special consideration 
was provided for at least one large corporation that contributes to a 
multiemployer plan. The Wall Street Journal today reported that ``the 
final provisions also showed the remarkable influence'' of that 
corporation, noting that it ``used the bill to pursue its own agenda'' 
and that the provisions in the conference report were ``tailored to 
provide the most help'' to the fund to which the company contributed. 
This tailored assistance stands in stark contrast to the lack of relief 
to the thousands of smaller employers and the workers they employ.
  Mr. President, I supported the pension relief package that the 
Finance Committee crafted a few weeks ago. I am pleased that some of 
the provision in that measure remain in the conference report, and that 
with the expected passage of this legislation many plans will get the 
relief they need. But I regret that while conferees reportedly tailored 
multiemployer relief to help at least one large corporation, they 
abandoned the multiemployer relief that helps thousands of small 
businesses and their workers. I very much hope this body will act to 
correct that serious flaw without delay.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I spoke earlier about the conference 
report to H.R. 3108. I wanted to discuss

[[Page 6835]]

one additional provision of the bill that has not received much 
attention in the debate because it was not part of the bill until just 
a day or two ago.
  I am very troubled by the eleventh hour addition to this conference 
report of a provision that purports to grant an antitrust exemption to 
the graduate medical resident matching programs. We have had no 
hearings on that issue in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and no 
language has ever been presented to the Committee or to the Senate. For 
the managers of this bill to insert a controversial provision with no 
Senate debate or discussion is the worst way to legislate, particularly 
in the complicated area of antitrust law.
  I note, in addition, that Subsection (b)(3) of section 207 explicitly 
preserves the right to bring an antitrust lawsuit alleging any type of 
price-fixing arrangement among two or more graduate medical education 
programs. Therefore, the antitrust exemption that is described in 
subsection (b)(2) apparently does not apply to the lawsuit pending in 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, although I rise in support of the 
conference report for the Pension Funding Equity Act, I have serious 
reservations about the lack of relief for multiemployer pension plans. 
This provision is yet another instance of the White House undermining 
conference committee negotiations and shutting out fair and full 
participation by Democratic conferees.
  During the 108th Congress, Democrats have been locked out of 
conference negotiations time and time again in an unprecedented manner. 
This includes the energy bill, Medicare prescription drug benefit, and 
the omnibus appropriations. Given the importance of addressing the use 
of the 30-year Treasury bond rate to compute pension liabilities, our 
side reluctantly agreed to a conference on this bill as a test case for 
bipartisan cooperation. Unfortunately, the Senate has failed that test.
  The Senate version of this legislation, which passed by a vote of 86-
9, would have provided relief to all 1,600 multiemployer pension plans 
and the 9.7 million workers who have such pensions. During the 
conference negotiations, there was a tentative agreement to provide 
relief to 20 percent of the multiemployer plans and to reduce the 
amount of relief that the Senate version would have provided by roughly 
half. But then the White House interfered and insisted that the relief 
for multiemployer pension plans be dramatically reduced. Offers to 
cover 12 percent or even 10 percent of all multiemployer pension 
plans--only half of the original conference agreement--were rejected.
  As a result, this conference report--approved by a party-line vote--
provides relief to less than 4 percent of all multiemployer pensions 
and provides less than one-third of the relief provided by the Senate 
version.
  In addition to my concerns regarding this procedural breakdown in the 
conference committee, I also am troubled by the substance of this 
provision that the White House insisted be reduced. This conference 
report provides only $250 million in relief to multiemployer pension 
plans. These plans receive no aid from the other provisions in this 
legislation.
  Without relief from Congress, these plans will remain in crisis. For 
example, in Rockford, IL, the local iron workers union has a pension 
plan that covers more than 400 participants and has approximately 100 
employer contributors. This plan is in jeopardy. Although multiemployer 
pension plans often are characterized as providing pensions for 
``unionized workers,'' bear in mind that more than 60,000 businesses--
mostly small businesses--contribute to multiemployer pension plans. In 
Rockford, if the iron workers' pension plan is not viable, the 100 
companies and contractors that contribute to that plan and act as its 
signatories may face collapse if faced with the plan's failure and its 
withdrawal liability.
  Therefore, we must provide aid to protect the millions of workers 
covered by multiemployer pensions and the tens of thousands of small 
businesses that employ these workers. Today, I am joining with Senators 
Kennedy, Baucus, Daschle, and others to introduce a bill that would 
provide fair and equitable aid for these troubled multiemployer 
pensions. I hope this measure will be enacted as quickly as possible.
  Despite my concerns regarding the lack of relief for multiemployer 
pensions, I rise in support of the conference report because of its 
deficit reduction contribution relief and its 30-year Treasury bond 
rate fix. For almost 6 months, I have worked to ensure that DRC 
relief--especially for the airline and steel industries--would be 
included in any pension legislation enacted by this Congress.
  The DRC relief in this conference report would provide more than $1.6 
billion in aid to the airline and steel industries over the next 2 
years for companies that had well-funded pension plans as recently as 
2000, but need assistance now. This aid would allow these industries to 
regain their financial footing by providing relief from DRC surcharges 
of up to 80 percent in 2004 and 2005. This assistance is vital for 
United Airlines, based in my home State Illinois. As a result, the 
pensions of almost 130,000 participants in United's pension plans, 
including over 22,000 participants in Illinois, will be more secure.
  I also support this conference report because it would provide a 2-
year replacement of the 30-year Treasury bond rate in computing pension 
liabilities. Nationally, this provision will provide $80 billion in 
relief to the 31,000 companies that provide single-employer pension 
plans and cover nearly 35 million workers and retirees.
  I have heard from many Illinois companies supporting this provision. 
They include Caterpillar, Goodyear, John Deere, Smurfit Stone and the 
Children's Memorial Hospital. Unless this provision is enacted before 
April 15, the pension funding requirements for these companies will 
grow by millions of dollars and the pensions of thousands of Illinois 
workers will be in jeopardy.
  Although this conference report is not perfect, I will vote in favor 
of it to provide aid to the airline and steel industries and to 
companies that provide single-employer pensions. However, I also look 
forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
provide adequate and equitable relief to multiemployer pension plans as 
soon as possible.
  Mr. KYL. I want to express my great disappointment with this 
conference agreement and to explain why I will vote against it.
  This legislation, H.R. 3108, was originally intended to provide a 
temporary solution to a legitimate and serious problem facing all 
defined benefit pension plans--the interest rate used to calculate 
funding liabilities, the 30-year Treasury bond, is no longer being 
issued by the Federal Government, and consequently the rate has dropped 
to a point that companies would be forced to contribute far in excess 
of what is necessary to their pension plans if Congress does not 
provide a remedy. I have always supported efforts to make this 
necessary change to the interest rate and, in fact, I believe that 
President Bush put forward a reasonable permanent solution last year.
  Because of disagreements over that permanent interest rate change, 
however, Congress was forced to seek a temporary solution to give us 
additional time to resolve our differences. H.R. 3108, as originally 
approved by the House, only included temporary interest rate relief; 
and that is all it ever should have included.
  When it came time for the Senate to consider H.R. 3108, it was viewed 
as a ``must do'' bill, and thus attracted additional items that I 
believe should not have been included.
  My primary concern is that the Senate added relief from the ``deficit 
reduction contribution'' for certain severely underfunded plans. The 
DRC is a special catch-up contribution that seriously underfunded 
plans--generally, plans that are 90 percent funded or less--are 
supposed to make to bring their plans back to full-funding. When the 
Senator began discussing adding DRC relief for airlines, steel 
companies, and possibly other industries, I expressed my opposition.

[[Page 6836]]

  I believe that the DRC relief is harmful to workers, unfair to 
healthy pension plans, unfair to competitors who are not receiving the 
relief, and exposes taxpayers to unacceptable risks.
  Underfunded plans are harmful to workers because they jeopardize 
expected pension benefits--especially for workers who are to receive 
larger pensions than the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporate--PBGC--
will guarantee, such as airline pilots. Companies should be required to 
fund their pension promises to their employees, they should not be 
excused from these promises.
  DRC relief is unfair to healthy plans because an underfunded plan 
that fails will pay benefits using the insurance premiums paid to the 
PBGC by healthy plans. Further, many plans have made the difficult yet 
responsible financial decisions to fully fund their pensions. It is 
unfair to excuse other companies, who may have been less responsible, 
from these same promises.
  The DRC waiver in the conference agreement applies only to certain 
airline and steel companies. The DRC waiver is really a back-door 
bailout for some companies and is unfair to their competitors that 
cannot benefit from the waiver, either because they have fully funded 
their pension plans or because they offer a different kind of 
retirement benefit to their employees.
  Finally, the DRC waiver exposes taxpayers to a greater risk that the 
PBGC will require a taxpayer bailout. The PBGC recently reported a 
deficit of $11.2 billion in its single-employer insurance plan for 
fiscal year 2003--a record. While the PBGC estimates it will have 
sufficient assets to meet obligations for years to come, the failure of 
several large plans could change that.
  Further, PBGC estimates that the sum total of all single-employer 
pension plan underfunding is about $400 billion. And Congress--meaning 
the U.S. taxpayers--would certainly bail out the PBGC, rather than 
allow the entire insurance system for defined benefit pension plans to 
collapse.
  Because the Senate was insistent upon providing some DRC relief, 
however, I worked with my colleagues in the Republican leadership and 
on the Senate Finance Committee to scale back the relief so that it 
would cause less damage to our pension system, would be less harmful to 
competition, and would expose the taxpayers to marginally less 
liability. I worked to reduce the DRC waiver to 80 percent of the DRC 
liability in the first year and 60 percent in the second year. The idea 
was that by the second year, and with the interest rate relief, plans 
should begin turning their finances around such that they can make a 
greater percentage of the necessary payments to bring their plans back 
to full funding. This is what the Senate approved in its version of 
H.R. 3108 and I am very disappointed that the Senate position was 
abandoned during the conference negotiations.
  I am also disappointed that we could not agree to protect the 
taxpayers from increased liabilities that could occur as a result of 
the DRC waiver. At a minimum, we should have stipulated that the PBGC 
would be ``held harmless'' for any benefit increases that occur during 
the waiver period. I believe we should have protected healthy plans and 
taxpayers by adopting a ``hold harmless'' provision for the PBGC. One 
of the big dangers with the DRC waiver is that the plans claiming the 
waiver will fail anyway in the near future, and by granting these plans 
a DRC waiver their funding situation will be even worse when the PBGC 
assumes these plans. A ``hold harmless'' provision would have mitigated 
this harm and limit the drain on healthy plans.
  The DRC waiver is exactly the wrong thing to do. The system of DRC 
payments was devised because companies were habitually underfunding 
their plans. We should not aid and abet habitual underfunders by 
waiving much of their DRC liability. I must vote against the conference 
agreement because the DRC waiver is more comprehensive than what was 
approved by the Senate; because it fails to protect taxpayers; because 
the waiver is unfair to healthy plans that have responsibly funded 
their promises; and because the waiver provides a back-door bailout to 
certain airlines and steel companies, which is unfair to their 
competitors. I agree that there may be problems with the DRC system and 
that reforms may be in order. But we should make any reforms through a 
more thoughtful and deliberate process, taking into consideration the 
experience and recommendations of the PBGC.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my thoughts before this 
very difficult vote on the Pension Funding Equity Act conference bill. 
The bill arrives at a reasonable immediate solution to a very 
complicated problem. However, I do have concerns about the larger 
problem of pension funding rules in the US, and I have grave concerns 
about the treatment of multi-employer plans in this conference bill.
  I supported this bill when it passed the Senate in January by a vote 
of 86-9. That bill provided a reasonable approach to funding single-
employer plans--a 2 year corporate bond rate. I was especially 
satisfied with the 2-year amortization of losses for multi-employer 
plans.
  When the White House wanted this provision struck in conference, an 
agreement was arrived at by conferees to cover the 20 percent of multi-
employer plans most in need. The White House, however, held up these 
important negotiations and insisted on virtually eliminating multi-
employer relief.
  Clearly, immediate funding relief is needed. We have known that this 
was coming for well over a year. With the drop in the 30-year treasury 
rate corresponding directly with declining stock values, pension plans 
have become drastically underfunded. This situation doesn't just hurt 
the bottom line right now, it hurts the defined benefit system as a 
whole and jeopardizes the retirement security of millions of workers.
  I have been concerned as this bill has evolved that it represents a 
band-aid approach that addresses immediate funding obligations without 
fixing the larger problem. There are perverse incentives that actually 
prevent employers from keeping money in the pension plan when times are 
good, so that we end up having to bail them out when times are bad. We 
need to put serious effort in the coming years to work out defined 
benefit pension plan funding in general.
  I don't believe we take these long-term problems seriously enough. 
Two years ago, when we came up with the initial readjustment of the 30-
year treasury rate, it was my hope that we would address these problems 
before the issue came up again. But, here we are--2 years later and no 
farther ahead. I am afraid that unless we focus on this issue this 
Congress, we'll be looking at simply extending this rate again in 2 
years without any understanding of the impact of this rate on defined 
benefit pensions, on the economy, or on the Pension Benefit Guarantee 
Corporation.
  I am sure that it comes as no shock to my colleagues that the stock 
market actually falls from time to time. Sometimes, by more than 25 
percent. Yet, we allow companies to transfer funds out of their 
pensions when times are good, leaving only a 25 percent cushion for 
when times are bad. We offer little in the way of incentives to pad 
plans in the good years to carry them through the bad years.
  Many advocates characterize this funding climate as the ``perfect 
storm.'' I believe that it's a storm that could have been more easily 
weathered had companies been prepared for a rainy day. However, the 
onus is reasonably on Congress to establish tax and accounting policies 
that create positive incentives to do so. I think we should consider 
increasing the funding level required prior to a section 420 transfer, 
at the same time, increasing the amount of money that can be kept on 
hand receiving favorable tax treatment.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to find a more precise 
solution to this delicate balance between

[[Page 6837]]

making defined benefit pensions attractive for companies, while 
protecting workers. I share with my colleagues the goal of ensuring the 
viability of the defined benefit system.
  Having said that, there is no other answer for the immediate problems 
facing us than to provide the funding relief provided in this measure. 
I think we absolutely need to do something now for the companies we can 
help. We need to help the airlines, we need to help the machinists. 
Eighty percent of this bill makes sense and is the right policy for the 
moment. Unfortunately, the White House has chosen to play politics with 
the income security of workers in multi-employer plans, and of the 
businesses that participate in those plans. There is no good reason for 
dropping these plans from the agreement, except to cause pain to 
certain working families. I plan to work with Senator Kennedy and other 
colleagues very soon to repair the harm done in this portion of the 
bill to members of the construction trades, the Teamsters, IBEW, 
Plumbers and Steamfitters, Sheet Metal, Finishing Contractors, 
Operating Engineers, Bricklayers and other participants in multi-
employer plans.
  I am supporting this conference bill to help enact its truly 
necessary provisions--the vast bulk of the legislation which will keep 
other plans from freezing in the face of the current funding situation. 
But I will not drop my concern for those who are harmed.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like the record to show my 
views on the conference on H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act. 
The conference report includes several provisions that I support. Most 
important among them is funding relief for single-employer defined-
benefit pension plans, which will aid 35 million workers. The 
conference report also closes a huge tax loophole utilized by the 
wealthiest Americans to shield investment income known as the small 
insurance company loophole, or Section 501(c)(15). I applaud the work 
that crafted these provisions. I am particularly pleased that the 
pensions of hard-working Americans in the auto, steel, airline and 
other industries will have safer pensions and more secure retirements. 
I strongly support these provisions, and I can understand why many of 
my colleagues will cast a vote for this conference report.
  The problem, and the reason for my opposition to the overall 
conference report, is that it provides hardly any relief for millions 
of Americans participating in multi-employer pension plans, despite 
strong bipartisan support for such relief in the original Senate bill. 
The Senate bill provided relief to all multi-employer plans, and that 
bill passed the Senate by the overwhelming vote of 86 to 9. After that, 
the conferees agreed on a bipartisan basis to limit relief to the 20 
percent of plans that most needed it. But then, we have been told, the 
White House insisted that multi-employer relief be essentially gutted. 
I regret that the White House and the Republican conferees, on a 
strictly partisan basis, have done this. It means that nearly 10 
million Americans who participate in multi-employer pension plans have 
been cast aside for no good reason.
  The Republicans' insistence that multi-employer relief be stripped 
from the legislation, despite overwhelming Senate support for more 
widespread relief, also means that America's small businesses that 
participate in multi-employer plans will receive very little help. As 
ranking member on the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 
I believe that to ignore small business is to ignore the great engine 
of our economy. More jobs are created in America by small businesses 
than any other sector of our economy.
  Just a week ago, President Bush claimed that ``the small business 
agenda is vibrant and foremost on our agenda.'' He said that it's 
important to reduce taxes, so ``small businesses have got more money to 
invest and to expand.'' But at the same time the White House was 
pulling the rug out from under thousands of small businesses. More than 
half of the 65,000 employers in multi-employer plans are small 
businesses--real small businesses run by real families. So despite the 
President's rhetoric about small business, the White House has refused 
to help small business owners provide more secure pensions for 
themselves and their workers. These small businesses won't be able to 
invest and expand because they'll be paying excise taxes imposed by the 
IRS due to the crisis in their pension plans.
  Mr. President, I support funding relief for single-employer plans. I 
am very glad that Congress has acted to help Americans participating in 
those plans. I am also glad to see tax loopholes closed whenever 
possible. But I regret that the Senate, after voting 86 to 9 to help 
Americans in both single-employer and multi-employer plans, is now 
leaving nearly 10 million Americans and thousands of small businesses 
out in the cold.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I will vote in support of this 
conference report today because many of the private pension systems in 
this nation are on the verge of collapse.
  Many companies are staring at an April 15 pension payment date. 
Without this legislation many companies will not be able to make their 
payments because of the effect of both the recent economic recession 
and the requirement that they use a payment calculation that is based 
on the discontinued 30-year Treasury bond.
  I deeply regret the action taken by the conference committee to 
remove much of the assistance targeted toward multi-employer plans. I 
will support steps to correct this grievous action.
  It is critical, however, that we pass this legislation today because 
44 million pensioners are at risk of losing their hard-earned benefits.
  While I wish the bill would do more, I believe it is important for 
several reasons:
  One, this bill corrects several problems facing our private pension 
plans. These plans use the 30-year Treasury bond to determine the 
interest rate they may assume when making their periodic pension 
payments.
  Because the 30-year Treasury bond is no longer in use by the federal 
government we must replace this mechanism and this bill does that.
  Companies that have fallen behind in their pension payments are 
required under current law to make catch-up payments, or what we call 
deficit reduction contribution payments. A company must make these 
payments in addition to its regularly scheduled pension payments.
  These additional payments raise the possibility that many companies 
will be driven into bankruptcy when it is discovered that they simply 
do not have the cash available to make these payments. This bill gives 
companies 2 years of relief from these payments.
  This 2-year relief period provides these companies with an 
opportunity to get back on solid financial ground before beginning 
these payments again and it goes a long way in preventing the closure 
of pension plans by helping companies avoid bankruptcy.
  Two, this bill targets much needed relief to the airline, steel, and 
iron industries by allowing them to receive the deficit reduction 
relief automatically unless they were subject to these catch-up 
payments in 2000.
  These industries, more than most, have been reeling from the 
lingering effects of September 11, 2001 and the ensuing economic 
downturn. I have received more than 280 phone calls from United Airline 
pilots telling me that if this bill does not pass, United Airlines may 
have to terminate their pension plan as they work through bankruptcy. 
Management and labor at United Airlines are in total agreement on this 
issue and I have 35,000 United Airline pension participants in my home 
State of California.
  It is clear that this bill provides more relief to single-employer 
pension plans than those maintained by a multiple number of employers--
the so-called multi-employer pension plans. I would like to see us 
address this issue in the near future and I will work with Senator 
Kennedy to make sure this happens. But, today we have the opportunity 
to do something good for the 35 million pension plan participants who

[[Page 6838]]

are participating in mostly single-employer plans.
  This legislation is not perfect, but it represents a commonsense 
approach to help solve the problem facing the majority of pension 
plans. I supported the Senate version of this bill because it included 
better assistance for multi-employer plans and I continue to think that 
the conference committee should have reported a bill that provided 
these multi-employer plans broader coverage.
  While the conference committee did not provide us a bill containing 
all that I had hoped for, it did report to us a bill that will provide 
real support to real companies and labor groups.
  We must do what we can before these faltering pension plans are 
driven under by the impending April pension payments.
  I cannot support a move to defeat the whole bill because it doesn't 
address every need.
  Thirty-five million pensioners will be assisted by this bill. 
Companies like C&H Sugar located in Northern California will be helped 
and more than 35,000 United Airlines pension plan participants who live 
in California will be helped.
  The men and women who have invested their careers in a company should 
not lose the pensions they are due. But, if we do not pass this 
conference report, many will and this should not be allowed to happen.
  While this legislation is not perfect, it represents movement in the 
right direction and I support it with the understanding that we need to 
address the larger issue facing multi-employer plans.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am voting for this pension conference 
report, but I do so with serious reservations.
  There are 35 million workers nationwide who participate in single-
employer pension plans and who will benefit from this legislation. They 
need help now. Many of their pension plans are in trouble. Some are 
teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. This bill will help ensure 
greater retirement security for these hard working Americans.
  Unfortunately, this bill does not help all pension plans and all 
workers. More than 9 million workers in multi-employer pension plans 
will not be covered by this bill. All of these workers were covered in 
the bill that passed the Senate, which I supported and which passed the 
Senate with 86 votes. Leaving them out was a partisan and ideological 
decision that leaves us with a truly sub-par solution to the pension 
plan crisis in America.
  There is nothing wrong with what is in the bill. The problem is what 
has been left out. Senator Kennedy is absolutely right on the merits. 
We should help all workers. We should not be picking winners and 
losers. I will work with Senator Kennedy and the rest of my colleagues 
to pass the Senate provision on assisting multi-employer plans at the 
first and every available opportunity.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this afternoon I will vote to adopt 
the pension reform legislation before the Senate. However, I do so with 
serious reservations. The reforms in this bill are critical for both 
pension security and economic growth. Congress cannot allow April 15 to 
pass without updating the interest rate on which pension liabilities 
are based. As constructive as this legislation is, it is incomplete. 
This bill fails to address the needs of multi-employer pension plans. I 
will support the pension improvements we have before us today, but I 
will continue to fight for similar relief for the millions of employees 
who were left behind in this unfortunately partisan process.
  It is not an exaggeration to say that the bill before us today is 
critical. If the Senate fails to pass this legislation today, then next 
week businesses will be required to make contributions to their pension 
plans based on an outdated interest rate. If we require companies to 
make billions of dollars in overpayments to their pension plans, then 
we are hurting economic growth and ultimately undermining the plans. I 
do not want workers to lose their pension benefits, because their 
employers determined that they could not comply with unreasonable 
funding rules.
  This conference report also provides much needed relief from deficit 
reduction contributions (DRC), especially for airlines and steel 
companies. The grace period provided here does not diminish employers' 
obligations to fully meet the promises they have made to their workers. 
It simply provides some needed flexibility to help companies recover 
from the recent economic downturn. This relief is essential for the 
financial stability of the steel industry and the airline industry. 
Protecting the pensions of those workers while ensuring that their 
employers have the opportunity to strengthen their businesses has been 
one of my main priorities since this debate began. I am very pleased 
that the DRC relief was included in the final legislation.
  Mr. President, while there is much to support in this bill, there is 
also a gaping whole in the pension security we are providing to 
American workers. Almost 10 million workers, participants in multi-
employer pension plans, were abandoned by the conference committee. 
Despite strong bipartisan support for multi-employer relief in the 
Senate, the White House insisted it be dropped from the bill. I cannot 
account for this insensitivity. Participants in multi-employer pension 
plans are typically lower wage, union workers who are employed by 
several small businesses over the course of their careers. To claim 
that these workers do not deserve the same pension security as other 
workers is unconscionable.
  When the Senate voted on its own version of pension relief which 
included multi-employer plans, it garnered 86 votes in favor. Senators 
were pleased to support a bill that is so important for businesses and 
workers all across this country. The process by which the conference 
committee flagrantly disregarded the interests of 86 Senators is 
another sad example of the partisan dysfunction that has come to 
characterize House-Senate conference committees. And it is a lesson 
that this Senator will not forget.
  So, Mr. President, today I will meet my responsibilities to update 
the pension funding rules prior to the April 15 deadline for required 
pension contributions. I will gladly support the DRC relief that this 
legislation accords single-employer pension plans. But let my 
colleagues be aware, I will continue to fight to provide similar 
security to all of the workers who are participating in multi-employer 
plans. I am hopeful that in the near future Congress will live up to 
our obligations to those workers as well.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
conference report on the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2003. The 
conference report the Senate is considering today is a hollow promise 
for America's workers. This bill helps some companies and workers, but 
fails others. It provides relief for pension plans that cover 35 
million American workers, including auto, steel and transit workers, 
and airline pilots. I support making sure their pension plans are safe.
  But, this conference report fails to provide relief to the multi-
employer pension plans that cover 9.7 million unionized workers. Many 
of these Americans work for small businesses, including many in my 
state. These workers are boilermakers, shipbuilders, electricians, and 
carpenters. I want to stand up for these workers to make sure their 
pensions are safe also.
  I voted for a bill in the U.S. Senate in January, which was a truly 
genuine, bipartisan effort, passing by an overwhelming vote of 86-9. 
The bill I voted for wasn't perfect, but it was a solid, bipartisan 
bill.
  Because of recent economic events, pension plans were hit by the 
perfect storm of a stock market crash, historically low interest rate, 
and a weak economy. So, many pension plans were in a crisis. Pension 
plans were calculating their liabilities based on an outdated rate that 
is no longer issued. By switching to a more accurate rate, pension 
plans will have lower funding needs which frees up money to buy plants 
and equipment and hire workers. This is a temporary fix while Congress 
reviews the issue and comes up

[[Page 6839]]

with a permanent solution. I support this move.
  Large pension plans that were particularly hit hard by the downturn 
in the stock market and the weak economy also are given a temporary 
break on their ``catch up'' contributions to give them a break while 
the economy recovers. I also support this provision.
  Yet when I voted for the pension bill last January, there was pension 
relief for all pension plans, the large pension plans and the multi-
employer plans which are common in small businesses, and used by 
plumbers, carpenters, shipbuilders, and truckers.
  Some believe that the conference report we're considering today is 
the best we can do. I believe we could have done better. We must do 
better. We make sure all workers pensions are safe.
  I'm voting against this bill because of its impact on people, yet I 
have to say something about the process. This was far from Congress's 
usual procedure. It was passed by the Senate by an overwhelming 
majority. However, the Senate's views were disregarded in conference. 
We were handed this conference report and told to take it or leave it. 
This is legislation that will affect the lives of 44 million Americans, 
but it fails to provide help for nearly 10 million of those Americans. 
I cannot support that.
  I know that some in Maryland are asking, ``Why are you voting this 
way Barb?'' They're saying, ``We need help now. Our pension may be in 
trouble.'' To these Marylanders, I want you to know that I want to help 
you now. I want to ease your worry about your retirement security. But, 
I want to give you something real. Not all Marylanders will be helped 
by this bill.
  So, I won't vote to pass this bill because I want to make sure all 
Marylanders have a safe and secure retirement. We can do better. We 
must do better, and we must do better this year.
  There are twenty weeks left in this session of Congress. During these 
weeks, we can make sure all workers are protected. That is why I will 
be joining with my colleagues to fight to make sure that all pensions 
plans are safe.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from New Mexico suggested today in the debate 
on the conference report to S. 3108 that the provisions of the 
conference report relating to Graduate Medical Education Residency 
Matching Programs were not intended to apply to antitrust litigation 
currently pending in the United States District Court for the District 
of Columbia.
  That is not the case. The legislation applies to all anti-trust 
lawsuits, including pending and future lawsuits brought against 
Graduate Medical Education Residency Matching Programs which 
appropriately aligns the preferences of medical students and residency 
programs.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I understand that the conference report 
to H.R. 3108 before us today includes a provision repealing Section 809 
of the Internal Revenue Code. I support repeal of this arcane provision 
of the tax code relating to the taxation of mutual insurance companies. 
I also support the repeal of another equally arcane provision of the 
tax code--Section 815 which affects stock insurance companies. This 
provision, which triggers a tax on a fictitious account under certain 
circumstances and unduly ties up needed capital, is unnecessarily 
complex and antiquated. Repeal of this provision will allow the 
affected companies to gain access to these idle funds and use them to 
expand their businesses and hire more employees. I am pleased that the 
JOBS Act, which we are also considering on the floor of the Senate, 
contains a temporary repeal of Section 815 and I urge the Senate to 
consider full repeal of this provision at the earliest possible 
opportunity.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the pension 
conference report that the Senate recently voted on.
  I have long supported initiatives aimed at strengthening and 
protecting individuals' employer-sponsored retirement plans. Pension 
benefits are a critically important means of securing a measure of 
comfort and self-sufficiency for retirees, and we should do all we can 
to ensure that pension plans are secure and viable.
  The intent of the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004, H.R. 3108, is 
to provide temporary pension relief to businesses whose pensions have 
been hurt as a result of the economic downturn that began about 3 years 
ago. Understanding that companies were in need of relief, in January, 
by a vote of 86 to 9, the Senate passed H.R. 3108, which provided 
relief to single-employer plans, steel companies, the airline industry, 
and multiemployer plans. I supported this legislation.
  Unfortunately, the pension bill was significantly weakened in 
conference, for no reason other than to single out multiemployer plans. 
In so doing, the conference report puts at risk 65,000 small businesses 
and their 9.5 million workers. To the best of my knowledge, more than 
50,000 workers in Connecticut will be left without any relief under 
this conference report. Because of this exclusion, I was not able to 
support this conference report.
  There is no sound policy reason to not provide multiemployer plans 
with relief. It does not cost the Treasury any money. The weak economic 
conditions plaguing our country have adversely affected multiemployer 
plans no less than single-employer plans. Since multiemployer plans are 
overwhelmingly used by workers who belong to a labor union, the only 
conclusion that I can draw for why the Republican conferees would not 
want to provide relief to multiemployer plans is to penalize union 
workers and the small businesses that employ them.
  This is a regrettable and callous action by our Republican colleagues 
in this Chamber and the other Chamber. As we all know, conference 
reports cannot be amended. If they could, I would eagerly support an 
amendment to ensure that multiemployer plans are covered.
  This conference report primarily helps the Fortune 500 companies, 
which I am not against. In fact, that is one of the reasons I had 
supported the pension bill in January. I understand that employers 
across the country have faced extraordinary pension liabilities based 
upon the obsolete Treasury bond rate. And I supported providing these 
plans with relief. But the conference report leaves behind our small 
businesses. It excludes our construction workers, electricians, 
plumbers, service workers, and others, and I cannot pretend that that 
is OK.
  This bill was supposed to be about maintaining the viability of 
pension plans, about doing what is right for our workers and their 
families, and for our small businesses. Instead, it unfairly left out 
thousands of our small businesses and millions of our workers, for no 
good reason.
  I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that 
multiemployer plans are provided with relief so that we also can ensure 
the viability of these important plans.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the conference report on the Pension bill 
is another example of a broken legislative process. We passed a good 
bill in the Senate. There was bipartisan cooperation. Two committees--
Chairs and Rankings--worked together in a constructive manner.
  This bill garnered overwhelming support here in the Senate, passing 
86-9.
  On the Democratic side, there was concern about having this bill go 
to conference. Too often in the past several months, we have seen the 
will of the Senate disregarded by House Republican leaders eager to 
rewrite bills in conference.
  Our colleagues on the other side said no, that the Senate conferees 
would advance the Senate position on the main issue of disagreement on 
multi-employer plans.
  Under the Senate bill 100 percent of multi-employer plans were 
covered. The House had no provision to protect multi-employer plans. We 
expected some give and take, some compromise. And we reached a good 
faith agreement. The Senate bending over backward to accommodate the 
House, going from 100 percent coverage, down to 20 percent of 
multiemployer plans in the most dire circumstances.
  After an agreement was seemingly reached, the White House stepped in

[[Page 6840]]

and told Republican conferees that they could not reach a compromise. 
They had to ignore what the Senate passed and fall in line.
  The result is the conference report before us which covers only a 
tiny fraction--3 percent--of multi-employer plans.
  This puts the secure retirements of nearly 10 million Americans at 
risk.
  We are talking about people working for small businesses. Three-
quarters of the approximately 60,000-65,000 employers that participate 
in multiemployer plans have fewer than 100 employees.
  We are talking about hard working people bricklayers, carpenters, 
painters, janitors, hotel workers. In a multiemployer plan, a person 
gets to count all of the pension credit he earns working for any 
employer in the pension plan. Multiemployer plans are thus particularly 
important in industries like construction or hospitality where work can 
be short-term or seasonal.
  Multiemployer plans have traditionally been well-funded. Only 31 
multiemployer plans have ever received financial assistance in the 
history of the PBGC multiemployer insurance program. And the PBGC 
multiemployer program had never experienced a deficit through 2002.
  Workers in multiemployer pension plans deserve the same relief we are 
giving to workers in single-employer plans. Like single employer plans, 
multiemployer plans have been hurt by three years of poor stock market 
performance. As many as 30 percent of multiemployer plans could face 
funding deficiencies in the next few years.
  Moreover, multiemployer plans are not subject to the Deficit 
Reduction Contribution (DRC) as single employers are. Instead, 
participating employers have to pay excise taxes--these excise taxes 
can place huge burdens on employers. Companies also have to pay the 
amount needed to make up the funding deficiency.
  Let's be clear--what the Republican majority is saying is that would 
prefer to impose tax increases on small businesses across the country 
instead of providing some reasonable period of pension relief. This is 
inexplicable.
  Many employers may not be able to make these payments. If they can't 
they will go bankrupt, and this will jeopardize the pensions of the 
workers who have earned pensions under their collective bargaining 
agreement.
  This legislation misses an important opportunity to help small 
businesses and millions of American workers.
  At the same time, there are many good provisions in this bill that we 
support.
  It would provide some protection for 35 million Americans covered by 
single-employer pensions. These are traditional pensions that provide 
monthly federally guaranteed checks earned after a lifetime of work. In 
combination with Social Security, these pensions provide a dignified 
retirement and most importantly, peace of mind.
  As a result of a combination of economic factors, pensions faced a 
``perfect storm'' in recent years. The recession, a bear stock market, 
and a drop in interest rates, all put extraordinary pressure on pension 
funds.
  The airline industry has been especially hard hit in recent years as 
a result of fears caused by the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade 
Center and the SARS outbreak. The secure retirements of employees of 
the airline industry were at extreme risk if we did nothing.
  Congress needs to act to restore some stability to the defined 
benefit pension system. If we don't, jobs will be lost. We do not want 
to see deficit reduction pension obligations push companies into 
bankruptcy and push more workers onto the unemployment line.
  While the lack of protection for workers with multi-employer pensions 
and the implicit tax increase on small businesses make it impossible 
for me to support this bill, the good it will do for 35 million 
American workers, their employers, and the economy compel us not to 
stand in its way.
  But this legislation should be just the beginning of our work to 
defend the retirements of American workers. Democrats will be back to 
fight for those who have been left behind. We chose not to take out the 
wrong the Republicans have done to small businesses on those in who 
work for the airlines, the auto companies and other large employers. 
But we will be back to press this critical multiemployer issue.
  Ten million Americans are seeing their retirements put at risk and 
Congress has an opportunity to come to their aid. I regret that this 
legislation does not offer them any help, and I promise them that 
Democrats will not rest until they have the retirement security they 
have earned.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the Senator from Iowa.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, may I inquire how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 40 minutes remaining on the minority 
side, and 91 minutes remaining on the majority side.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, can I simply inquire from the Senator 
from Iowa, who I know wants to speak in favor of the bill, how much 
time he may take, because there are other Senators who want to speak on 
our side.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am going to speak for, I believe, in the neighborhood 
of 20 minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. OK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after 
the Senator from Iowa speaks, I be allowed to speak for another 10 or 
15 minutes. And I understand there are other Senators coming down to 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today, in the Senate, as you can tell 
from the debate, we are considering a bill that is critical to our 
Nation's pension system and is necessary to help this economy as a 
whole, primarily because of airlines being so essential to the economy 
of the United States of America, although it affects other segments of 
the economy.
  This bill, H.R. 3108, is entitled the Pension Funding Equity Act. It 
provides a temporary 2-year fix to the interest rate companies are 
required to use in their pension calculations. Without this 
legislation, companies will be required to make pension contributions 
based on the 30-year Treasury bond interest rate, even though the 
Government stopped issuing 30-year bonds way back in the year 2001.
  Clearly, this is a rule, under the 30-year bond rule, that does not 
make sense anymore, so we have to change the pension laws to conform. 
This legislation will fix that by adopting a conservative, long-term 
corporate bond rate for the next 2 years.
  While the bond rate of corporations is in place for the next 2 years, 
Congress will have a chance to find a permanent replacement. That is 
what we are about doing already. For instance, that is one of the major 
issues before the Senate Finance Committee.
  This bill also includes provisions to provide some temporary help to 
the pension plans that need it most. Airlines and steel companies that 
have been hit very hard by tough economic times are given a little more 
time to get their plans' funding levels up to where they need to be. Of 
course, even multiemployer pension plans that were hit hardest by the 
bear market are given more time to make up their losses.
  This bill is truly a must-pass bill. Without it, pension coverage for 
millions of workers across the country will be in jeopardy. Without it, 
tens of billions of dollars that could be used to create jobs and grow 
businesses will unnecessarily be drained from our economy. Without it, 
some companies could be forced into bankruptcy. In my own State of 
Iowa, I know there are a lot of companies working hard to compete in 
today's challenging economic environment. These companies want to 
provide pension plans for their employees, but they also need to know 
what the rules are for contributing to those plans. They want those 
rules in the process to make sense.
  Without this legislation, some companies could see their pension 
contributions increase three or four times in 1 year; in some cases, 
even more.

[[Page 6841]]

That is a very difficult burden for any company to bear. For a smaller 
or medium-size company, that kind of burden is probably too much.
  This bill then gives our pension system a rule so pension 
contributions will be calculated based on a rational interest rate 
rather than one that is obsolete and artificially low.
  I know this bill does not do everything everyone wanted. This is 
true. But the provisions in this bill have broad bipartisan support. 
And, of course, as I constantly remind my colleagues, nothing of 
substance gets done in this body if it is not done in a bipartisan way, 
unlike the House of Representatives where partisanship can prevail from 
time to time and does most of the time.
  This legislation before us is simply too important not to be enacted 
now. Companies must pay their next pension payment on April 15, just 
around the corner. Failure to pass this bill would have devastating 
consequences for workers and the economy. This is a temporary bill, but 
we need to be working on permanent reforms. The Senate Finance 
Committee is about doing that.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, will Senator Grassley yield to me for some 
comments about his efforts in this regard?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am glad to yield without losing the 
floor, yes.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I commend the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, the Senator from Iowa, for the work he has done on this 
legislation. It should have been relatively easy to get this done, but 
it turned out to be a long process and a huge lift.
  He was persistent, dogged, because he knew we had a problem we could 
responsibly address before this deadline of April 15 would cost 
billions of dollars for companies in a way that is not necessary and 
could affect their solvency.
  I particularly want to note, since there have been some questions 
raised about it, if you are going to write a textbook about how a 
conference should be handled, this is it. The chairman of the committee 
didn't try to go around the other members. I was not a conferee, but I 
followed it very closely. The conferees met, House and Senate, 
Republican, Democrat. Everybody was involved. Everybody had a chance to 
make their case. Amendments were considered. In fact, the Senator from 
Iowa even offered a last-minute amendment that would have moved it more 
toward what Senator Kennedy was advocating, and it was defeated.
  I am not sure I agreed with that effort, but I make that point to 
magnify the point this was a full conference. It wasn't short-
circuited. Nobody was cut out of the process. You may not like the 
results, but it was a good conference and it produced a good bill.
  The criticism we are hearing today, in my opinion, is to threaten the 
good in pursuit of the perfect from somebody else's point of view.
  I want to say for the record, to my colleagues and the American 
people, Senator Grassley did a good job. We should pass this bill. I 
believe this conference report will pass overwhelmingly, and this is 
the way conferences should and can be done.
  I thank the Senator for giving me a chance to commend him on his job 
on this legislation.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi 
for his kind comments. He was active in helping us arrive at a 
solution, even though he was not on the conference committee. I would 
emphasize one thing he said, because I hope it sets a pattern for the 
future and maybe would relieve the Democratic Members of the Senate of 
some nervousness they have about conferences: This does set an example 
of both sides of the aisle participating fully in the conference, 
because we want to be able to use that pattern for the future. Wherever 
I am involved, we are going to use that in the future.
  I thank the Senator from Mississippi. When the Senator from 
Mississippi asked to intervene, I had already emphasized the temporary 
aspects of this legislation and what it included and the necessity for 
it. Now I want to speak about the need for permanent reform because 
this is temporary legislation. It is a first step in what needs to be 
done to preserve the defined benefit pension plan.
  While this 2-year interest rate fix provides a temporary solution, we 
must take action then on a permanent solution. Pension plan sponsors 
continue to confront a world of uncertainty until we get a permanent 
replacement. They need to be able to budget for future pension 
expenses. It is unfair to leave them in financial limbo. If we continue 
to do so, many will simply abandon pension plans altogether. We ought 
to be promoting the concept of pensions rather than doing things that 
encourage companies to abandon pensions for their employees.
  There is uncertainty facing our pension system on a variety of other 
fronts as well. Our pension system needs funding rules that make sense 
and help avoid the funding problems many plans are facing today. In 
that regard, I was very pleased this conference agreement included a 
provision from the Senate bill that allowed plans that have funded 
their plans well and responsibly in recent years to continue making 
contributions.
  Pension plans also are facing uncertainty due to the fact many of our 
pension laws predate the development of new and innovative pension plan 
designs that have been developed to meet the needs of today's workers. 
This uncertainty should be removed, and our pension laws and 
regulations should be brought up to date to take account of positive 
developments and evolutions in pension plans.
  Defined pension plans are an irreplaceable part of our national 
retirement system. We owe it to the millions of workers and retirees 
who participate in these plans to make them as strong as possible. We 
also owe it to the young people of our country today to ensure our 
pension system remains healthy and vibrant, so they can benefit from 
these plans many years from now.
  This bill is a first step to address what many experts have called a 
crisis in our pension system. I hope we in Congress can work on a 
bipartisan basis to address these problems. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues on that long-term solution.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2307 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from Louisiana yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, I will.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the statement by the Senator from Louisiana, I be recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure that 
time is not applied to the Democratic side that remains on the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, if I may have the attention of the 
Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, I seek 10 minutes to talk about the 
asbestos bill, which we are having a meeting on this afternoon.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I will yield the Senator 10 minutes for that purpose, 
yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. 
I know the issue he wants to speak about--asbestos--is a very important 
issue that has great ramifications for workers and businesses in our 
country. I know he spent a great deal of time on that subject.
  We only have, on this side, about 45 minutes to debate this very 
important pension bill that also affects large, small, and medium-sized 
corporations and workers, whether they are union workers or not. I 
wanted to come to the floor after the opening of this debate this 
morning and answer some of the questions that were raised, or comments 
made by my good friend, the Senator from New Hampshire, and also the 
Senator from Iowa.
  Before the Senator from Iowa leaves, I thank him for his leadership. 
He has

[[Page 6842]]

worked very hard on this bill and there is no doubt, as the Senator 
from Mississippi came to the floor and said, that there is a great deal 
of good being accomplished in this pension reform bill that helps us to 
direct capital in a much more effective and productive way, at a time 
when our country needs to be creating jobs, not destroying them, and at 
a time when we need to be strengthening all of our companies, not 
weakening them.
  There is no argument on this side about that issue--none. No 
Democratic Senator has come to the floor to argue that there are not a 
lot of good things in this bill for companies in America, particularly 
the airline industry and steel companies, which are in very precarious 
situations with a deadline looming. Let me put that in the Record.
  What is at issue is why 10 million workers are left out--10 million 
workers and the companies that employ them. Some of those companies are 
small and medium-sized companies that employ unionized workers. Some of 
them employ nonunionized workers.
  I want to respond to a couple of things. The Senator from Iowa made a 
statement I would like to correct. He said it could not possibly affect 
9.7 million workers. I have the GAO report--and that is where we get 
this information--which says 9.7 million participants, because of the 
White House's position and the very partisan Republican approach on the 
House side that was taken--this is the GAO report that shows clearly 
there are 9.7 million workers who will be left out. About 13 million 
workers in the country are unionized, and a great deal of them will be 
left out.
  The second point is, the Senator from New Hampshire came to the floor 
and said: The Senator from Louisiana could not possibly be right 
because she claims this bill--the compromise purposely denied help to 
union workers because the underlying bill protects unions.
  For the record, I will say he is correct in part. This is the 
difference. If you are a union that is fortunate enough to be attached 
to a big company that the Republican leadership in the House wants to 
help, you get help in this bill. Let me repeat that. If you are a union 
that happens to be attached to a very large company that the Republican 
leadership in the House, with the support of the White House, wants to 
help, you get relief, and you get relief whether your company is in 
trouble or not.
  Let me submit for the record that General Electric Company will get 
relief, and they deserve it. General Electric deserves this help. Their 
pension is funded at 116 percent. Verizon is funded at 104 percent. 
AT&T pensions are funded at 111 percent. Prudential is funded at 112.1 
percent. Edison Electric is funded at 100.2 percent. J.P. Morgan is 
funded at 102.8 percent. Southern Companies is funded at 112.8 percent. 
Wells Fargo is funded at 102.8 percent.
  These are large companies; some are union, some are not. There is a 
company that was written in on a special provision, and they may 
deserve it, but it causes some of us to be cynical about how these 
conferences, behind closed doors, work. UPS, which is a large company 
and a union company--and I support their help--gets help. If you are a 
company that is overly funded, and a company that has union workers, 
the union is lucky to be attached to you because if they are left on 
their own, they don't get help. If you are a multiemployer plan, a 
union, not fortunate enough to be attached to a big company, but you 
are attached to a little company, or to a medium-size company, the 
White House and the Republican leadership in the House decided you 
don't deserve the help.
  I have been waiting on the floor for 4 hours to get an answer to the 
question, why were they denied help? The Record shows--and I will 
submit for the Record--the fix that Senator Kennedy asked for and that 
86 Members of this body voted for--the fix in this bill, which would 
have given relief to everyone, whether you are a big company or a 
little company, whether you were union or nonunion, and that passed the 
Senate with 86 votes.
  We are proud of that work. It went over to the House, and under 
partisan political leadership, the help for 10 million workers was 
stripped out because they were not lucky enough to be attached to a big 
enough company. That is the truth. The fix would have given money to 
the Federal Treasury, not taken money. Again, this fix did not cost 
anything. I can understand if someone would come to the floor and say: 
Senator, we simply could not afford it; we just could not afford it; we 
are fighting a war in Iraq; we have deficits; we cannot afford it.
  Let me remind everyone, there is no cost to the Federal Treasury for 
this particular fix. In fact, as Senator Kennedy spoke about, fixing 
the multiemployer pension plan adds money to the Treasury.
  I have to sit here and listen to people argue that this was a good 
compromise? I have to go home and explain to my constituents, and I 
cannot explain it to them. Let me just tell you how it works in 
Washington these days: Bills that cost money to the Treasury get passed 
all day long. Bills that add money to the Treasury cannot get passed. I 
don't know how to explain that to my constituents in Louisiana. I don't 
know how to go home and explain to my constituents in Louisiana that 
the big companies, some union and some nonunion, get help, but the 
small companies that some people purport to represent and union workers 
got left out for no good reason.
  Let me answer another charge. One of the Senators said: Senator, this 
is just the process; this happens all the time. I remember a time when 
it did not happen this way. I came to the Senate 7 years ago. When I 
got here, there used to be a Senate position and a House position, not 
a Republican position and a Democratic position. We had a Senate 
position. I am proud to be part of the Senate of men and women, 
Republicans and Democrats, who can put a fair deal together and will 
fight for a fair deal and not collapse, capitulate, and give in, and 
that is exactly what happened in conference.
  So when my colleagues ask, Does this give this Senator confidence or 
any Senator confidence that the conference process works, I would say 
simply, No, it diminishes confidence. It undermines confidence. It does 
not build good will. It tears down what little good will is left and 
makes a mockery of it.
  I wish for once the Senate would stand up and send a bill over to the 
House and say there is no reason we can't include everyone; it doesn't 
cost anything. These poor people who wake up early in the morning and 
stay up late at night trying to put bread on the table and pay their 
rent and buy gasoline that is now over $2 deserve a fair shake. It 
doesn't cost anything. There is no skin off your back. But no, we just 
cave, all of us just cave. It is a shame.
  No, this does not help the process. This does not build confidence. 
This does not encourage anyone.
  The fourth point I want to answer is, oh, there she goes, the Senator 
from Louisiana and other Senators on the Democratic side, making the 
perfect the enemy of the good. I am not looking for a perfect bill. I 
am looking for a square deal. I did not come here looking for a perfect 
bill. No Senator comes here looking for a perfect bill. There is no 
such thing. But I am still waiting for one Senator to come to the floor 
and give me one--one--good reason why 10 million workers and the 
companies that hire them that came here asking us for help when it is 
in our power to help, when it does not cost us anything to help, why 
were they taken out of this bill?
  I have not received an answer to that question yet. I will tell my 
colleagues, we may vote on this bill in an hour or so, and I may end up 
voting for this conference report. Some Democrats will vote no. But 
because there are some very good provisions in this bill and there are 
companies in my State that will be helped--and I want to support large 
companies because they are hiring, they are struggling; some of them 
are not; some of them are doing very well. I have no problem. We all 
need to be pro-business, pro-growth, and pro-jobs.
  I am probably going to vote for this conference report. I don't know 
how

[[Page 6843]]

the rest of the caucus will vote. Some will and some will not, but that 
still does not answer my question or solve this problem.
  I have to go back and tell 10,000, maybe more, workers in Louisiana: 
Sorry, you were left out. When they ask: Senator, we didn't cost them 
anything, why did they leave us out? I want someone to tell me why so I 
can go back and tell them. I am going to ask that question on every 
bill, and I am going to put an amendment on every bill, with Senator 
Kennedy's help and other colleagues, whether this conference report is 
adopted or not, until we finally get an answer.
  I hope it is not the answer I think it is. I will state it again and, 
until I get my answer, I am going to keep stating it. I think the 
answer is, because these employers that have multiemployer plans are 
mostly unions that are not attached to big companies, that have a lot 
of money invested in lobbyists and others who can be here talking to 
everybody all day long, and I think the White House decided that 
because most of these are unions that do not support them at election 
time, they are not going to support them at this time.
  I know that is harsh, and I know it sounds very direct. I don't know 
any other way to be because that is the only conclusion to which I can 
come.
  Again, it does not cost money. They were in the original bill; 86 of 
us voted for it. Until I get a better answer, I am going to have to go 
around and tell people that is the answer. If someone wants to debate 
me here, in a private debate somewhere else, write me a letter, give me 
a report, then I will stop saying that, and I will just say I was wrong 
and here is a good reason, and I will accept that and accept it as the 
process and just go on and fight another day. But I have yet to hear 
the answer.
  Let me state again for the Record, in case anybody thinks the only 
businesses that are getting help are businesses that are in trouble, GE 
is funded at 116 percent; AT&T at 111 percent. So we are not just 
helping companies whose pensions are in bad shape. Part of the bill is 
to not put money in a pension that doesn't need it--obviously, these 
pensions don't need it because they are overfunded--and to get that 
money back in circulation to create jobs. I am for that 100 percent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator's time has 
expired.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, if it works for these big guys, why 
can't it work for the little guy, the little contractors, for the union 
guys? We better get past the politics of deciding something is good or 
bad, whether it helps people who vote Republican or vote Democrat, and 
start thinking about the country, start thinking about America, start 
thinking about our troops and get serious about creating jobs.
  When this White House says they are serious about creating jobs, I am 
going to bring this up to the White House at every point. You could 
have created jobs. It didn't cost you a penny to do it. In fact, it 
would have added money. But you turned your back, you walked away, and 
you left them standing there.
  I hope those who were thinking maybe they would not get active might 
get active because of this, because it would sure wake me up if I 
wasn't paying much attention to what was going on.
  I don't want to take any more time. I know the Senator from 
Pennsylvania has been very patient. I will yield the floor but reserve 
the time that is remaining for debate on this side, according to the 
unanimous consent agreement. I think it is the Senator's time to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                         Asbestos Deliberations

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment 
briefly upon the status of legislation to deal with the asbestos crisis 
which faces America. We have had it said that purportedly there are 
some 70 companies which have gone into bankruptcy proceedings or 
reorganization proceedings. There are some 600,000 claims which have 
been filed by individuals who have been exposed to asbestos and make 
allegations of injury; some 8,500 companies have been sued. So we have 
a net situation today where there are people who have been exposed to 
asbestos, who suffered from mesothelioma, which is a deadly disease, 
and they are now not being compensated because the defendants are in 
bankruptcy. We have had a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United 
States that claimants who have been exposed to asbestos may receive 
compensation for whatever injuries they may in the future sustain, 
without having the proof as to existing damages, which seems 
inappropriate to this Senator. It was a narrow 5 to 4 decision.
  We have had many companies, some in my home State, and all across the 
country, in bankruptcy proceedings where commerce has been impeded, and 
if we are able to find an answer to this very vexing problem, it would 
be an enormous economic stimulus to the economy of the United States.
  In July, the Judiciary Committee passed out a bill largely along 
party lines. I supported it even though I said at the committee markup 
that I thought there were many infirmities and many problems, but I 
voted to move it out of committee to get the process going. A very 
unique, really unprecedented procedure was then adopted where the 
former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, a 
very distinguished jurist, Judge Edward R. Becker, agreed to 
participate in what were essentially mediation proceedings for 2 days 
in August, August 18 and 19. Judge Becker and I sat in his chambers in 
Philadelphia with representatives of the manufacturers, of the 
insurers, the reinsurers, the AFL-CIO, and the trial lawyers to start 
going through the very complex issues which were involved to try to 
come to some resolution.
  Following those 2 days of meetings, we have met on 14 occasions in my 
offices in Washington with those same participants, the same so-called 
stakeholders. In between the meetings which Judge Becker and I have 
held with the stakeholders, they have met among themselves and have 
worked out many of the issues.
  I am pleased to report at this time that agreements have been reached 
on quite a number of the tough issues. For example, the startup 
arrangements have been worked out so that funding has been provided for 
the defendants' expanded borrowing authority to make money available 
right away. There are provisions which provide for increased liquidity 
and upfront funding so that claims can be paid in short order. There 
have been provisions worked out for streamlining the administrative 
process. The Court of Federal Claims initially had that authority.
  We have worked with the Department of Labor. I compliment the 
Department of Labor for helping us work through a procedure for 
streamlining the administrative process.
  We have to define exigent health claims so people who are suffering 
from mesothelioma and other deadly ailments will get early treatment. 
We have worked through the processes on judicial review. We have worked 
through the processes on medical commodity.
  I ask unanimous consent that a schedule of the meetings which have 
been held with Judge Becker, some 14 in number, and the manufacturers' 
representatives, representatives of the insurers, AFL-CIO and trial 
lawyers, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    S. 1125, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2003


                            Important Dates

     5/22/03--Senator Hatch introduces S. 1125
     6/19/03--Committee mark-up
     6/24/03--Committee mark-up
     6/26/03--Committee mark-up
     7/10/03--Committee mark-up; voted out of Committee--10 yeas, 
         8 nays and 1 pass
     8/18/03--Meeting with Judge Becker in Philadelphia
     8/19/03--Meeting with Judge Becker in Philadelphia

[[Page 6844]]

     9/12/03--Meeting with Judge Becker in Washington, DC
     9/26/03--Meeting with Judge Becker in Washington, DC
     10/3/03--Meeting with Judge Becker in Washington, DC
     10/14/03--Meeting with Senator Frist in Washington, DC
     10/21/03--Meeting with Labor in Washington, DC
     11/11/03--Meeting with Judge Becker in Washington, DC
     11/12/03--Meeting with Department of Labor in Washington, DC
     1/22/04--Meeting with Judge Becker in Washington, DC
     2/12/04--Meeting with Judge Becker in Washington, DC
     2/25/04--Meeting with Judge Becker in Washington, DC
     3/4/04--Meeting with Judge Becker in Washington, DC
     3/11/04--Meeting with Judge Becker in Washington, DC
     3/18/04--Meeting with Judge Becker in Washington, DC
     3/30/04--Meeting with Judge Becker in Washington, DC
     4/7/04--Frist/Hatch substitute introduced
     4/8/04--Meeting with Judge Becker in Washington, DC

  Mr. SPECTER. We are proceeding with another meeting this afternoon. 
The majority leader has deferred taking up the bill; had originally 
planned to do so in March, and at the request of a number of people, 
including this Senator, the majority leader has deferred taking floor 
action on the bill and has now listed floor action for the day we 
return from the next recess, which is April 19.
  Just yesterday, the majority leader, Senator Frist, and Senator 
Hatch, the chairman of the committee, introduced a substitute bill. 
Senator Hatch has done an outstanding job on this matter, has worked 
through the process of establishing a trust fund which was originally 
set at $108 billion, since has been increased, with a schedule of 
payments to be determined very much like worker's compensation so that 
liability does not have to be established.
  Senator Leahy spoke earlier today and raised questions about the 
desirability of the substitute bill which was introduced yesterday, 
with Senator Leahy saying that there has yet to be achieved consensus 
on two essential elements of a FAIR trust fund, that is fair value 
awards and the total amount of the trust fund.
  The parties are as yet substantially apart on these two items, and it 
is my hope that we can come to agreement. Senator Frist, the majority 
leader, has made a determination that setting a date will facilitate 
more intense negotiations, so to speak, on the courthouse steps, and 
that is a generalization. I hope that if we are not in agreement, but 
close to agreement, that there may be yet some flexibility in the date 
listed for floor action.
  I declined to join with Senator Frist and Senator Hatch in their 
substitute bill because I think it is the better practice to try to 
work through these problems. We have made enormous progress, and it is 
my hope we can make more progress to be ready to reach the date which 
the majority leader has set.
  If we are able to come to terms, it will be an enormous economic 
stimulus to rescue some 70 companies which are in bankruptcy, and it 
will be of enormous importance to the workers who have been exposed to 
asbestos and have serious ailments, including mesothelioma, which is a 
deadly ailment.
  We are going to proceed to try to do that work. I am hopeful we will 
be able to come to terms with these outstanding problems and present a 
bill which can be enacted into law to solve these very serious 
problems.
  To reiterate, on April 7, 2004, Majority Leader Frist and Senator 
Hatch introduced a substitute bill to S. 1125, the Fairness in Asbestos 
Injury Resolution Act, FAIR Act, of 2004. S. 1125 was reported out of 
the Judiciary Committee on July 10, 2003, by a vote of 10 yeas, 8 nays 
and 1 pass. I voted for it.
  According to The RAND Institute for Civil Justice, ``about two-thirds 
of the claims are now filed by the unimpaired, while in the past they 
were filed only by the manifestly ill.'' According to RAND, the number 
of claims continues to rise, with over 600,000 claims filed already. 
More than 8,500 companies have been named as defendants in asbestos 
litigation.'' In 2003 alone, a record 100,000 asbestos claims were 
filed. Seventy companies have already gone bankrupt due to asbestos 
liability.
  As it has been noted before, the bill reported out of the Judiciary 
Committee bill required a great deal of evaluation, analysis and 
significant changes. I contacted senior Circuit Judge Edward R. Becker, 
who had been chief judge of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 
until May 5 of last year. Judge Becker has expert insights into this 
matter and since August of 2003, we have convened some 14 meetings with 
the representatives from the manufacturers, the insurance companies, 
the reinsurers, organized labor and the trial lawyers.
  Through the series of meetings with Judge Becker, we have wrestled 
with and have been able to solve a number of very complex issues. We 
have had the cooperation of many Senators. Senators Hatch and Leahy 
have had representatives at the meetings. In fact, Senator Hatch 
addressed this ``working group'' at one of our meetings. The majority 
leader and minority leader have had representatives at the meetings. 
Senators Dodd, Carper, Feinstein and Nelson have been represented as 
well.
  I am encouraged and appreciative to note that some of these 
agreements that resulted from our meetings have been incorporated into 
the Frist-Hatch substitute asbestos bill. Included in the substitute 
bill are the following provisions negotiated through these meetings.
  No. 1, streamlining administrative process, S. 2290 creates a more 
streamlined administrative system that can be up and running quickly. 
The trust fund will be administered by the Department of Labor, as 
opposed to the Court of Federal Claims under S. 1125.
  No. 2, early startup, the bill aims to ensure that the compensation 
program under the bill can commence operations and begin paying claims 
quickly, particularly for living mesothelioma victims and for other 
exigent claimants who may have little time to wait. Such claimants 
should not be subject to unacceptable delays in obtaining compensation 
due to impediments in commencement of Fund operations. The agreed-upon 
administrative structure, for example, includes provisions for interim 
regulations and houses the Office for Asbestos Disease Compensation in 
the Department of labor, which has the experience and the 
infrastructure to help expedite the establishment of a claims 
processing system.
  The proposal addresses the need to ensure that monies are available 
to the Fund in a short amount of time to be able to pay claims. It has 
two elements: 1, requiring up-front funding; and 2, providing increased 
borrowing authority.
  First, participants would be required to provide funding on an 
expedited basis. This bill would establish a system where all 
participants would be required to make initial payments within 6 months 
of enactment.
  Participants may seek judicial review after they make a payment, but 
cannot use judicial review to delay payment. Strict deadlines on 
lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the funding procedure 
have been included in the judicial review provisions, and reviewing 
courts will be precluded from staying funding obligations pending 
review.
  Also, the borrowing authority of the administration under the bill 
would be expanded to allow for borrowing initial monies needed to 
establish and operate the asbestos compensation program from the date 
of enactment.
  No. 3, defining exigent health claims that should be given priority 
during the startup period. A claim shall qualify for treatment as an 
exigent health claim if the claimant is living and the claimant 
provides: 1, documentation that a physician has diagnosed the claimant 
as having mesothelioma; or 2, a declaration or affidavit, from a 
physician who has examined the claimant within 120 days before the date 
of such declaration or affidavit, that the physician has diagnosed the 
claimant as being terminally ill from an asbestos-related illness and 
having a life expectancy of less than one year.

[[Page 6845]]

  The Secretary may, in final regulations promulgated, designate 
additional categories of claims that qualify as exigent health claims 
under this subsection.
  No. 4, judicial review, language is included in S. 2290 which is 
designed to ensure prompt judicial review of a variety of regulatory 
actions and to ensure that any constitutional uncertainties with regard 
to the legislation are resolved as quickly as possible. Specifically, 
it provides that any action challenging the constitutionality of any 
provision of the Act must be brought in the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia. The provision also authorizes 
direct appeal to the Supreme Court on an expedited basis. An action 
under this section shall be filed within 60 days after the date of 
enactment or 60 days after the final action of the administrator or the 
commission giving rise to the action, whichever is later. The District 
Court and Supreme Court are required to expedite to the greatest 
possible extent the disposition of the action and appeal.
  No. 5, medical monitoring, the working group also worked very hard in 
making sure that the medical monitoring provisions ensured that the 
initial doctor's visit was covered.
  We will be back to work today to continue addressing the remaining 
issues. We are determined to solve the problems. The stakes are very 
high. We have many injured workers who are relying on some answers for 
just compensation. The companies are looking for answers, and the 
economy needs to be stimulated and also looks for an answer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have three subjects I intend to 
address today. Let me address the first and the most sad of those. That 
is, of course, the enormous price that many families are paying as part 
of the current engagement that we are in in Iraq.


                         pfc christopher ramos

  General Robert E. Lee was once quoted as saying:

       Duty, then, is the sublimest word in the English language. 
     You should do your duty at all times. You can never do more. 
     You should never wish to do less.

  On Monday, April 5, just 3 days ago, PFC Christopher Ramos, age 26, 
did his duty with the First Marine Division. He lost his life in action 
against Iraqi insurgents in Al Anbar Province in Iraq. Christopher 
Ramos was from Albuquerque, NM. While at West Mesa High School, he 
dreamed about serving his country as a U.S. marine. Private Ramos' 
father, Al Ramos, said of his son Christopher:

       He was proud of what he was doing. He wanted to be a 
     Marine. He said it was either the Marines or nothing.

  Today, it is important that we in the Senate honor his memory and 
service, and the service of so many other brave young men and women who 
have answered the call to duty and have made the ultimate sacrifice for 
their Nation. It is equally important that we keep the families of 
those individuals in mind and in our prayers.
  Private First Class Ramos leaves behind a wife, Diana Ramos, and an 
18-month-old daughter, Malaya.


                           army sgt lee duane

  In addition to that terrible news, the Four Corners area, which 
includes my State of New Mexico, also lost another fine young man in 
the last few days, Army SGT Lee Duane Todacheene, who was from 
Lukachukai, AZ, and was the nephew of the vice president of the Navajo 
Nation, Frank Dayish, Jr. This young man, Sergeant Todacheene, was 
killed in an Iraqi ambush, according to the Navajo Nation. We extend 
our sympathies to his family as well.


                        marine lt erasmo valles

  Finally, last week Marine LT Erasmo Valles of Hobbs, NM, was severely 
injured in an attack in Falluja when his Humvee was hit by a roadside 
bomb. He is being treated at Bethesda Naval Hospital and we wish him a 
speedy and a full recovery.
  These brave soldiers were put in harm's way by their country, and 
their sacrifice needs to be noted by all of us. Just as we celebrate 
the safe return of many, we need to acknowledge and mourn those who are 
not going to return. I regret that PFC Christopher Ramos and other 
brave marines and soldiers have lost their lives in this endeavor, and 
our sympathies go out to their families.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator allow me to make a unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the adoption of 
the pending conference report occur at 2:45 today, with the time until 
2:45 being equally divided, provided further that the last 8 minutes of 
debate be divided so that Senator Kennedy or his designee be recognized 
for up to 4 minutes, to be followed by the chairman of the committee or 
his designee to close for the final 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me move to another subject and 
express some words about the pension bill that is pending before us.
  I intend to support this bill, but I say that with substantial 
reservations because of the process, once again, that was followed in 
getting this bill to the Senate floor--the partisan way in which it was 
handled. I also say it because of what wound up in this pension bill 
that was not intended to be there. There were things that were left 
out, and many of my colleagues have spoken eloquently about those. The 
multiemployer plans were not treated fairly, as they should have been 
and as I believe most Senators would want them to be, but also there 
were provisions included in this bill--at least one provision that I 
think is highly objectionable.
  Section 207 of the conference report creates an antitrust exemption 
for the graduate medical residency program that currently assigns 
medical students to hospitals where they are required to work for 60 to 
100 hours per week for an average of $9 or $10 an hour. To people who 
are not familiar with the way this place functions in recent years, 
they would be surprised to find that we have written into the pension 
bill a retroactive exemption from the antitrust laws related to this 
issue of medical residency programs. I understand there is currently a 
lawsuit pending before Judge Paul Friedman in the U.S. District Court 
for the District of Columbia brought by medical residents that alleges 
a price-fixing scheme among graduate medical education programs in the 
United States.
  On February 11 of this year, Judge Friedman issued an opinion that 
denied most of the defendants' motions to dismiss and allowed the 
lawsuit to proceed. In his opinion, the judge explained that the 
lawsuit involves one claim--that the defendant graduate medical 
education programs engaged in price fixing.
  Subsection (b)(3) of section 207 explicitly preserves the right to 
bring an antitrust lawsuit alleging any type of price-fixing 
arrangement among two or more graduate medical education programs. 
Clearly this subsection ensures that the antitrust exemption that is 
described in subsection (b)(2) does not apply to this pending lawsuit.
  The last sentence in subsection (b)(2) states that evidence of 
participation in a graduate medical education residency matching 
program shall not be admissible in Federal court to support a claim 
alleging antitrust violations.
  However, subsection (b)(3) clearly states that:

       ``Nothing in this section shall be construed to exempt from 
     the antitrust laws'' any agreement on the part of graduate 
     medical education programs to fix prices.

  Obviously, the restrictions on the admissibility of certain evidence 
in subsection (b)(2) cannot apply to price-fixing lawsuits that are 
explicitly preserved in subsection (b)(3). The provision says 
``nothing'' in this section shall provide exemptions from price-fixing 
claims. Therefore, any provision that would not allow necessary 
evidence to be admitted in price-fixing cases must not apply and could 
not be construed to apply.
  That being said, the antitrust exemption that is established by 
subsection

[[Page 6846]]

(b)(2) raises grave constitutional concerns. There has been no 
justification presented to this Congress, to any committee of this 
Congress for depriving medical residents of the same protections under 
the antitrust laws that are enjoyed by other workers and other 
Americans. I do not see how it is constitutionally permissible to take 
away the equal protection and the due process rights of medical 
residents without any showing that is necessary or beneficial.
  Frankly, this is outrageous for Congress to be legislating in this 
way, without any hearings, without any testimony, without any knowledge 
of what it is doing.
  The reason we have debate on the Senate floor is to allow Members to 
express views when we are getting ready to change the law. This is a 
time-honored process. It is one that was not honored in this case. As 
far as I know, there has been no debate on the floor nor has there been 
debate in committee about this issue.
  I spoke to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, which is 
the committee with jurisdiction over our antitrust laws, and asked if 
he was informed about this provision being included in the pension 
bill. He said he had not been informed. It is my understanding that the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee was not informed either.
  This is a provision that was added in a conference, without 
participation of Democratic Senators, and clearly it is contrary to 
good policy and to proper procedure here in the Senate.
  Let me conclude by having printed in the Record a letter that Senator 
Craig, Senator Feingold, Senator Herb Kohl and I all wrote to our 
majority leader, Bill Frist, and to the Democratic leader, Senator 
Daschle, last November, expressing our concern about this exact type of 
legislative proposal and stating our strong objection to the inclusion 
of this kind of provision in legislation at that time or any time in 
the future. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                                November 18, 2003.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Gentleman: We are writing to express our concern about 
     legislative proposals that have the potential to undermine 
     ongoing antitrust litigation against the National Resident 
     Match Program (known as the ``Match'') by granting the 
     ``Match'' a retroactive antitrust exemption.
       It is our view that Congress should subject proposals like 
     this one that hold widespread implications for patient safety 
     and the working conditions of hundreds of thousands of 
     medical residents to the regular legislative process--
     including hearings and consideration in the appropriate 
     committees--before allowing it to move through Congress. This 
     is particularly important considering that such proposals 
     would retroactively interfere with pending litigation, in 
     which the factual record has not yet been developed and the 
     court has not yet ruled on the merits of the claims. In 
     addition, it is important for the Committee to consider the 
     specific language of any such proposal, as legislation 
     intending to exempt the Match could have broader, unintended 
     effects, including effectively immunizing price-fixing and 
     other anticompetitive practices alleged in the litigation.
       By permitting such a bill to go forward without full 
     consideration of all the factual and legal issues, we would 
     set a precedent that will encourage defendants in all types 
     of pending litigation to come to Congress for relief. We 
     request, therefore, that the Senate convene hearings on this 
     matter before taking further action.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Larry E. Craig.
     Jeff Bingaman.
     Russell D. Feingold.
     Herb Kohl.


                        Electric Grid Stability

  Mr. BINGAMAN. In November of 1965, a disturbance on the electric grid 
resulted in the loss power to some 30 million people in the 
Northeastern U.S. Almost all of New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, 
Rhode Island, and parts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey were blacked out 
for up to 13 hours.
  In July of 1977, power lightening caused the loss of power to 9 
million people in New York city and surrounding areas.
  In December of 1982, high winds caused the failure of a transmission 
tower. Power was lost to 5 million people.
  In July of 1996, power was lost to 2 million customers in 14 States 
in the West, 2 Canadian provinces and 1 Mexican state. The outage was 
the immediate result of a line sagging into a tree.
  In August of 1996, again as the result of contact with trees, another 
outage affected 7.5 million people in 14 Western States, 2 Canadian 
provinces and 1 Mexican state.
  In August of last year 50 million people in 8 Northeastern and 
Midwestern States and 3 Canadian provinces were blacked out for up to 4 
days.
  These were only a few of the major outages that have rendered parts 
of our Nation powerless over the last few years. The most dramatic 
outage ever was only last summer. I don't have to tell the Members of 
this body how serious the effects on the economies of these regions 
were. We all saw it. Airports were shut down for days. Traffic was 
snarled for hours. Businesses were closed, schools shut down. The 
estimates of losses were in the tens of billions of dollars.
  After the first big blackout, in 1965, the industry, under pressure 
from the government, created a voluntary association to try to govern 
the reliability of the system. That association became the North 
American Electric Reliability Council or NERC.
  After the West Coast blackout in 1996, the Department of Energy put 
together a task force on reliability headed by former Congressman Phil 
Sharp. That task force made a number of recommendations. Chief among 
them was that Congress should pass legislation creating a mandatory 
structure for reliability, with penalties for failure to comply with 
the rules, and with government oversight.
  In 1999, the Senate unanimously passed a bill sponsored by Senator 
Slade Gorton of Washington, that did just that. The House did not pass 
such a bill and no final action was taken.
  After this most recent blackout, the Department of Energy, along with 
the Canadian Government, convened a task force to look at the causes of 
the outage and to make recommendations as to how to prevent future 
blackouts. That task force issued its final report Monday. There are a 
number of recommendations contained in that report, but the one that 
this body most needs to pay attention to is the recommendation that the 
Congress pass legislation to create a mandatory system for ensuring 
reliability, with penalties for failure to comply with the rules, and 
with government oversight. The report says: ``The U.S. Congress should 
enact reliability legislation no less stringent than the provisions now 
included in the pending comprehensive energy bills, HR. 6 and S. 
2095.''
  The bill that is before contains those very provisions.
  I don't think that anybody in the Senate believes that we should not 
pass this legislation. The only question is in what form. This bill is 
the same as the language contained in S. 2095, Senator Domenici's more 
comprehensive energy bill. I am not optimistic that the larger bill 
will pass the Senate, or if it does, survive a conference with the 
House to make it to the President's desk.
  Again and again this country has experienced crippling blackouts. 
Again and again investigating panels have recommended that the Congress 
pass legislation to establish a mandatory regime for governance of 
reliability, with penalties for failure to comply with the rules and 
with government oversight. Again and again, the Congress has failed to 
do so.
  It is time for us to pass this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that several articles be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 6847]]

             [From the Akron Beacon Journal, Apr. 7, 2004]

   After the Blackout--FirstEnergy Has Been Kicked Around. When Will 
 Congress Complete the Urgent Task of Improving Oversight of the Power 
                               Industry?

       In the immediate aftermath of the massive August blackout, 
     President Bush and others in Washington were quick to call 
     for sweeping repairs of the nation's electricity grid. Many 
     talked about an investment of $100 billion (a hefty sum, even 
     on Capitol Hill). What has happened in the meantime? 
     Virtually nothing. Proposals ti improve the grid are part of 
     a comprehensive energy bill long stalled in Congress.
       The country would benefit from a broadly conceived approach 
     to energy. Unfortunately, narrow interests have shaped a 
     large part of the legislation under consideration. Those 
     lawmakers arguing for a separate measure to address the 
     electricity grid make sense. Perhaps their efforts will be 
     advanced by the U.S.-Canadian task force that has issued its 
     final report on the causes of the blackout.
       As expected, the task force blamed FirstEnergy Corp. for 
     plunging much of the Midwest, Northeast and Ontario into 
     darkness. The Akron-based power company has admitted trouble 
     with its computers, hampering coordination and diminishing 
     its grasp of events that August day. In that sense, the task 
     force faulting the company for failing to react more quickly 
     seems off the mark. How could FirstEnergy respond when it 
     wasn't fully aware of the problem?
       The company already has made repairs. Among other things, 
     trees near power lines have been trimmed. What will Congress 
     do? Tough as the task force was on FirstEnergy, its 46 
     recommendations suggest (correctly) troubles far beyond one 
     utility.
       The task force proposed writing into federal law rules that 
     more effectively ensure the reliability of power supplies. As 
     it is, an industry group, the North American Electric 
     Reliability Council, monitors the performance of power 
     companies. Compliance with operating standards is voluntary. 
     Meeting the standards should be mandatory. The monitoring 
     effort should be independent of the industry.
       If FirstEnergy operated at the edge of reliability (as the 
     task force concluded), federal officials have little clue 
     whether other utilities are doing so.
       That lack of knowledge compounds the risk of blackouts, 
     larger and smaller, in view of the changing realities of the 
     power industry. The country asks the electricity grid to defy 
     physics. An industry once defined by local utilities 
     supplying electricity to nearby communities has been 
     dramatically transformed the past decade. Electricity now 
     travels long distances, across, say, Ohio into Canada, 
     placing substantial strain on the system.
       Independent power plants tap into the grid with few 
     concerns about their overall impact. An industry pushed to 
     embrace market principles requires a new regulatory scheme. 
     That is the task Congress must complete--before the next 
     blackout. That is the urgent message of the U.S.-Canada task 
     force.
                                  ____


                 [From the Bergen Record, Apr. 7, 2004]

                           Avoiding Blackouts

       Last August, a blackout left 50 million people in eight 
     U.S. states and parts of eastern Canada without power. 
     Although embarrassed utilities are almost certainly more 
     vigilant, the blackout could happen again because in the 
     eight months since not much on the federal regulatory front 
     has changed.
       On Monday, a joint U.S.-Canadian task force that has been 
     studying the blackout issued its final report, with 46 
     recommendations to prevent a recurrence. Many of them are 
     highly technical, but one is startlingly simple:
       Congress should give the utilities' oversight body, the 
     North American Electric Reliability Council, the power to set 
     mandatory, enforceable reliability standards for power grids.
       The big blackout started when a tree in Ohio brushed 
     against a 345,000-volt line in an overgrown transmission 
     corridor. There are currently no mandatory federal standards 
     for how far back trees and brush should be cleared from high-
     voltage power lines.
       Congress is considering mandatory reliability standards as 
     part of the Bush administration's woeful energy bill, a rich 
     mixture of subsidies and tax breaks for energy companies. The 
     bill is now stalemated because of a dispute over costly 
     ethanol subsidies and immunity from lawsuits for 
     manufacturers of the fuel additive MTBE. The Bush 
     administration's arguments that the bill would ease high 
     gasoline prices were undercut when a study by its own Energy 
     Department showed that the bill would actually raise gasoline 
     prices by a few tenths of a percent.
       One of the few levers left to backers is the mandatory 
     reliability provision. But this is unfair to consumers 
     because the energy bill could well fail to pass this year. A 
     responsible energy policy would be to strip out the mandatory 
     federal standards and pass them as a stand-alone bill.
                                  ____


            [From the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Apr. 7, 2004]

                          Probing the Darkness

       ``We have no clue,'' lamented a First Energy Corp. engineer 
     as his computer system sputtered and a massive blackout 
     rolled across eight states last August.
       Now, thanks to the final report of the joint U.S.-Canadian 
     blackout task force, FirstEnergy, along with others, should 
     have a fundamental understanding of how the lights went out 
     and what it will take to keep them on in the future. So 
     should the U.S. Senate, where an energy bill that could 
     create mandatory reliability standards for utility companies 
     is frozen because of other squabbles.
       The task force has not wavered in blaming FirstEnergy for 
     the blackout. It continues to dismiss FirstEnergy's notion 
     that an unstable grid was to blame. Its interim report 
     blasted FirstEnergy for failing to cut trees that stood too 
     close to its high voltage lines. Now it adds that FirstEnergy 
     could have limited the damage if it had cut power to its 
     Greater Cleveland customers on Aug. 14. FirstEnergy 
     executives might begin repairing the company's reputation by 
     mustering the courage to utter three simple words: We are 
     sorry.
       Though FirstEnergy bears the primary responsibility for the 
     blackout, it is not the sole culprit. Unlike other parts of 
     the country with powerful regional grid operators with the 
     authority to isolate trouble spots, the weaker Midwest 
     Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. could act once 
     emergencies develop.
       There is hope for the MISO, which was criticized for its 
     poor coordination with FirstEnergy and its failure to tell 
     other utilities about the grid's mounting troubles. Since the 
     blackout, it now has a computer model that gives minute 
     details about the grid and it has improved communications 
     with other grid operators. For its part, FirstEnergy has 
     agreed to cooperate with an industry preparedness audit.
       The blackout report also recommends that the North American 
     Electric Reliability Council, which sets voluntary standards 
     for electric companies, become independent and break its 
     financial ties to utility companies if it wishes to work 
     closely with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FERC 
     has been pushing for the authority to control electric grids 
     so it can make them more reliable.
       The stalled Senate bill would boost FERC's power to rein in 
     frontier-style grids.
       Experts predict that without a powerful sheriff over the 
     Midwest grid, another blackout is likely. Responsible 
     senators should strip the electric provisions out of the 
     energy bill and push for their separate approval before that 
     dark day comes.
                                  ____


              [From the Long Island Newsday, Apr. 7, 2004]

                    Pass Electricity Reliability Law

       The failure by Congress to pass a national energy bill is 
     trying up legislation that would help avoid another blackout 
     like the one that shut down much of New York and the 
     northeastern United States last year. The remedy is simple: 
     Split off and pass the sections dealing with reliability of 
     the nation's electric grid separately--and promptly.
       The final report of the U.S.-Canada task force 
     investigating the blackout makes explicit the need for 
     enforceable reliability rules for North America's interlinked 
     electric utilities. It was because one Ohio utility, 
     FirstEnergy Corp., failed to follow the industry-recommended 
     standards--neglecting to shut down part of its electric grid 
     temporarily when a problem developed--that about 50 million 
     people were left without power, some for up to 4 days, last 
     August. The estimated cost to the U.S. economy: up to $10 
     billion.
       It was something as simple as a transmission line shorting 
     out on a tree branch that started the cascading chain of 
     events. The task force found that the outage got out of hand 
     because FirstEnergy violated several of the North American 
     Electric Reliability Council's voluntary standards--by not 
     responding properly to the power failure as it developed and 
     by failing to let neighboring utilities know what was 
     happening, among other shortcomings.
       That's why the reliability rules need to be mandatory.
       The necessary legislation is now part of a far-reaching and 
     controversial energy bill that has been stalled in Congress 
     for two years. The electric utility portion that would help 
     avert future blackouts has broad support. Holding it hostage 
     to the larger bill only delays the necessary effort to make 
     the nation's power supply more reliable and secure.
                                  ____


              [From the Newark Star-Ledger, Apr. 7, 2004]

                        Head Off More Blackouts

       Last August the intricate web of power plants, transformer 
     stations and transmission lines that form our nation's 
     electric power grid failed, shutting out the lights for tens 
     of millions in the Northeast and portions of Canada.
       An international review team says it happened because the 
     utility industry in general, and an Ohio utility in 
     particular, failed to follow voluntary rules designed to 
     ensure electricity flowed reliably.

[[Page 6848]]

       Computers were faulty. Control room operators didn't 
     realize the system was about to crash. Trees hadn't been 
     trimmed, allowing high-voltage lines that were sagging to 
     short out. The industry board that set the rules isn't 
     independent enough.
       Another summer is approaching and the rules are still 
     voluntary, held hostage to the political battle in Washington 
     over a larger energy bill.
       The power industry insists that another giant blackout is 
     unlikely. Utilities are upgrading maintenance, training and 
     equipment, spending lots of money to keep the juice flowing. 
     They may be right, for now. This summer the utilities are 
     likely to be on their toes.
       But backsliding is inevitable without strong mandatory 
     rules. Sooner or later, there will be another power disaster.
       There is widespread support in Congress for tough new 
     regulations. Unfortunately, GOP senators merged these reforms 
     into the larger federal energy bill, seeing them as leverage 
     to get support for the whole package, complete with lavish 
     new subsidies for oil, gas and coal producers and expanded 
     drilling in wilderness areas.
       The energy bill is going nowhere in a presidential election 
     year. Congress should see the light and pass a narrow bill 
     designed to fix the electric grid and prevent future 
     blackouts.
                                  ____


           [From the Westchester Journal News, Apr. 7, 2004]

                      Preventing Future Blackouts

       The power outage of August 2003 that left tens of millions 
     of people without electricity in New York, seven other states 
     and part of Canada should not have happened, according to the 
     final report released Monday by a joint U.S.-Canadian task 
     force that investigated the worst blackout in U.S. history.
       The report, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said, 
     ``makes clear that this blackout could have been prevented.'' 
     Perhaps now--eight months later--Congress will act on its 
     promise to fix the problems that caused the blackout.
       The outage was not prevented, the report said, because 
     poorly trained operators in the FirstEnergy Corp. of Ohio 
     control room failed to alert other utilities that its 
     computer system malfunctioned so the cascade of outages could 
     have been short-circuited. The utility also had not followed 
     through on safeguards to deal with power failures and lacked 
     a backup monitoring system.
       The result--in addition to the impact on millions of 
     people, including 6.7 million in New York--was a $10 billion 
     bite out of the economy.
       The task force recommended establishing reliability 
     standards under an international overseer with the authority 
     to punish companies that violate them. That would replace the 
     voluntary rules of the North American Electric Reliability 
     Council, which has no enforcement power. The task force found 
     that FirstEnergy had at least seven violations of the 
     voluntary rules.
       FirstEnergy has since increased staff training and spent 
     $10 million on new computer controls, company spokeswoman 
     Ellen Rains told USA Today. That's more than Congress has 
     done.
       Measures addressing electricity reliability are contained 
     in an energy bill that is stalled in Congress for a third 
     year. These include upgrading the nation's rickety grid, and 
     taking control away from some 130 separate power authorities 
     and forming new regional transmission networks regulated by 
     the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to ensure adequate 
     electricity distribution.
       Those measures, along with task force recommendations, 
     should be separated from other measures in the dead-ended 
     energy bill and approved quickly in stand-alone electricity 
     reliability legislation such as that proposed by Sen. Maria 
     Cantwell, D-Wash., and others.
       New York state, it should be noted, has also done nothing 
     about keeping an adequate flow of power to meet the state's 
     current and future needs despite its own warning even before 
     the massive 2003 blackout. In 1999, a blackout left 200,000 
     people without power in parts of Manhattan. The Democratic-
     controlled Assembly and Republican-dominated Senate are in 
     political gridlock. Sadly, that's typical of a state 
     government that hasn't passed a budget on time in 20 years. 
     But nothing is happening.
       Both Congress and the state Legislature need to act to 
     prevent another costly blackout.
                                  ____


              [From the Albany Times-Union, Apr. 8, 2004]

                            Blackout Lessons


   a report on last august's power failure makes clear the need for 
                          tougher regulations

       Last summer's blackout plunged much of the Northeast and 
     parts of Canada into blackness. But a newly released report 
     on what caused the power failure, and whether it might have 
     been prevented, is illuminating. It should put to rest the 
     once-fashionable argument that the utility industry is best 
     served by government deregulation. Perhaps in terms of a free 
     market, less bureaucracy would lead to greater efficiency and 
     lower rates. But what of reliability? If anything, the report 
     is Exhibit 1 in a case for close government oversight.
       As expected, the report, compiled by a joint U.S.-Canada 
     task force, faults FirstEnergy Corp. of Ohio for failing to 
     contain the blackout by shutting off 1,500 megawatts of power 
     in the Cleveland-Akron area right after the first surge in 
     voltage occurred in transmission lines south of Cleveland. 
     Not only that, but the investigators found that FirstEnergy 
     should have been more alert to the possibility of a power 
     failure because the region it serves had a known history of 
     grid instability.
       The report found that FirstEnergy not only failed to act 
     promptly but was ill prepared for an emergency because it 
     hadn't followed voluntary industry guidelines for long-range 
     planning and system monitoring. Just as alarming, the 
     investigators faulted the Midwest Independent Transmission 
     System Operator, which oversees FirstEnergy, for failing to 
     alert neighboring regions of a gathering crisis, as well as 
     other safeguards designed to stave off widespread outages.
       The report's authors have rightly called for replacing the 
     voluntary guidelines with government regulations designed to 
     ensure the reliability of the nation's power grid. Given the 
     huge cost associated with the blackout, not to mention the 
     inconvenience for millions of stranded commuters and the 
     hazards they faced, ensuring reliability must be a top 
     priority. Given the vulnerability of the grid system to 
     potential terrorist acts, reliability must be an urgent 
     priority.
       Regrettably, though, there are signs that any proposed 
     regulations might become mired in yet another partisan 
     standoff in Congress. Rep. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., prime 
     sponsor of a sweeping energy bill, believes that his 
     legislation already contains provisions that address most of 
     the task force's concerns. But Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., 
     has warned that the energy bill could become a ``quagmire'' 
     for new regulations and has proposed a separate bill instead.
       She is right. It's past time for corrective action. Perhaps 
     no one has made that point better than Gov. George Pataki did 
     last August, when he bitterly recalled the assurances of 
     power systems managers that there would never be a repeat of 
     the East Coast blackout of the 1960s. He should remind Sen. 
     Domenici that those who do not learn from history are 
     destined to repeat it.
                                  ____


                 [From the Baltimore Sun, Apr. 8, 2004]

                               Powerless

       Imagine the moment. George W. Bush steps to the podium at 
     Madison Square Garden. The roar of approval from his fellow 
     Republicans is deafening as the president prepares to 
     formally accept their nomination to seek a second term in the 
     White House.
       Then, suddenly, just as Mr. Bush is about to speak, the 
     lights go out; the sound system goes dead; the air-
     conditioning clicks off.
       Terrorism! Everyone suspects that at first. But they're 
     wrong. it's just another particularly ill-timed power 
     blackout in the Big Apple. A preventable disaster caused by a 
     utility company that failed to follow safety procedures 
     Congress has yet to make mandatory--even after a similar 
     incident last summer shut off the juice for days to more than 
     40 million people in eight states and parts of Canada.
       Admittedly, the odds of such a blackout disrupting the 
     Republican National Convention in August are slim. And the 
     GOP will likely be prepared with backup generators in any 
     case.
       A repeat of last summer's debacle is quite likely to occur 
     at some point, however, until Congress enacts the reliability 
     standards that are being held hostage to an internal 
     Republican dispute over Mr. Bush's long-stalled energy bill.
       Lawmakers should set aside that dispute and move quickly to 
     enact a narrower proposal that would deal exclusively with 
     electricity standards and penalties for utilities that fail 
     to comply. There appears to be no disagreement in either 
     party that such mandatory standards are needed.
       Massive, cascading blackouts are not new, but they are 
     getting worse. The first big blackout in November 1965 cut 
     off power to about 30 million people in the Northeast for up 
     to 13 hours. Other major outages have crippled Western states 
     and parts of Mexico.
       Task force after task force has recommended that voluntary 
     reliability standards put in place in 1965 be stiffened 
     through the force of federal law and oversight. The most 
     recent such recommendation came this week from a joint U.S.-
     Canadian panel studying the reasons for last summer's grid 
     collapse, which closed airports, schools and businesses and 
     cost tens of billions of dollars.
       Most or all of the consequences could have been avoided if 
     an Ohio power company had been prepared, as it should have 
     been, with emergency plans to contain the damage caused by 
     three high-voltage lines that sagged onto untrimmed trees and 
     short-circuited.
       Even if Mr. Bush's comprehensive energy bill represented an 
     enlightened approach to public policy, its failure to win 
     enactment so far wouldn't justify further delay in approving 
     the electricity standards. But this bill is a turkey, so 
     laden with giveaways to the energy industry it makes many in 
     his own party gag.

[[Page 6849]]

       It's time for Mr. Bush to set the electricity standards 
     free. If he doesn't, the trendy question this summer may not 
     be ``Where were you when the lights went out?'' but ``Who was 
     in charge of the switch?''
                                  ____


           [From the Memphis Commercial Appeal, Apr. 8, 2004]

                       Little Change in the Grid

       Last August, a blackout left 50 million people in eight 
     U.S. states and parts of eastern Canada without power. 
     Although embarrassed utilities are almost certainly more 
     vigilant, the blackout could happen again because in the 
     eight months since not much on the federal regulatory front 
     has changed.
       Last week, a joint U.S.-Canadian task force that has been 
     studying the blackout issued its final report, with 46 
     recommendations to prevent a recurrence. Many of them are 
     highly technical, but one is startlingly simple:
       Congress should give the utilities' oversight body, the 
     North American Electric Reliability Council, the power to set 
     mandatory, enforceable reliability standards for power grids.
       The big blackout started when a tree in Ohio brushed 
     against a 345,000-volt line in an overgrown transmission 
     corridor. There are currently no mandatory federal standards 
     for how far back trees and brush should be cleared from high-
     voltage power lines. Had those standards been in effect last 
     summer and enforced--no blackout.
       Congress is considering mandatory reliability standards as 
     part of the Bush administration's woeful energy bill, a rich 
     mixture of subsidies and tax breaks for energy companies. 
     Even though its 10-year cost has been pared down from $31 
     billion to $14 billion, it is still too rich for many 
     lawmakers.
       The bill is now stalemated because of a dispute over costly 
     ethanol subisides and immunity from lawsuits for 
     manufacturers of the fuel additive MTBE. And its backers are 
     running out of arguments why the bill should be passed. The 
     Bush administration's arguments that the bill would ease high 
     gasoline prices were undercut when a study by its own Energy 
     Department showed that the bill would actually raise gasoline 
     prices by a few tenths of a percent.
       One of the few levers left to backers like Sen. Pete 
     Domenici, R-N.M., and Rep. Joe Barton, R--Texas, the chairmen 
     of the Senate and House Energy committees, is the mandatory 
     reliability provision. But this is unfair to consumers 
     because the energy bill could well fail to pass this year. A 
     responsible energy policy would be to strip out the mandatory 
     federal standards and pass them as a stand-alone bill.
       Otherwise, the lights, elevators and air-conditioning could 
     go out against his summer, and this time we won't need a 
     joint U.S.-Canadian commission to know who is responsible.
                                  ____


                 [From the Toledo Blade, Apr. 8, 2004]

                          Regulating the Grid

       The massive power blackout that darkened much of the 
     northeastern U.S. and southeastern Canada last Aug. 14 showed 
     that voluntary regulation isn't enough to keep the North 
     American electric grid reliable. The final report of a U.S.-
     Canadian task force, which found that the outage was 
     preventable, only reinforces that view.
       What Congress needs to do is strip new mandates for 
     operation of the grid from its moribund energy bill and pass 
     them as separate legislation. And it should do so now, not 
     later, before another catastrophic blackout ensues.
       The North America Electric Reliability Council, which runs 
     the interconnected grid, is a creature of the power industry. 
     It should be, as the U.S.-Canada panel suggests, replaced by 
     a body that would impose mandatory federal standards on the 
     transmission of electric power, along with penalties for 
     utilities that violate them.
       Very simply, the panel found at least seven violations of 
     the voluntary industry standards. NERC has no enforcement 
     authority, even among its own members, and hundreds of 
     millions of U.S. and Canadian residents should not have to 
     depend on the good will of the industry for reliable 
     electricity.
       In addition, the panel has reinforced its earlier 
     conclusion that Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp., parent of 
     Toledo Edison, was largely responsible for failing to take 
     quick measures that would have prevented the blackout's 
     spread to parts of eight states and the province of Ontario.
       Failures in FirstEnergy lines south of Cleveland started a 
     voltage imbalance that tilted the system out of control on 
     Aug. 14, the report said, but earlier warnings went unheeded 
     by the company.
       Months before the blackout, ``there was clear experience 
     and evidence that the Cleveland-Akron area was highly 
     vulnerable to voltage instability problems,'' the report 
     said. Unfortunately, neither FirstEnergy nor the Midwest 
     Independent System Operator, which was supposed to be 
     overseeing the utility, were prepared to assess or deal such 
     emergencies.
       Cutting off the power of much of metropolitan Cleveland 
     immediately might have limited the blackout, the task force 
     said. We can understand FirstEnergy's reluctance to target 
     certain customers, although failing to take action had far 
     worse consequences. The outage ultimately affected some 50 
     million Americans and Canadians.
       FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries are carrying out an 
     aggressive tree-trimming program in the wake of the blackout, 
     but it is important to remember that what happened on Aug. 14 
     was about more than limbs on wires.
       As the panel pointed out, electric deregulation and the 
     resulting need for greater long-distance power transmission 
     have helped put the grid in jeopardy. In 1986, investor-owned 
     utilities bought just 18 percent of their power from other 
     producers. In 2002, the figure was 37 percent.
       During the same period, U.S. electric demand grew by 26 
     percent and generating capacity rose 22 percent, but the 
     grid's capacity remained largely static.
       Those trends illustrate vividly the need to put the 
     electric grid under stringent federal regulation. Otherwise, 
     we'll never be sure the lights will stay on.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time be charged 
to our side until we get to the 8 minutes which was reserved for the 
two managers of the bill if there is nobody speaking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Massachusetts be allowed to speak until there are 4 minutes 
remaining prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 minutes on the minority side, and 
there are 6 minutes 50 seconds remaining on the majority side.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to let me know when 3\1/
2\ minutes have been used.
  Mr. President, the issue before the Senate at this time is whether we 
are going to treat all workers fairly and equitably in the pension 
system.
  As we know, there are two different pension systems. The single-
employer pension system has 35 million Americans, and effectively 9.7 
million are in the multiemployer plans. Both of those pension systems 
are under pressure because of the adverse economic impact.
  We have tried in conference to make sure those 9.7 million Americans 
in a multiemployer pension system which are at serious risk are going 
to get the same kind of fairness and attention as in the single-
employer plans. We were unable to do that. We had that basically agreed 
on.
  They are effectively excluded. It is like taking 100 Members of the 
Senate and saying we are going to take care of 80, but we are leaving 
20 out. That is not right. What we ought to be doing is taking care of 
the whole 100.
  That is why I ask people to vote in opposition and give us a chance 
to come back and include all of those. We shouldn't exclude all those.
  Who are the 9.7 million?
  First of all, if we look at what has happened in the pension systems 
in America, we see the rapid decline and loss of pension coverage in 
America. Among the groups that are losing it the fastest are those low 
wage workers. They are the ones in the multipension systems. They are 
the ones at the greatest risk. They are the ones we ought to be out 
there trying to protect. They are the ones involved as workers in the 
small business. That is what this is all about.
  Why shouldn't we provide the protection for those workers in small 
businesses that are at the lower economic income as we are providing 
for the Fortune 500? This legislation provides for the workers in the 
Fortune 500. We are saying there are ``fortune 10,000'' companies as 
well. I have read into the Record the various companies and 
corporations.

[[Page 6850]]

  We now know there is an assault on pension coverage. Without the kind 
of protection of including multiemployers, there are going to be 
hundreds of thousands of workers at risk, who play by the rules, work 
hard, and who have been falling further and further behind in the 
economic progress of this country.
  Final point: The point has been made that the White House says we 
can't include the multiemployer programs because we do not want to put 
more pressure on the Pension Guaranteed Corporations.
  Look at this: Last year, $2.4 billion in 2003 drawdown on the pension 
PPGC for single-employer plans; less than $5 million last year for 
multiemployer plans.
  These smaller companies need protection, they need fairness, they 
need equity. These companies need the kind of attention and relief that 
we are providing for the single employer. This legislation doesn't do 
it.
  Let us defeat this legislation and then embrace it and include all 
the workers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Kennedy has 32 seconds; the Senator 
from New Hampshire has 6 minutes 32 seconds.
  Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator wish to make any further statement?
  I yield the Senator 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is interesting. Pensions are sort of 
like health insurance. We all have it in the Senate. We all have good 
health insurance, unlike the rest of the 270 million Americans. We all 
have good pensions.
  Can you imagine how many Members of the Senate would be over here now 
if we said over 20 percent of the Senators are going to see their 
pension effectively undermined?
  That is what we are effectively saying to the workforce in this 
country. We are looking out after 80 percent. There is another 20 
percent out there. We all have good ones in here. Why don't we at least 
make sure, if we are going to protect the 80 percent of American 
workers, that we protect the other 20 percent?
  That is the issue that is before the Senate. It is an issue of 
fairness in how we are going to act for workers in this country. That 
is why I hope Senators will vote no.
  I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his courtesy, as always. I 
appreciate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the issue before the Senate is how we 
correct an imminent problem, an immediate problem that many pension 
funds are facing because the present way their payments into their 
pension funds are valued is based on an instrument that no longer 
exists, the 30-year Treasury bond; therefore, they are being asked to 
contribute an artificial number which has no relationship to the actual 
interest rate charges and revenues or interest rate return that the 
marketplace would naturally generate.
  The practical effect is $80 billion will be misallocated within the 
marketplace. The practical effect is that a significant amount of 
investment--the purchase of machines, the purchase of things which make 
things more efficient, contributions to people's employment and other 
areas, including wages--will be impacted negatively because dollars 
will be artificially moved, rather than where they are most efficiently 
used, meaning a loss of jobs.
  The companies will be less competitive, the people who work for these 
companies do not have the support they need in the way of capital 
equipment and compensation, and there will be a negative impact on 
employment in the marketplace. We need to correct that in the short 
term. This is a short-term bill, a 2-year bill.
  The Senator from Massachusetts has raised some very legitimate 
concerns about where the multiemployer plans are going, but that is a 
very complicated issue. This bill is a very small attempt to address 
the most severely distressed elements of the multiplans. It has 
targeted language to address a few individual plans which are employer 
plans which are under clear stress--specifically, airlines and steel 
companies--but it does not try to solve all the problems.
  The understanding behind this bill is that we are going to come back 
to this issue, hopefully promptly, for long-term substantive review of 
the question and a fix. This is a 2-year bill. The most important part 
is to get the 30-year bond issue straightened out so the $80 billion is 
not misallocated and the jobs that would be lost are not lost. That is 
why we need to pass this bill at this time.
  I urge adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 68 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Byrd
     Chafee
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Sessions

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Akaka
     Edwards
     Kerry
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for the information of colleagues, in terms 
of the schedule, we will not be in session tomorrow. There will be no 
further rollcall votes today. We still have some business to do, which 
I will comment on shortly.
  On the Monday after recess, we will have no rollcall votes on that 
day. I will come back and announce the specifics of the schedule later 
today or tonight.
  We are making real progress on establishing the universe of 
amendments for the FSC/ETI bill. We will continue to work. We have made 
real progress over the course of the day in the area of this important 
bill.

[[Page 6851]]

  We have a number of issues to address over the course of the 
afternoon. Again, there will be no rollcall votes tomorrow. We will not 
be in session tomorrow. We will have no rollcall votes on the first day 
back after the recess.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

                          ____________________