Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Senate for bringing the farm bill to the floor today. For my State of Montana, there is no one single issue that is more important than to get the farm bill passed this year, particularly a farm bill that makes sense and helps address the issues that our producers are facing. Producers have faced drought for a couple of years. I must say, if we do not get relief in a farm bill passed this year, it is truly a fact, I question whether some farmers are going to be able to hang on. It is that important. I think the farm bill we passed out of the committee is a good bill. It is not a great bill, but it is a good step, a good step in the right direction. I am pleased we will now have the opportunity to continue our negotiations in the Senate Chamber to make the bill as comprehensive and as strong as possible. We need to support our Nation's agriculture, that is clear--our farmers and our ranchers. Other countries support their farmers and their ranchers, agriculture in their country, I might add, more strongly than we do in ours, and I might add that is not right. We have an obligation to help people fend for themselves--those who depend upon the weather and who depend upon the market to do a lot better job. We cannot wait until the current program expires next year. We rely upon producers for our food. We have the lowest food prices in the world. We have the most efficient producers in the world. They are now relying upon us for survival. Our agricultural producers are in as tough shape as I have ever seen. Years of very low prices and extreme drought have made it nearly impossible for farmers and ranchers to break even. Some areas in my State of Montana are experiencing their sixth year of drought. This summer, I traveled across the high line--the northern part of our State--where a lot of grain is produced. I was astounded, saddened, and stunned. I was just sick at seeing the land in such poor shape. Some of the grain has barely come up. Most of it is just dust for miles and miles. There is no crop because there is no moisture. It is devastating. In about a square 2,000 miles of cropland there is nothing. We have strip farming in Montana because we haven't had a lot of moisture year after year but drought. A large portion of my State is as bad as I have seen it. It is worse, in my judgment, than the drought back in 1988 which was extremely severe. For about 2,000 square miles of central Montana, I hardly saw a combine. Low prices and drought is disastrous not only to producers but surrounding communities. When producers are hurting, obviously the communities are hurting. Farmers can't buy seed, fertilizer, and machinery, not to mention that they don't have much for clothes or for shoes. The whole economy suffers as well as farmers. The list goes on. Agriculture is the No. 1 industry in my State. It has been for years. It is today. We are an agricultural State. When agriculture suffers, the entire State suffers. When agriculture suffers in America, the entire country suffers. Often, agriculture leads to recession before other parts of the economy. Often agriculture tends to lead us out of recession. As we know, when the country is in recession and agriculture is also in recession, there is no way in the world one can say agriculture is leading our country out of recession. That is because they are in such bad shape. Lenders and bankers in my State are cutting back. They are not granting that working capital to the farmer and to the rancher the way they were before. They are cutting back. Why? Because of the position of farmers. The troubled agricultural economy not only affects our Nation but it also threatens relationships we have with other countries. A strong domestic agricultural policy is the only way we are going to get a level playing field with our trading partners. We are at a disadvantage. Eighty-some percent of the world's agricultural export subsidies are paid by the European Union. How are we going to get leverage to get those agricultural subsidies down so we have a level playing field? We cannot, unless we have leverage. The only leverage I know of is a very strong domestic agricultural policy where farmers are really strong. In fact, I think that is barely enough and is probably not enough if we are going to get the job done to get other countries to lower their agricultural export subsidies. Clearly, if we don't pass this bill, and if our farmers are in a weakened position, that makes it even harder in world trade talks to get other countries to lower their export subsidies which very directly hurts American farmers. The time has come to pass this bill, pass the changes in Freedom to Farm, which really turned out to be ``freedom to fail.'' Farmers at that time when those laws were enacted were gambling. They had an idea Freedom to Farm would work pretty well the first few years, but not after a few years later. We are here a few years later. It is not working. Farmers are in difficult shape. We need a bill that is a commonsense bill, one that is right for Montana, and that is right for America. We need to work together to get this done now because that is the least we can do for our farmers. Our farmers want some help. We should give them the help they need because they have been doing so much for us and so much for the world with the food they are supplying. Let us get to work and pass a strong, stable, comprehensive farm bill this year. Holding the California Dairy Industry Harmless

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the title amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank all those who worked so assiduously, thoughtfully, and carefully on this bill. There are lots of people I could commend. Two people I particularly commend are on my staff: Tom Klouda and Alan Cohen, who are sitting at my left. They know this issue inside and out and have been of invaluable service to me personally. I just want them to know how much I appreciate their very fine work. They have done a great job. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am not going to use all my time. We have had a very good debate on this bill. I strongly urge Members to vote to waive the point of order because this is a very sound, fiscally responsible bill. I know Senators will be very proud in voting for this legislation.

Mr. BAUCUS. Absolutely.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will be brief. We have had these arguments and made our points many times. It is important to put all of this in perspective. There is a lot of arcane budget language discussion here. A lot of that is very important. There is an important reason for having budgets. Cutting through all the technical budget arcane language and green eyeshade stuff, very simply the situation is this: The railroad retirement trust fund has built up a large balance. The question is what we should do about that. We have decided in this legislation that the balance should be reduced by lowering the taxes the railroad companies have to pay--and they are extraordinarily high taxes today--and also increasing survivor benefits, for example, and the early retirement age which conforms with current practices in other industries. The charge is made that the balance will be too low, and that is going to jeopardize the budget, it is going to jeopardize the trust fund. The fact is this legislation provides for many safeguards; there are actuarial reports, financial statements, and reports to the contrary. The actuary himself has said at no time, even under this legislation, will the balance in the trust fund be at such a level that it jeopardizes the fund or payments to the beneficiaries or cause undue strain on the railroad companies. That is the actuary's projection. He makes that projection for the next 75 years. Those of us in Congress have a hard time trying to predict what the economic situation is going to be 10 years from now. That is pretty hard to predict. What we are talking about with this legislation is at least 20 years from now, because that is when the trust fund is going to be dipping down to a lower level than is the case today. We have all kinds of oversight reports required by the legislation to make sure the trust fund is safe. The Senator from Oklahoma says we have to borrow $15 billion. That is technically true, but that is a wash because the trust fund will receive $15 billion in assets. We have unified accounting in this case, so as a practical matter, that has virtually no effect on the budget. Also, with respect to the trust fund, it is a wash, too, because some of those securities will be private securities as opposed to public securities. Altogether, this is a bill that has been worked on for a long time. Seventy-four Members of the Senate cosponsored this legislation. We considered the bill last year in the Finance Committee. Over 20 amendments were offered. The House has passed this legislation twice, both times by very large margins. If this point of order is not waived, if this technicality is not waived, then there will be no bill passed and this bill is going to die.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I yield such time as the Senator from Delaware desires.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to waive the relevant section of the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS. I withdraw the request, Madam President.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes for debate prior to the vote in relation to the Gramm amendment No. 2196; that regardless of the outcome of the vote, there be 4 minutes of debate prior to the vote in relation to the Nickles amendment No. 2175 with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form, and that no second-degree amendments be in order to either amendment nor the language that may be stricken.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is an amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm. I strongly urge Members to not vote for it. It is unnecessary. There are actuarial reports required in this bill to the Congress, and financials are required annually. We will know well in advance of any potential problem that may occur in 20 years. This is a killer amendment. If it passes, we have to go to conference. That means no bill this year. I urge Members not to support this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment is, first, totally unnecessary. The actuaries project that the balance of the fund without this bill over 75 years will be at least one and one-thirds above the benefits paid. That is the lowest level; that is, about the year 2002, which is significantly more than the short-term actuarial balance necessary for Social Security. One and two-thirds; one for Social Security. This amendment is totally unnecessary. It is, second, a killer amendment. If this amendment is agreed to, we will go to conference. There are not many days left in the session. There will be no railroad retirement bill passed this year and probably not in this Congress. It is unnecessary and I particularly urge Members to oppose it. The underlying bill requires many audit reports, financial and actuarial reports on a yearly basis on the strength, viability, and the health of this trust fund. We will have plenty of time and many years in advance to see whether or not some of the dire predictions made in this Chamber are accurate. We have a hard time knowing 10-year budgets in the budget process around here. We are talking about 20 years down the road. A, it is not necessary; B, a lot of reports, if the dire predictions do come true; and, C, it is a killer amendment. I urge colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments the Senate gave consent to earlier be reversed so the first vote will be on the Nickles amendment No. 2175 and the second vote will be on the Gramm amendment No. 2196.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I don't see any other Senators wishing to speak, and the leadership would like to schedule these votes around 4:30, so we have 15 more minutes. I will take that time to make a couple of points. First, this amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma simply is unnecessary. It is true that there is a dip. The fact is, on a yearly basis the dip is as represented on that chart, but the bill before the Senate will not be as low as represented on the chart. Even if it is as low as represented on the chart, this is unnecessary. It is true that there is a question in the year 2021. There are a lot of questions. We have to do the best we can with what we have. The vast majority of Senators and House Members have considered and concluded that this is a fair way to deal with this issue. This issue, if it arises, will not arise, according to the basis of this debate, for another 20 years. So we are talking about what may or may not occur in 20 years. Because of the annual reports provided in the bill and the actuarial estimates on an annual basis, when it gets closer to 20 years from now, we will have an idea whether or not this is working. If it is not working, we will make adjustments. This amendment is totally unnecessary. A couple of other points. The Senator mentioned there is a lot of Social Security money going into railroad retirement. I will address that. It is a point that is not commonly understood. In America today, clearly, there is a wide variety of industries. Some are new young industries, service industries; some are older, mature industries, such as railroad or mining industries. Industries come and go. They expand. They are just different, which means they have different ratios of the number of employees paying into Social Security compared with retirees receiving Social Security in that industry. Social Security, of course, doesn't collect and pay on an industry basis. It collects and pays on a national basis. It is a large pool of Americans, American workers paying into Social Security, and there are a large number of retirees in America receiving benefits. So as a practical matter, if we look at an industry, say a mature industry where there are fewer employees paying into a Social Security trust fund, and a lot of retirees receiving benefits, in effect there is a transfer of Social Security to that industry away from a younger industry where there are so many more employees paying in and so many fewer retirees receiving benefits. In effect, that is what happens today in America under Social Security. That is what is happening today in railroad retirement under tier 1, which is essentially Social Security. Because it is a mature industry and because there are fewer employees--railroaders in the industry, compared with the number of retirees proportionate to the average industry in America--there are transfers in effect to railroad retirees under tier 1 as is the case for all industries and for all workers in America today. There is no difference. There is no difference. So it sounds as if Social Security is helping out unfairly, enriching railroad retirees under tier 1. It just is not because the Social Security tier 1 employees are treated the same way as are employees in a mature industry receiving benefits. The second point is it has been suggested here that it is not fair to lower the retirement age to 60 from 62. After all, the retirement age under Social Security is higher. It has been suggested that it is not fair to vest earlier, 5 years instead of 10 years; that it is not fair that survivor's benefits for a survivor would be 100 percent instead of, say, 45 percent. And the point is made under Social Security retirees' survivors get benefits at a later age. So isn't this some special deal that railroad retirees are getting? It is not fair. On the face of it that is a question. But, as they say, that is only half of the story. In the rest of the story, the facts are that tier 2 in railroad retirement is very comparable to a private pension plan that a company may have for its employees. The company's employees-- retirees, say--would receive benefits under Social Security, tier 1 in the railroad system, and they receive benefits under their pension plan, tier 2 in the railroad industry. Many pension plans provide for an earlier retirement age--not 65 or up to 67, as required in Social Security, but at an earlier age. Those people pay Social Security. Those are Social Security retirees. How does all that work out? What is happening here? It is very simple. In the private sector pension plans participate in what is called a bridge with Social Security; that is, under Social Security the retirement age is 65, but under the private pension plan if you fully vest--say 30 years employment at, say, 60--the private pension plan makes up the amount that Social Security does not pay. It is called a bridge. That is how it works and it makes sense. If Social Security does not provide those benefits for early retirement age, then the private pension plan provides the benefits. That is what is happening in this legislation. It is just the same. That is, tier 2 would provide the extra benefits under a bridge to tier 1, in effect. Actually, they don't provide it in tier 1. It is just that the extra benefits go to the retiree to make up the difference. I submit, railroading is pretty hazardous. It is a dangerous industry. And a 62 retirement age--excuse me, a 60 retirement age after 30 years of hard work as a railroader certainly seems fair to me. There are other industries not as dangerous or demanding, but this one certainly is. It is a dangerous industry. It has been suggested that ERISA provisions ought to apply. Railroad pensions should be fully funded, and this is not fully funded--as is the case under ERISA, which is what applies to most private pension plans. First of all, Social Security is not fully funded. Maybe it should be. We would like to work in that direction, but it is not today. But more important, to fully fund the railroad retirement plan would require the injection of $40 billion. Then it could be fully funded. We do not have $40 billion. I think the total revenue of the railroad system in America is about $40 billion per year, and I think the income per year is close to $4 billion in the railroad industry. Still more to the point, this trust fund, tier 2, would have about $40 billion today, an extra $40 billion, if Congress in the past had lived up to its word. It would have it. What am I saying? Many years ago, Congress--I think it was in 1950--passed something called dual benefits. The effect of it is that railroad retirees got dual benefits. They got twice the benefits. Clearly, that got to be a lot of money for the trust fund. If they get double benefits for Social Security compared with other retirement systems, that adds up pretty quickly. Congress decided to change that, in 1974--to end that. Congress said we are going to end this dual benefits idea. It is just too expensive. It is just too much. But we, Congress, will grandfather in prior retirees so they do not get less than they thought they were going to get. So as a practical matter, that would have been--those benefits paid prior to 1974 would have been about $3.5 billion. If the railroad retirement system had that $3.5 billion--they did not get it, Congress did not give it to them--today that would be worth about $30 billion, $40 billion. If Congress had lived up to its word in the past, we could come close to having enough dollars in the fund to make it fully funded and ERISA applicable. But ERISA cannot be applicable today because it is $40 billion short because Congress didn't live up to its word. Nevertheless, I think the provisions in this bill requiring all these reports assure us of notice, adequately in advance, whether or not there is going to be a problem during the next 20 years. It could be just the opposite. It could be a lot better than we expect. But if it is worse than we expect, there will be more than enough benefits for Congress to be able to change it.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have been listening carefully to my good friend from Texas, and a lot of what he says is accurate. But he does not, as they say, tell you the whole story. Ultimately, the question comes down to: Are there enough funds in tier 2, in the railroad retirement fund, to pay additional benefits to retirees and spouses and also to decrease the amount of taxes the railroads are now paying? Admittedly, it is a very high rate. That is the question. And can that be done in a fiscally sound manner? Today the railroad retirement trust fund balance is growing very dramatically. Under current law, the trust fund will have balances this year of about six times the cost of benefits. Through about the year 2020, the ratio never sinks below six. At that point, the year 2020, it continues to decline forever. By the end of 75 years, the balances in the trust fund will equal an unbelievable 53 times the cost of 1 year's benefits. So the question is, Why all this increase in balances? Isn't there something prudent that can be done about this very large increase in balances? Because under the actuarial estimates it just continues to grow and grow. And how much of the balance is really necessary? In Social Security, the actuary considers the system to be in actuarial balance in any year the balances of the Social Security trust fund are equal to at least one time the amount of benefits that are paid out in a year. That is Social Security's standards. The actuaries have determined there is at least a 1-to-1 ratio of balances in the Social Security trust fund compared to the costs in that year that have to be paid out. Clearly, today it is much more than one, but the standard, the actuaries say, is 1 to 1. It is not six times or three times, but one. Today, on the railroad retirement trust fund tier 2, there is a real need, frankly, to do something about the balances in a way that seems reasonable and prudent. There are some changes that should be made. One is the retirement age. Some industries are a lot more hazardous and dangerous than some others. Railroading is certainly more hazardous and more dangerous than some other industries. The retirement age today in the railroad industry under current law is 62 years. It is only fair that it be reduced to 60 years. In many industries across the Nation, the retirement age is lower than that. It can be 55, and for a hazardous industry such as railroads it makes sense that the retirement age be 60. In addition, vesting does not have to be a full 10 years as it is today. In many industries, vesting is less than that. It is 5 years. For survivor benefits, today when a railroader retires, he and his wife will receive 145 percent of wages. If he dies, the widow gets 50 percent. If he were single, it would be 100 percent. So the thought is to at least raise the widow's. If she survives her husband, raise her benefits to 100 percent. It seems to me that the railroader himself would get 100 percent if he retired and is single. It just makes sense. The current taxes that the company pays are too high. They are much higher than taxes paid in the private arena, and they are higher than what a company would pay in its pension program for its employees. The idea is to lower the taxes and increase the benefits in a way that is reasonable and prudent so we don't have that huge balance accumulating in the railroad trust fund. I think it is done in a very sound and fair way. The ultimate question really is, Is the balance of money in the trust fund large enough to accommodate these changes? In the legislation before us, which includes the changes I have indicated, the balances in the trust fund in any year are at least one and two-thirds times greater than the amount needed to pay benefits in that year. That is a higher standard by two-thirds than the standard currently for Social Security. By the end of the 75-year period under this bill, the balances are about 12 times the cost of paying benefits in any 1 year. Look at the chart of the Senator from Texas. He has that red portion. It continually falls off until about the year 2023. In 2026, his chart stops. It doesn't keep going. If his chart were to keep going, it would have the effect of this chart behind me to my right. It falls down to the levels indicated on the chart of the Senator from Texas, but then it starts right up again at a very high rate. The low level which is of concern to the Senator from Texas rightfully should be addressed. It is a level which is one and two- thirds times higher than the actuarial balance that the chief actuary at Social Security says must be maintained. There are provisions in the bill--the Senator from Texas is correct, and the railroad industry agrees and thinks this is just fine--which say if the funds are not what we assume them to be, then the railroader's and employer's taxes begin to rise. But the Senator from Texas says when that happens, and if it happens, Congress is going to just come right in and bail out the railroad industry. We have not done that, historically. The last five times this Congress generally addressed the question of the financial viability of the railroads and/or the retirement system, in 1974, in 1981, in 1983, and in 1987, Congress did not bail out the railroads. Congress either decreased benefits or raised employer taxes. We encourage the railroad to solve these problems themselves. We have never ``bailed out'' the railroad industry. Further, this legislation before us has lots of built-in sort of requirements of independent audits, of reports, and looking far ahead as possible to try to anticipate if there is going to be a problem of some kind or another. Specifically, the legislation before us requires the trust fund to have an independent, qualified public accountant to audit the trust. The trust fund then must submit a report to Congress which includes a report based on the audit. The report supplied to Congress must contain financial statements of operations and cashflow. Moreover, two financial reports required in current law would continue. The chief actuary for the Railroad Retirement Board must also do a major update of actuarial evaluations every 4 years but with annual updates every year by the chief actuary of the Railroad Retirement Board. The Railroad Retirement Board will report annually to the Congress and to the President as to the state of the system. Every year we will get updates. The lines on the chart of the Senator from Texas as well as these are the intermediate assumptions; that is, there is a pessimistic assumption, there is an intermediate assumption, and there is an optimistic assumption. These are the intermediate assumptions on both of these charts. What basically drives these assumptions? What is the biggest unknown that we have to look at? It is essentially the level of employment in the railroad industry. When the level of employment in the railroad industry declines significantly, obviously, as is in the case of Social Security, there are fewer people paying into the trust fund compared with the number of people drawing benefits from the trust fund. This is an industry which is almost the opposite of Social Security. For Social Security, there are about three workers for every one person paying in. In this industry, it is about one to three. It is a mature industry. It is not a young industry. It is an industry with fewer employees and more retirees. The question is, How many more fewer employees will there be to accommodate the number of retirees? I would like you to look at this chart behind me. It indicates that we need not worry about a cut in the number of employees. That is because of increased productivity and increased efficiencies in the railroad industry. It really can't get much lower per ton mile or per railroad mile traveled. This chart shows the railroad crew size and productivity. As you can see, in about the years 1950 to 1964, the average crew size was five. In the years roughly 1960 to 1978, the crew size was four, and on down to about 1998, the average crew size is two. You can't get much lower than two for a crew on a train. There is always going to be at least two. We are not going to have fewer employees. We will probably have more trains, which means more employees, but we are not going to have fewer employees per train. Meanwhile, the revenue per ton mile and per employee, as you can tell by the chart, is increasing at a very high rate. We have more revenue for ton miles per employee. That is going to help the solvency of the trust fund. At the same time there are not going to be any fewer employees than there are today. The basic point is, Is this the responsible way to solve the problem of explosive trust fund balances? I submit yes. One, the actuaries will maintain a balance that is proper. There will be annual reports galore. I urge Senators to resist this amendment. It is unnecessary. It is wrong. It means the balances will stay forever. The benefits will not be greater. The burden on taxes will not be lower in due time. If this amendment is agreed to, despite being wrong on its merits, it is going to probably mean no railroad bill this session, and maybe next year, because we will have to go to conference on this matter. I yield the floor.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my concern regarding an element on the Fiscal Year 2002 Transportation Appropriation Conference Report. While I believe that this report, for the most part, spends funding according to statute and aids our Nation's transportation system, I am very concerned about the distribution of a major funding category. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA 21, was passed by the Congress in 1998 by overwhelming margins. For the first time receipts into the Highway Trust Fund were guaranteed to be spent for transportation purposes. This is accomplished through the annual calculation of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority, RABA, which makes adjustments in obligations to compensate for actual receipts into the Trust Fund versus the estimated authorization included in TEA 21 for the fiscal year. While I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee has upheld the firewalls in this conference report, I find the redistribution of RABA funds to be unacceptable. Under TEA 21, RABA funds are to be distributed proportionately to the States through formula apportionments and also to allocated programs. This conference report is a radical departure from that and is a cause for great concern. States receive less money in this conference report than is called for under TEA 21. For that reason, this conference report is in violation of TEA 21. I am dismayed to have to voice my concern regarding an otherwise beneficial transportation bill. However, as an author of TEA 21 and a believer in its principles, I am saddened to see TEA 21 violated at the expense of the States.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, technically, the chairman and the Senator from New Mexico are right because that is the way the budget rules have been applied. And this is a gray area. This is not similar to buying a truck or a gold mine or buying another physical asset. Rather, it is buying securities instead of Treasury bonds. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. So I am saying to my friends, the Government is no better off or worse off whatsoever if the trust fund buys securities rather than buying Treasury notes, as all pension funds do. They invest in both Treasury securities as well as equity securities. So I urge my colleagues to not apply this rule at this time because the Government is no better or worse off; second, if the Senator's amendment were to be adopted, that would be the end of the railroad retirement bill this year because we would have to go back to the House and it would not survive this session or maybe even this Congress.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself a minute and a half. Mr. President, I have the highest regard for the Senator from New Mexico and also for Senator Conrad, chairman of the Budget Committee. They do an excellent job in a very difficult situation trying to keep us on track with the budget matters. They are very good Senators. I think people from their home States know that. But I just wanted to state that. The question here is, does this cost any money? If you assume it does cost money, then there is an argument against directed scorekeeping; that is, there is an argument we do have outlays of maybe $15, $17 billion. What is it we are addressing? We are addressing that the tier 2 retirement trust fund buys securities; that is, stocks and bonds, rather than buying Treasury bills. The question is, Is buying equity securities the same or different from buying Treasury notes? Under the rules, they are different; that is, one is an outlay and the other is not. So it will be a $15 billion outlay cost under the budget rules if the trust fund invests in securities; that is, equity securities, and no outlay, no cost when the trust fund buys Treasury bonds. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.