[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7656-S7660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 2922. A bill to create a Pension Reform and Simplification 
Commission to evaluate and suggest ways to enhance access to the 
private pension plan system; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.


          the pension reform and simplification commission act

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President: I rise today to introduce legislation 
calling for the establishment of a Pension Reform and Simplification 
Commission. The legislation derives directly from conversations I have 
had with constituents and experts on three key issues.
  First, there is the problem related to the current cost and 
complexity of private pension plans. In my view current regulations 
place an unnecessary burden on small and medium business as they 
attempt to adopt pension plans. Indeed, even the most simple plans are 
often so complicated in form and function as to be incomprehensive to 
an everyday businessperson.
  Second, there is the problem involved in coverage. Although over-all 
pension coverage may be consistent over the last decade and the assets 
of private plans have been on the increase, my concern is with those 
individuals of low to moderate income who are being left out of the 
private pension plan equation. As companies move toward cheaper plans--
401(k)s being a salient example--and feel less obligated to offer 
defined benefit-type plans, individuals who do not have the extra money 
to contribute to their pension plans are

[[Page S7657]]

unable to benefit from a plan's availability. This is if a plan is 
available at all, and in many cases it is not.
  Third, there is the problem of what kind of private pension plans are 
best suited for the so-called ``New Economy''. Clearly there is 
considerable debate as of late in terms of what kind of private pension 
plans should be offered so as to increase saving, decrease mobility, 
provide opportunity, enhance entrepreneurship, and so on, all of which 
is apparent in the rise of hybrid pension plans. My foremost concern 
here is that Congress now finds itself reacting to innovative private 
pension plans rather than being pro-active in their creation.
  Mr. President, in 1974, Congress passed the Employee Retirement 
Income Security Act, known by most people by its acronym of ERISA, our 
intention at the time being twofold. First, we wanted to protect the 
assets held in private sector retirement plans. Second, we wanted to 
create uniform rules that govern how these plans will be implemented in 
each and every state.
  From most accounts we have accomplished these two goals. There is no 
question that ERISA has flaws that must be addressed--and I will 
discuss these in detail later--but for all these flaws ERISA was 
extremely significant in that it reaffirmed the government's commitment 
to the importance of retirement plans for all Americans. Furthermore, 
it created a comprehensive framework in this country under which the 
expansion of private retirement plans could occur. Equally important, 
the mechanisms it established for personal saving has added trillions 
of dollars in available investment capital over the last decade alone, 
fueling in a very tangible way the unprecedented economic growth that 
we are seeing right now.
  But for all the praise ERISA receives, it is also criticized widely 
and, in my opinion, correctly on a number of counts. For this reason, 
it is time to seriously re-evaluate whether it is addressing the needs 
and concerns of all Americans. It is time to examine whether it fits 
the demands of a changing, global, ``new'' economy.
  As a specific example of these problems, the adoption of piecemeal, 
narrow, and complicated statutes and regulations in the 26 years since 
ERISA's implementation has made substantial portions of our retirement 
system inefficient, expensive, and oftentimes incomprehensible to 
anyone wishing to use it. It is well-known that we continue to add 
provisions and plans with no effort at all to make them internally 
compatible. We may have a broad vision about what we want to do with 
retirement policy in this country, but we instead of revising 
retirement policy in a comprehensive and strategic manner, we simply 
add new ideas and language incrementally, hoping they will appeal to 
businesses who wish to offer them to their employees.
  Sadly, the end result is that for many businesses the cost of 
compliance with ERISA regulations--the administrative and professional 
costs of qualification--rival and even outweigh the costs of providing 
the benefits themselves. This, in turn, has led to a decision by many 
business owners that they can no longer afford to offer retirement 
plans to their employees, this in spite of their desire to do so. For 
these people, the current rules burden the system beyond the benefits 
they provide. This has to change.
  But the cost and complexity I have just mentioned has had a corollary 
effect, that being a lack of access to pension plans on the part of 
low- and middle-income workers, women and minorities in particular. 
Rightly or wrongly, one of the foremost criticisms directed toward 
ERISA is that it has accelerated the demise of traditional defined 
benefit pensions and increased conversions to new forms of plans, 
specifically defined contribution plans like 401(k)s. Employers 
oftentimes no longer feel it is their role to provide retirement income 
to their employees as they once did under defined benefit plans. 
Instead they make defined contribution plans available and then educate 
employees as to how to save for themselves.
  The problem is that the retirement security of a great many workers 
now lies in their ability to contribute individually to these plans, 
and this is not always possible. Indeed, data suggests that if these 
individuals are able to save adequately at all, they do so late in 
their careers--this after paying for their homes, their childrens' 
education, and other important spending priorities. Only then do they 
have the opportunity to accumulate the money needed to supplement 
Social Security and carry them through retirement. But these are the 
lucky ones. The fact is a large portion of Americans simply no longer 
have the capacity to save, this in spite of living in a time of 
economic prosperity. This too needs to be changed.
  There is a third reason to re-evaluate ERISA, and that is that the 
dynamics of the New Economy demand a discussion of what retirement 
policies best serve the economic interests of the United States. For a 
good part of this century, private pension plans were seen by employers 
as a way to keep their workforce intact, their employees' morale high, 
and devotion to the company constant. Employees stayed with companies 
because they identified with the company and were treated by employers 
as family. Continuity and connection were the primary motivations for 
individuals as they considered a job.
  Recently, however, this rationale has changed, and has done so 
significantly. According to most analysts, the main determinant for 
most employees as they choose a job is personal development and 
professional growth, the feeling being that economic security is best 
attained by mobility--moving from one job to another, increasing 
education, pay, and retirement savings as you go. Staying at one firm 
is still an ideal for some but it is not essential for many. Perhaps 
more importantly, given the dynamics of the New Economy, it may no 
longer be practical to assume that you can find retirement security at 
a single firm.

  The bottom line, much as the recent debates over cash balance plans 
suggest, is that some very basic issues concerning pension policy are 
coming to the fore at this time, examples being the essence of the 
employer-employee relationship, the ability of companies to attract and 
maintain a skilled workforce, the benefits provided to short- and long-
term employees, the advisability of worker mobility seen in the context 
of technological innovation and globalization, and so on. Here, we must 
confront the reality of political economic change, and do so quickly 
and coherently.
  But Congress is not doing that. As I stated previously, we are 
reacting to changes rather than planning for the future in a coherent 
and strategic manner. In my view, this is an extremely serious problem 
as it limits our ability to create the conditions necessary for 
national economic growth and individual economic welfare.
  As many of my colleagues know, the notion of a Pension Commission has 
been discussed and debated for a number of years, but we have never 
placed it high enough on our list of priorities to address it with 
purpose. I would argue that we can no longer afford the luxury of 
contemplation, and the time to act is now. Failure to adjust our 
existing policies to meet the challenges we face both now and in the 
future will result in several specific outcomes.
  First, it will mean that many workers will see their retirement 
expectations fade or disappear. Second, it will likely mean that these 
individuals will be forced to rely on government sponsored programs 
that are themselves financially overextended. Finally, it will mean 
that the capacity of U.S. firms to compete in the global marketplace 
will be diminished. In my view, none of these outcomes are acceptable. 
We simply must become more thoughtful and pro-active.
  The bill I introduce today has a number of purposes, but foremost 
among them is to establish an affordable, accessible, equitable, 
efficient, cost-effective, and easy to understand private pension plan 
system in the United States. It is designed to conduct a complete top-
to-bottom evaluation of the current system and provide concrete 
recommendations as to how we can reform it to serve the interests of 
employers, employees, and the entire nation as a whole.
  This Commission will be composed of fifteen members, all with 
significant experience in areas related to retirement income policy. It 
is mandated that the activities of the Commission

[[Page S7658]]

will be concluded in a little over two years, with specific language to 
be provided to Congress so that we can act on their recommendations 
immediately. To ensure that the activities of the Commission are not 
redundant or otherwise wasteful, it will be allowed to secure data from 
any government agency or department dealing with retirement policy, and 
furthermore, may request detailees from these agencies and departments 
on a non-reimburseable basis. The Commission will also be allowed to 
hold hearings, take testimony, and receive evidence as appropriate from 
individuals who are able to contribute to this reform effort.

  This bill has been created after detailed discussions with a number 
of individuals and organizations interested in retirement policy, from 
the Employee Benefits Research Institute, to the Center for Budget and 
Policy Priorities, to the Association of Private Pension and Welfare 
Plans. Although all of the organizations involved have their own 
perspective on how retirement policy issues should be addressed in the 
United States, I have made a concerted effort to make their concerns 
compatible in this legislation. Significantly, all endorse the goals of 
the bill, as does the American Academy of Actuaries, the Executive 
Committee of the New York State Bar Association, and the Chairman of 
the Special Commission on Pension Simplification of the New York State 
Bar Association, Mr. Alvin D. Lurie.
  Mr. President, although there is much to recommend concerning our 
current pension system, it is common knowledge that this system is, in 
many instances, too complicated for participants to understand, too 
difficult for businesses to use, and too inaccessible for individuals 
to join. We have added layer upon layer of legislation, to the point 
that the system is not only unwieldy, but often of questionable 
purpose. We have reached the point that its complexity and 
inaccessibility is having a tangible impact on individuals and 
businesses alike.
  In my view, the status quo is no longer viable or acceptable. It is 
time to meet the challenge that faces us in a direct and strategic 
fashion. It is time to reform and simplify the system so that we have a 
effective mechanism that serves employers and employees alike and 
provides the means to guarantee all Americans income security in their 
retirement years.
  Mr. President, the time to act is now. I ask my colleagues to 
recognize the importance of this legislation, and lend their support 
for its passage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
included in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. I also ask 
that the letters of support from the American Academy of Actuaries and 
the Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans be included in the 
Record immediately following my floor statement.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2922

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Pension Reform and 
     Simplification Commission Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The creation and implementation of an affordable, 
     accessible, equitable, efficient, cost-effective, and easy to 
     understand system is essential to the continuity and 
     viability of the current private pension plan system in the 
     United States.
       (2) There is a near universal recognition in the United 
     States that the laws that regulate our pension system have 
     become unwieldy, complex, and burdensome, a condition that 
     hinders the achievement of increased saving and economic 
     growth and cannot be fixed by ad hoc improvements to ERISA 
     and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (3) Significant and effective improvement of laws can only 
     be accomplished through a coordinated, comprehensive, and 
     sustained effort to revise and simplify current laws by a 
     high-level body of pension experts, whose recommendations are 
     then transmitted to Congress.
       (4) In recent years, the adoption of narrowly focused and 
     increasingly complex statutes through amendment of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (in this Act 
     referred to as ``ERISA'') and the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 has impeded the efforts of employers and employees to 
     save for their retirement and imposed significant challenges 
     for businesses which consider establishing pension plans for 
     their workforce.
       (5) A high national savings rate can contribute 
     significantly to the economic security of the Nation as it 
     adds to available investment capital, fuels economic growth, 
     and enhances productivity, competitiveness, and prosperity.
       (6) The Federal Government can potentially increase the 
     national savings rate through the implementation of policies 
     that create an effective framework for the spread of 
     voluntary retirement plans and the protection of the private 
     assets held in those plans.
       (7) Private pension plans have been, and remain, the single 
     largest repository of private capital in the world and 
     potentially act as a significant inducement for personal 
     saving and investment.
       (8) Pensions represent the only hope that most working 
     Americans have an adequate supplement to social security 
     benefits, and while the private pension system has been 
     greatly improved since the establishment of ERISA, many 
     inequities remain, and many workers are still not covered by 
     the system.
       (9) It is essential that all Americans, no matter what 
     their income security level, have the opportunity to achieve 
     income security in their retirement years. Currently, many 
     tax and retirement incentives for private pension plans, 
     while benefiting higher income employees who can often save 
     adequately for their retirement, do not serve sufficiently 
     the needs of low and moderate income workers.
       (10) The current pensions rules have tended to produce 
     disparate coverage rates for low and moderate income workers.
       (11) The failure of the Government to modify current 
     pension policies will mean that many workers will be deprived 
     of the options needed to save for their retirement and will, 
     consequently, have their retirement expectations minimized or 
     eliminated.
       (12) The failure of the Government to redress the burdens 
     imposed by over-regulation and complexity on employer-
     sponsored pension plans will harm employees and their 
     families.
       (13) The failure of the Government to redress the problems 
     related to private pension plans may erode the ability of 
     United States companies to compete effectively in the 
     international market and result in a decrease in the economic 
     health of the Nation.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       There is established a commission to be known as the 
     Pension Reform and Simplification Commission (in this Act 
     referred to as the ``Commission'').

     SEC. 4. DUTIES.

       (a) In General.--The Commission shall--
       (1) study the strengths, weaknesses, and challenges 
     involved in the regulation of the current private pension 
     system;
       (2) review and assess Federal statutes relating to the 
     regulation of the current private pension system; and
       (3) recommend changes in the law regarding the regulation 
     of the current private pension system to mitigate the 
     problems identified under subsection (b), with the goal of 
     making the system more affordable, accessible, efficient, 
     less costly, less complex, and, in general, to expand pension 
     coverage.
       (b) Issues To Be Studied.--The Commission shall include in 
     the study under subsection (a) a consideration of--
       (1) the manner in which the current rules impact private 
     pension coverage, how such coverage has changed over the last 
     25 years (since the enactment of ERISA), and reasons for such 
     change;
       (2) the primary burdens placed on small and medium business 
     in the United States regarding administration of pension 
     plans, especially how such burdens affect the tenuous 
     position occupied by these organizations in the competitive 
     market;
       (3) the simplification of existing pension rules in order 
     to eliminate undue costs on employers while providing 
     retirement security protection to employees;
       (4) the primary obstacles to employees in gaining optimum 
     advantages from the current pension system, with particular 
     attention to the small and medium business sector and low and 
     moderate income employees, including minorities and women;
       (5) the feasibility of providing innovative design options 
     to enable small and medium businesses to be relieved of 
     complex and costly legislative and regulatory burdens in 
     matters of adoption, operation, administration, and reporting 
     of pension plans, in order to increase affordable and 
     effective coverage in that sector, for low and moderate 
     income employees, with emphasis on minorities and women;
       (6) the means of leveling distribution of private pension 
     plan coverage between high wage earners and low and moderate 
     income workers;
       (7) the feasibility of forward-looking reforms that 
     anticipate the needs of small and medium businesses in the 
     United States given the obstacles and opportunities of the 
     new global economy, in particular issues related to the 
     mobility and retention of skilled workers;
       (8) how pension plan benefits can be made more portable;
       (9) the means of achieving the expansion and adoption of 
     pension plans by United States businesses, especially those 
     employing low and moderate income workers who currently lack 
     access to such plans;

[[Page S7659]]

       (10) the impact of expanding individual retirement account 
     contribution limits and income limits on private pension plan 
     coverage;
       (11) the provision of innovative incentives that encourage 
     more employers to use existing private pension plans;
       (12) the impact of qualified plan contribution and benefit 
     limits on coverage; and
       (13) any proposals for major simplification of Federal 
     legislation and regulation regarding qualified pension plans, 
     in order to address and mitigate problem areas identified 
     under this subsection, with the goal of--
       (A) strengthening the private pension system;
       (B) expanding the availability, adoption, and retention of 
     tax-favored savings plans by all Americans;
       (C) eliminating rules that burden the pension system beyond 
     the benefits they provide, for low and moderate income 
     workers, including minorities and women, with specific 
     emphasis on--
       (i) eligibility and coverage;
       (ii) contributions and benefits;
       (iii) minimum distributions, withdrawals, and loans;
       (iv) spousal and beneficiary benefits;
       (v) portability between plans;
       (vi) asset recapture;
       (vii) plan compliance and termination;
       (viii) income and excise taxation; and
       (ix) reporting, disclosure, and penalties; and
       (D) identification of the trade-offs involved in 
     simplification under subparagraph (C).
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 24 months after the 
     designation of the chairperson under section 5(d), the 
     Commission shall transmit to the President and Congress a 
     report containing--
       (A) the issues studied under subsection (b);
       (B) the results of such study;
       (C) draft legislation and commentary under paragraph (2); 
     and
       (D) any other recommendations based on such study.
       (2) Legislative recommendations.--The Commission shall 
     develop draft legislation and associated explanations and 
     commentary to achieve major simplification of Federal 
     legislation regarding regulation of pension plans (including 
     ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) to implement any 
     findings or recommendations of the study conducted under 
     subsection (b).
       (3) Recommendations.--Any official findings or 
     recommendations of the Commission shall be adopted by \2/3\ 
     of the members of the Commission.
       (4) Minority views.--All findings and recommendations of 
     the Commission formally proposed by any member of the 
     Commission and not adopted under paragraph (3) shall also be 
     included in the report.

     SEC. 5. MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMISSION; RULES; POWERS.

       (a) Composition.--
       (1) Number.--The Commission shall be composed of 15 
     members, appointed not later than 45 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Appointments.--The membership of the Commission shall 
     be as follows:
       (A) 3 individuals appointed by the President, after 
     consultation with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, or their respective designees.
       (B) 3 individuals appointed by the majority leader of the 
     Senate.
       (C) 3 individuals appointed by the minority leader of the 
     Senate.
       (D) 3 individuals appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (E) 3 individuals appointed by the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (b) Qualifications of Members.--
       (1) In general.--Individuals appointed under subsection 
     (a)(2) shall be individuals who--
       (A) have experience in actuarial disciplines, law, 
     economics, public policy, human relations, business, 
     manufacturing, labor, multiemployer pension plan 
     administration, single employer pension plan administration, 
     or academia, or have other distinctive and pertinent 
     qualifications or experience in retirement policy;
       (B) are not officers or employees of the United States; and
       (C) are selected without regard to political affiliation or 
     past partisan activity.
       (2) Other considerations.--In the appointment of members 
     under subsection (a), every effort shall be made to ensure 
     that the individuals, as a group--
       (A) are representatives of a broad cross-section of 
     perspectives on private pension plans within the United 
     States;
       (B) have the capacity to provide significant analytical 
     insight into existing obstacles and opportunities of private 
     pension plans; and
       (C) represent all of the areas of experience under 
     paragraph (1)(A).
       (c) Terms; Vacancies.--
       (1) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of 
     the Commission.
       (2) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not 
     affect its powers and shall be filled in the same manner as 
     the appointment of the member causing the vacancy.
       (d) Chairperson; Vice chairperson.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall 
     designate a chairperson and vice chairperson of the 
     Commission from the individuals appointed under subsection 
     (a)(2).
       (e) Compensation.--
       (1) Prohibition of pay.--Except as provided in subparagraph 
     (B), members of the Commission shall serve without pay.
       (2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Commission may 
     receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of 
     title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or 
     regular place of business in the performance of services for 
     the Commission.
       (f) Rules of the Commission.--
       (1) Quorum.--Eight members of the Commission shall 
     constitute a quorum for conducting the business of the 
     Commission, except 5 members of the Commission may hold 
     hearings, take testimony, or receive evidence.
       (2) Notice.--Any meetings held by the Commission shall be 
     duly noticed in the Federal Register at least 14 days prior 
     to such meeting and shall be open to the public.
       (3) Opportunities to testify.--The Commission shall provide 
     opportunities for representatives of the general public, 
     taxpayer groups, consumer groups, think tanks, and State and 
     local government officials to testify.
       (4) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     chairperson of the Commission.
       (5) Other rules.--The Commission shall adopt such other 
     rules as necessary.
       (g) Powers of the Commission.--
       (1) Information from federal agencies.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from 
     any Federal department or agency such materials, resources, 
     data, and other information as the Commission considers 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this section. Upon 
     request of the chairperson of the Commission, the head of 
     such department or agency shall furnish such materials, 
     resources, data, and other information to the Commission.
       (B) Coordination of research information.--The Commission 
     shall ensure effective use of such materials, resources, 
     data, and other information and avoid duplicative research by 
     coordinating and consulting with the head of the appropriate 
     research department of--
       (i) the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration of the 
     Department of Labor;
       (ii) the Department of the Treasury;
       (iii) the Social Security Administration;
       (iv) the Small Business Administration;
       (v) the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation;
       (vi) the National Institute on Aging; and
       (vii) private organizations which have conducted research 
     in the pension area.
       (2) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as any other 
     Federal agency.
       (3) Acceptance of services; gifts; and grants.--The 
     Commission may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or grants of 
     services or property, both real and personal, for purposes of 
     aiding or facilitating the work of the Commission. Gifts or 
     grants not used at the expiration of the Commission shall be 
     returned to the donor or grantor.
       (4) Contract and procurement authority.--The Commission may 
     make purchases, and may contract with and compensate 
     government and private agencies or persons for property or 
     services, without regard to--
       (A) section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5); and
       (B) title III of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.).
       (5) Volunteer services.--Notwithstanding section 1342 of 
     title 31, United States Code, the Commission may accept and 
     use voluntary and uncompensated services as the Commission 
     determines necessary.

     SEC. 6. STAFF AND SUPPORT SERVICES.

       (a) Executive Director; Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to civil service laws and regulations and 
     after consultation with the Commission, appoint an executive 
     director of the Commission and such other additional 
     personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to 
     perform its duties.
       (2) Compensation.--The chairperson of the Commission may 
     fix the compensation of the executive director and other 
     personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to classification of positions and General Schedule 
     pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive 
     director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable 
     for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of 
     such title.
       (b) Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request by the 
     chairperson of the Commission, the head of any Federal 
     department or agency may detail, on a nonreimbursable basis, 
     any of the personnel of the department or agency to the 
     Commission to assist the Commission to carry out its duties 
     under this Act and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (c) Administrative Support Services.--The Administrator of 
     General Services shall provide to the Commission, on a 
     reimbursable basis, any administrative support services that 
     are necessary to enable the Commission to carry out this Act.

     SEC. 7. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall terminate not later than 26 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

[[Page S7660]]

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
                                  ____



                                American Academy of Actuaries,

                                                    July 13, 2000.
     Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: The American Academy of Actuaries 
     would like to express its strong support for your idea of 
     establishing a national commission on pension reform and 
     simplification. The Academy has long advocated a 
     comprehensive and coordinated approach to retirement policy. 
     We believe the establishment of a bipartisan commission of 
     experts to analyze obstacles that weaken our private pension 
     system and recommend solutions is a positive first step. The 
     Academy also believes that slight modifications to your 
     proposal would make the commission more effective.
       The Academy commends you for recognizing that, because the 
     laws that regulate our private pension system have become too 
     complex, they discourage employers from helping their workers 
     save for an adequate retirement. We strongly support the 
     concept of a bipartisan commission of experts that will 
     recommend specific ways to simplify the rules governing 
     private plans, thereby encouraging employers to expand 
     coverage to more workers.
       The Academy believes that the commission called for in your 
     proposal could be made more effective if Congress was 
     required to have an up-or-down vote on its recommendations. 
     Furthermore, we believe that, given the expertise available 
     to the commission, it should be possible to formulate a 
     result in 12-18 months, rather than the 24 months specified 
     in your legislation. Finally, we would encourage the 
     commission to examine pension changes in the context of a 
     national retirement income policy, including Social Security, 
     since major changes to the private pension system undoubtedly 
     will affect Social Security.
       The Academy believes that creation of a national commission 
     will be a positive first step toward our mutual goal of 
     increasing pension coverage for Americans. We appreciate your 
     recognition of the unique role that actuaries should play in 
     such a commission and look forward to providing any 
     assistance that may be of benefit to you and your staff.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James E. Turpin,
     Vice President, Pensions.
                                  ____

                                     APPWP, Association of Private


                                    Pension and Welfare Plans,

                                                    July 18, 2000.
     Pension Reform and Simplification Commission Act
     Senator Jeff Bingaman,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the Association of 
     Private Pension and Welfare Plans (APPWP--The Benefits 
     Association), I want to express our appreciation for your 
     interest in, and support for, our nation's voluntary, 
     employer-sponsored retirement system as evidenced by the 
     Pension Reform and Simplification Commission Act that you 
     will soon introduce. APPWP is a public policy organization 
     representing principally Fortune 500 companies and other 
     organizations that assist companies of all sizes in providing 
     benefits to employees. Collectively, APPWP's members either 
     sponsor directly or provide services to retirement and health 
     plans that cover more than 100 million Americans. We 
     appreciate your past and continuing efforts to expand the 
     private, voluntary retirement system that currently enables 
     millions of working Americans to achieve financial security 
     in retirement.
       As you know, the employer-based retirement system provides 
     an important source of income security for many Americans in 
     retirement, and, in many respects, has been successful in 
     meeting the challenges of an aging population. However, we 
     recognize that public policy can build and expand on this 
     success. Many employers, particularly small companies, find 
     it difficult to establish retirement plans because of cost 
     and administrative complexity. As a result, many workers do 
     not have access to private pensions and cannot save 
     adequately for retirement. Moreover, our pension laws have 
     not kept pace with the rapid developments in the business 
     world. New technologies, international competition, and many 
     types of corporate transactions pose unique pension 
     challenges that should be better accommodated by our nation's 
     retirement policy. APPWP has consistently campaigned for 
     expansion and reform of the nation's pension laws with the 
     express goals of expanding coverage, increasing portability, 
     reducing complexity, and reflecting business realities. We 
     are therefore pleased that you have made these goals the 
     central objective of the commission you propose.
       In particular, APPWP commends you for putting the focus of 
     pension reform on expanding coverage. You correctly note that 
     our retirement system has become overly burdened with 
     unwieldy and complex rules that have impeded expanded 
     coverage and increased retirement security for all Americans. 
     Your advocacy on behalf of the goals of coverage and 
     simplification is an important step towards realizing a more 
     secure retirement for all Americans.
       We look forward to working with you on these important 
     issues. If we can be of further assistance, please do not 
     hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James A. Klein,
                                                        President.
                                 ______