[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 56 (Tuesday, April 8, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E699-E700]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              THE PENSION BENEFITS PROTECTION ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. GEORGE MILLER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, April 8, 2003

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join 
today my good friend from Vermont, the Honorable Bernie Sanders, in 
cosponsoring his bi-partisan legislation to protect the pension 
benefits of older employees. Over 100 members of the House are original 
co-sponsors of this important bill.
  I am also very pleased that this bill enjoys the support of the AFL-
CIO, the AARP, the Communication Workers of America, the Pension Rights 
Center, and other organizations as well as individual employees 
throughout the country impacted by what are known in the pension world 
as ``cash balance plan conversions.'' These groups and individuals have 
been important leaders in this very difficult but important fight.
  Millions of white-collar employees and other workers in America will 
benefit from our bill. Our bill is about fairness. Our bill says that 
if a company with a traditional defined benefit plan switches--in mid-
stream--to a cash balance plan that costs that company less, an older 
employee has the right to choose to be in whichever of the two plans is 
better for him or her. We say, let the employee choose.
  As you know, the reason that employers can save hundreds of millions 
of dollars by switching to the increasingly popular cash balance plans 
is because they will pay their employees less in benefits.
  We are not proposing that all employers must have a traditional 
defined benefit plan for all employees. We are not saying that, nor

[[Page E700]]

could we. We are saying very clearly, however, that if you promised an 
employee a certain pension, pay that employee the pension you promised.
  Our bill would guarantee the right of employees who are 40 years old 
or older, or who have worked for ten or more years for the same 
company, to choose to stay in the traditional defined benefit pension 
plan even if the company decides to convert that plan to a cash balance 
plan.
  When Treasury Secretary Snow visited with Senators Durbin and Harkin 
this past January prior to his confirmation, he told them that he 
believed in choice. He told them that his railroad company, CSX, 
offered choice. He said a board he sat on, Verizon, offered choice.
  But now he is overseeing a pending change to pension regulations at 
the Department of Treasury that would not require companies to offer 
choice. Under the pending rules, a well-meaning company would be 
allowed to offer choice or otherwise treat their employees fairly.

  The problem is that the rules do not require that they be treated 
fairly. That is wrong. And that is why we are sponsoring this 
legislation.
  As Bernie pointed out a few weeks ago, no member of Congress would 
want to see the pension system here changed in mid-stream if it meant 
that after working for 25 years you would find your expected pension 
cut in half
  Millions of employees across the country don't want to see their 
hard-earned benefits cut either. But they are afraid. They are looking 
at their retirement years, after a lifetime of work, and they are 
afraid that after a cash balance conversion they will lose half of the 
benefits they expected and worked so hard to achieve. The General 
Accounting Office has documented that conversions especially hurt older 
employees and can cost them as much as half of their pension benefits.
  These employees are looking at the cost of health insurance, the cost 
of college for their children, and the cost of retirement. They have 
counted on their pension to help them through some of those costs. But 
under a conversion, they risk seeing those benefits and those dreams, 
cut.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been contacted by employees in every industry 
from across the country, from the airline industry, the finance 
industry, and industrial companies. They are wondering why in the world 
would President Bush promote new rules that deliberately give employers 
the legal protection to slash pension benefits.
  The President's proposal raises serious questions about the direction 
in which he is taking the nation and the people who work so hard every 
day to make ends meet.
  The President does not have a policy to create jobs.
  The President does not have a policy to eliminate the budget deficit.
  The President does not have a policy to provide health insurance to 
the uninsured.
  But President Bush does have a plan to help companies slash 
employees' pension benefits.
  The business press is full of stories about this problem--retirement 
security. This isn't something Bernie Sanders and Rahm Emanuel and I 
have made up. The economic future of Americans is in serious jeopardy 
and these pension rules are one important part of that problem.
  Our legislation will not create jobs, or restore the budget surplus, 
provide health insurance, or turn around the stock market, although we 
have proposals to accomplish those goals. Those are not the goals of 
this particular bill.
  But our bill will establish fairness for the treatment of older 
employees' hard-earned pension benefits. That is what they deserve, 
what they expect, and what they need.

                          ____________________