[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 112 (Friday, July 25, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               MULTIEMPLOYER PENSION SECURITY ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. PATRICK J. TIBERI

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 25, 2003

  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation, the 
Multiemployer Pension Security Act of 2003, which will strengthen and 
protect the defined pension benefits of thousands of workers.
  Of the nearly 44 million working men and women who participate in 
defined benefit pension plans almost ten million people, approximately 
25 percent of all those who have defined benefit pensions, participate 
in multiemployer plans. These plans are managed under a wholly 
different structure than single-employer plans. Although recent policy 
debate has focused primarily on single-employer plans, in introducing 
this legislation today, I intend to broaden the pension debate to 
include the very important issues facing multiemployer plans.
  Multiemployer pension reform legislation is necessary and overdue. 
The bold, structural reforms of the Multiemployer Pension Security Act 
will provide the millions of active and retired workers who participate 
in these plans with the long-term security of knowing their promised 
benefits will be funded and safeguarded.
  People have spoken of the ``perfect storm'' that has ravaged funding 
levels in single-employer pension plans. Stock market losses, a 
sluggish economy and record-low interest rates have combined to create 
serious under-funding problems. Those events have impacted 
multiemployer plans also, but the issues for multiemployer plans are 
much broader than just a dip in the Dow. There are fundamental 
weaknesses in the system and structure under which these plans operate. 
For example, one key difference between single-employer plans and 
multiemployer plans is that there is no minimum funding level required 
in multi's. While a weakening single-employer plan will trigger 
remedial action, the same threshold is not present for multiemployer 
plans. Losses can continue until there is simply no more money and no 
more time, and benefits cannot be paid. The Multiemployer Pension 
Security Act of 2003 will correct this deficiency in current law.
  The lack of adequate, minimum funding standards is just one of the 
many weaknesses of the multiemployer pension plan system which this 
legislation will correct. Not only do multiemployer plans lack the 
regulatory ``stop-loss'' measures of single employer plans, 
participants do not currently have the assurance of insurance. When a 
multiemployer pension plan fails, or when a company participant in a 
multiemployer plans goes bankrupt, there is no Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation to rely on because multiemployer plans do not fall under 
the same PBGC structure. This legislation will address that and give 
men and women of multiemployer plans the same governmental oversight 
provided to participants of single-employer plans.
  I am introducing the Multiemployer Pension Security Act because we, 
as a nation, must address these issues now to prevent further 
deterioration of these plans and to assure that promised pensions are 
available to existing retirees and to current participants when they 
retire. We cannot focus only on single-employer plans; we are also 
responsible to the almost ten million men and women in multiemployer 
pension plans. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation and join 
with me to urge its passage.

                          ____________________