[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 30, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10268-S10269]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CHAMBLISS:
  S. 1492. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and the Labor Management 
Relations Act, 1947 to provide special rules for Teamster plans 
relating to termination and funding; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Multi-
employer Pension Security Act of 2003. This bill will strengthen and 
protect the defined pension benefits of thousands of workers. These 
workers have no other choice than to participate in the pension fund 
that their employer offers. However, it is not just the employees who 
need these plans to be reformed, but many employers realize that to be 
fiducially responsible that these reforms need to be made as well.
  Nearly 44 million working Americans participate in defined benefit 
pension plans. Of that amount, almost ten million people, approximately 
25 percent of all those who have defined pensions, participate in 
multi-employer plans. Single-employer plans are completely managed 
under a different system. Although recent policy debate has focused 
primarily on single-employer plans, my reasoning in introducing this 
legislation today is to broaden the pension plan debate by dealing with 
the myriad of problems facing multi-employer pension plans.
  This bill, the ``Multi-employer Pension Security Act,'' will provide 
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. This reform legislation is necessary and long 
overdue.
  The funding levels in single-employer pension plans have been greatly 
affected by stock market losses, a sluggish economy and record-low 
interest rates. These events have impacted multi-employer plans also. 
However, the issues affecting multi-employer plans are much broader 
than that. These plans operate under a fundamentally different 
structure. The main difference between single and multi-employer plans 
is that there is no minimum funding level required in multi-employer 
plans. Losses can mount until simply there is no more money and 
benefits cannot be paid to the participants in multi-employer pension 
plans. My bill will correct his deficiency in current law.
  This proposed legislation would address the lack of adequate funding 
standards existing within the multi-employer pension plan system. Also 
hardworking employees who participate in these multi-employer pension 
funds do not currently have the guarantee of insurance. When a multi-
employer pension plan is defunct or goes bankrupt, there is no Pension 
Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to rely on--because multi-employer 
plans do not fall under the guise of the PBGC structure. My bill will 
address that and give the folks participating in a multi-employer plan 
the same governmental oversight as provided to participants of single-
employer plans.

[[Page S10269]]

  Again, I introduce the Multi-employer Pension Security Act today 
because we, as a nation, must tackle these issues now to prevent 
further deterioration of these plans and we must be willing to assure 
our constituents that their promised pensions are available to them as 
retirees currently and in the future. Single-employer plans must not be 
the only pension plan that Congress considers changes to because we are 
also responsible to the almost ten million Americans participating in 
multi-employer pension plans as well. I urge my colleagues to consider 
this legislation. We must engage in a discussion that will lead to 
positive changes in multi-employer pension plans now.
                                 ______