[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 168 (Thursday, December 22, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2645]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E2645]]
                     PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. DIANA DeGETTE

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, December 15, 2005

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
comprehensive pension reform, a topic that has been weighing heavily on 
the minds of thousands of my constituents, not to mention workers and 
retirees across the country. While I agree with many of the provisions 
of H.R. 2830, I cannot in good conscience support the bill in its 
current form. In fact, some provisions could make the current situation 
worse.
  I don't believe it's fair to rush through this complicated issue, one 
that is so critical to workers and retirees, without meaningful public 
debate and thorough consideration of alternatives. I had hoped to 
support this legislation, but I have many misgivings in its current 
form. We need to make it harder, not easier, for companies to unload 
pensions onto the taxpayers. We need to give employers more, not fewer 
incentives to keep their promises to retirees. And we need to return 
the PBGC to sound financial footing to protect the retirement security 
of hardworking Americans. On whole, many provisions in this bill will 
be a marked improvement over current law, but I cannot support it 
because we can do much better.
  For years, workers depended on employer-sponsored pensions to pay 
their bills and live comfortably in retirement. But now workers and 
retirees live in fear of losing these benefits, which they have 
rightfully earned over long careers. Each week it seems another company 
is considering bankruptcy filing, and too often the first costs they 
want to unload are promises to pensioners. Nationwide, the pension 
system is underfunded by $450 billion. We must do what we can to 
require companies to take all possible steps to fulfill the promises 
they make to workers. Unfortunately, the bill before us may make the 
problem worse, and could force even more companies to unload their 
pensions.
  The bill fails to shore up the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 
the government insurer of defined benefit pensions. The PBGC is 
currently $24 billion in the hole, and if we do not take meaningful 
steps now, it will require a taxpayer bailout. I support a Democratic 
alternative that would make it harder for companies to unload their 
obligations to the PBGC, and help return the agency to solvency. This 
option was not even given the benefit of an up-or-down vote.
  Another major concern I have with this legislation is its lack of 
protection for older workers. Cash balance plans, hybrid plans that 
have become attractive alternatives to traditional pension plans, can 
unfairly discriminate against older employees. When companies switch to 
cash balance plans, older workers often see their promised benefits 
summarily reduced. Even the Bush administration has recognized these 
complications, and I would like to see a pension bill with more 
adequate protections for older workers.
  This bill also fails to hold company executives to the same standards 
they expect of their rank-and-file employees. When faced with financial 
problems, CEOs have made decisions to cut the benefits earned by 
employees and unloading pension obligations onto the federal 
government. Far too often, these executives escape with multi-million 
dollar benefit packages, leaving the company in bankruptcy and workers 
in poverty. Congress has the chance to require our business leaders to 
act in the best interest of their firm and their employees, and 
sacrifice along with them if the financial situation is beyond repair.
  I am also concerned that this bill does not have sufficient 
disclosure requirements. Beneficiaries have the right to know the 
funding status of their pensions, and companies should not be allowed 
to keep this information from regulators or retirees. Current law 
allows companies to use accounting techniques to make their pensions 
seem more solvent than they really are. This needs to stop, but bill 
does not go far enough.
  Mr. Speaker, on the same day voters are going to the polls in Iraq, 
democracy has been subverted in this distinguished chamber. The 
majority has not allowed adequate time for debate on this measure, 
refused to allow the consideration of amendments, and did not allow the 
Democrats to offer a common-sense alternative. This is no way to 
legislate, and we can do better.

                          ____________________