[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 96 (Thursday, July 20, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5532-H5537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2830, PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 
                                  2005

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. George Miller of California moves that the managers on 
     the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing 
     votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill 
     H.R. 2830 be instructed--
       (1) to agree to the provisions contained in subsections (a) 
     through (d) of section 601 of the Senate amendment (relating 
     to prospective application of age discrimination, conversion, 
     and present value assumption rules with respect to cash 
     balance and other hybrid defined benefit plans) and not to 
     agree with the provisions contained in title VII of the bill 
     as passed the House (relating to benefit accrual standards); 
     and
       (2) to agree to the provisions contained in section 413 of 
     the Senate amendment (relating to computation of guaranteed 
     benefits of airline pilots required to separate from service 
     prior to attaining age 65), but only with respect to plan 
     terminations occurring on or after September 11, 2001.

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I 
ask unanimous consent that the motion to instruct be considered as read 
and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kline) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, as we just heard in the colloquy between the majority 
leader and the minority whip, there is expectation that a conference 
committee may conclude on the pension reform bill, and that is why I 
rise today because that bill may, in fact, be coming to the floor of 
the House of Representatives and to the Senate within the next week.

                              {time}  1515

  I rise to urge my colleagues to vote again to send a message to the 
conferees that they should not conclude this report until they provide 
for the protection of older workers who are facing the conversions to 
cash balance plans. That means older workers who the companies are now 
putting on notice that they will change their benefits, they will no 
longer realize what they had long anticipated, the benefits of a 
defined benefit plan, that they will now get a substitute plan for 
their current pension plan, what is called a cash balance plan.
  Despite overwhelming votes in support of protecting older workers' 
pensions in the House and in the Senate, the Republican leadership 
plans to thumb its nose at older workers and exclude the vital 
transition protection. That means that many workers will lose hundreds 
of dollars a month in expected retirement benefits. Many of these 
workers will be in excess of 50 years of age, and it is highly unlikely 
they will be able to recover the loss of their retirement benefits, 
retirement benefits they have been counting on for many years, 
retirement benefits they have been counting on in exchange for their 
labor, that they signed a contract in exchange for their labor with 
their employers; and today, the Congress is getting ready to tell them 
we are sorry, we are not going to make the employers live up to their 
agreements, and we are not even going to provide a transition to you to 
soften the economic blow.
  If this is permitted to happen, it is shameful and it is an abuse of 
power by the Republican leadership, arrogantly defying the clear wishes 
of Members of both the House and the Senate on behalf of very special 
interests that do not happen to be the workers of this country.

[[Page H5533]]

  The conference language draft by the Republican conferees is a 
pension Trojan horse and allows companies to legally renege on their 
promises to workers who played by the rules, who were told that they 
could accrue benefits to retire, especially those who spent decades at 
the company.
  Here is what AARP CEO William Novelli says about this backroom 
Republican deal for older workers. ``AARP is deeply troubled that 
members of the pension conference committee may be considering adopting 
language from the House bill that would severely undercut pension 
protections against age discrimination currently provided older workers 
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. We cannot support 
legislation that would undermine the age discrimination laws and permit 
the reduction of pension benefits for older workers, thus discouraging 
older workers from continuing to participate in the workforce. Our 
members, and older workers in general, care a great deal about these 
issues, and we will be informing them of the outcome of this action.''
  The Senate passed its pension bill with these protections 97-2. And 
the House voted on these measures overwhelmingly in a motion to 
instruct earlier.
  It also not only cuts cash balance, but it cuts the protections to 
the pilots. Pilots who are required under Federal law to retire at age 
60 now take a double hit with their pensions going into the PBGC. 
Because they retired early, not that they wanted to retire, they are 
required under Federal law to retire early, but because they retired 
early, they take an additional hit on their pension, and this affects 
many, many airline pilots and is an unfair treatment to these 
individuals.
  Again, the House and the Senate have voted twice to protect older 
workers in cash balance conversions. The House voted twice to protect 
airline pilots from unfair pension cuts at the PBGC.
  This motion to instruct is about fundamental fairness to older 
workers, specifically for those older workers suddenly faced with cash 
balance conversions and for those airline pilots faced with federally 
mandated early retirement.
  During the 1990s, hundreds of large employers switched to these cash 
balance plans, including IBM, CSX, Verizon, and the Federal Government. 
When we changed our pension plan back in the 1990s, we did this. 
Motorola, Dow Chemical, Federal Express, Wells Fargo Bank and 
Honeywell, they all made the decision to provide a transition and a 
protection for older workers, realizing that those older workers had an 
expectation of retirement benefit. That was not going to happen, but 
they would provide them some protection so they didn't take the full 
brunt of those changes.
  It is the decent thing to do. It is what Secretary Snow did when he 
was at CSX. It is what he voted to do at Verizon. This is the decent 
thing to do for workers. The benefits to the companies are immense, 
even if they protect these older workers in this situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct for two 
reasons, because of process and because of substance.
  First, on process. As the pension conference draws to a close, the 
matter before us today is little more than a last desperate attempt by 
some to distract from the fact that we are on the verge of the most 
fundamental reforms to the private pension system in a generation. In 
fact, this is more of a motion to obstruct than it is a motion to 
instruct.
  This kind of obstruction shouldn't surprise us, however. It has been 
going on for quite awhile. Let's not forget that those offering this 
motion were the same Members who could not even bring themselves to 
vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on the House pension bill when it was being 
considered by the House Education and Workforce Committee last summer. 
Rather, they voted ``present,'' acknowledging that they were, in fact, 
in the room.
  While they attempted to politicize this issue, did they ever offer a 
comprehensive pension reform plan of their own? No. They just stood on 
the sidelines trying to obstruct our progress, just like they are 
today.
  I also oppose this motion because of its substance. This pension 
reform debate is and always has been about the massive underfunding in 
worker pensions, about the need to change the status quo. This 
obstructionist motion to instruct does just the opposite: It 
essentially preserves the status quo and even makes the situation 
worse.
  First, on hybrid plans. This motion to instruct essentially codifies 
benefit expectations in hybrid plans, tying the hands of those who 
voluntarily offer them. To require a guarantee of minimum benefits 
before participants have actually earned them sets a very bad 
precedent. Let's not forget that hybrid plans are the sole bright spot 
in the defined benefit world. If not for these plans, the defined 
benefit system would be withering on the vine. To place restrictions on 
a system that actually provides more generous benefits for the majority 
workers than do traditional plans would be neither reasonable nor 
responsible.
  And on the airline pilots provision, again, this would make matters 
worse for the pension system and the American taxpayer. The motion to 
instruct would actually increase the deficit of the PBGC even though 
this pension reform process is designed to save the agency from 
insolvency and taxpayers footing the bill for a massive bailout. It is 
estimated that if this provision were applied, the cost to the PBGC for 
all pilots' plans would probably exceed $2.5 billion over the next 10 
years. That additional debt would be borne by all the other companies 
that sponsor and fund defined benefit pension plans. Again, this is 
neither reasonable nor responsible.
  Mr. Speaker, our ultimate goal is to ensure our defined benefit 
system remains viable for generations to come. This motion to instruct 
would undermine that effort. It is as simple as that. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to instruct and reject this 
attempt to obscure progress on pension reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to 
instruct; and I hear my friend's comments about process and 
responsibility. This has been the most irresponsible pension conference 
process one could imagine.
  Mr. Speaker, I was sent here, as were my colleagues, duly elected by 
my constituents to speak for them. I was appointed by the leadership of 
my party to participate in this conference to speak for all of our 
constituents. There have been many meetings; we have been invited to 
none. There have been many discussions; we have participated in none.
  So if you want to talk about a responsible process, let's talk about 
one where every person duly elected to represent his or her 
constituents has a chance to do so. This process is a travesty.
  Now, on to the substance.
  The words ``cash balance plans'' are a little hard to understand. 
They are theoretical, they are abstract; but they are very easy to 
understand if you are 50 years old and you have been working somewhere 
for 25 years and you are planning your retirement assuming you are 
going to get a certain amount every month in the mail as a check that 
you have earned.
  And then, one, the HR department comes in and says we have changed 
our mind. Instead of getting a check for a certain amount every month 
that you have earned, we are going to give you a lump sum instead, and 
assume that when you invest it, you will get about the same amount.
  Mr. Miller's motion says two things: It says that the version of this 
idea that passed the Senate 97-2 should be the version that applies; 
that maybe we should give some workers the chance to choose whether to 
go into this system or not, to put more power into the hands of the 
worker and the retiree to choose what happens to them, rather than have 
the employer make that decision. That sounds reasonable to me.
  And the second thing that Mr. Miller does is to say let's take the 
assumptions that are most protective to

[[Page H5534]]

the retiree. Let's err on the side of giving the retiree too much, not 
too little. I don't think that is too much to ask.
  I think the House should join with 97 Senators from both parties and 
adopt the version of this idea that is in the Senate bill. Vote ``yes'' 
on Mr. Miller's motion to instruct.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Miller for this motion 
to instruct the pension conferees because a defined pension plan is a 
promise. It is a promise that workers count on when they come to the 
end of their employment. It is a promise that they plan their future 
around.
  Many workers have been promised benefits at the end of their work 
service. In fact, many have accepted retirement benefits instead of pay 
increases. Now remember that. Many people choose to forgive a pay 
increase and get an increase in their pension instead.
  Now, unless we have reform that allows companies to convert to cash 
balance programs, programs that don't consider the older worker, a 
worker who has planned for years and years how they are going to live 
the rest of their lives in dignity, we have broken a great promise to 
these wonderful workers.
  Not protecting their retirement would result in many, many times 
reducing their benefits by at least half. Imagine trying to live, 
through no fault of your own, on half of what you had planned on. We 
would not expect people to live on half of the amount of food or half 
the amount of medicine they would need; how can we expect them to live 
on half of a pension?
  These pension benefits have been earned. They must be honored. Mr. 
Speaker, these workers were promised defined retirement benefits. They 
have earned those benefits. The Congress cannot allow companies to go 
back on their word. We, as a Congress, must support them. We must 
ensure these hardworking Americans that they will get the pension 
benefits they have been promised so they can plan, they don't have to 
look over their shoulders or go live with their kids or have half of 
their medications.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Miller motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his 
leadership on this motion to instruct.
  I agree we need to protect the pension benefits of airline pilots, as 
well as ensure that when an employer converts from a traditional 
defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan, that their workers receive 
their full benefits.
  We also need to draft rules that protect older workers because they 
can be vulnerable during such conversions. But we must also address the 
issue of providing retroactive legal certainty to 1,100 employers whose 
cash balance and hybrid pension plans are unfairly caught in limbo.
  Addressing retroactivity is important to the retirement security of 
thousands of American workers that gain from these hybrid pensions 
which are defined benefit plans. It has been for 7 years that employers 
of sponsored cash balance and other hybrid plans have been caught in a 
web of legal uncertainty.

                              {time}  1530

  Beginning in 1999, the Internal Revenue Service felt it necessary to 
temporarily stop issuing determination letters for converted hybrid 
plans, and litigation through our court system has left the legality of 
all cash balance plans up in the air.
  In my congressional district I have four major employers that offer 
pension benefits to their employees through either a cash balance or 
other hybrid pension plan. Some of these plans were acquired through 
merger and acquisition, while some were adopted through conversion.
  These employers treated their employees fairly, giving them the 
choice as to whether or not to convert their plans and ensuring that 
workers' benefits were not diluted. And these four employers are not 
alone. There are a lot of good actors out there.
  According to a recent AARP-funded study, 23 of the 25 largest cash 
balance plans, in other words, 92 percent, provided transition 
protections for their older employees when converting from defined 
traditional plans to cash balance plans.
  Nonetheless, four employers in my district, as well as 1,100 others, 
are caught in a web of legal uncertainty. And we are in an era where 
companies are eliminating pension plans, including hybrid plans.
  Failing to fix this problem will only perpetuate that trend. A cash 
balance plan is a defined benefit plan, and it is the future of our 
defined benefit system.
  It is not correct that others have not offered alternatives. I 
specifically introduced H.R. 4274 to address this specific issue.
  I ask all of my colleagues to pay attention to the issue. Cash 
balance plans are the future plans. They are portable. It is a way a 
worker can go from one place to another.
  We need to protect older workers, and we need to make sure that this 
motion to instruct is passed.
  I thank Mr. Miller for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to 
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Miller motion to instruct, and I commend the gentleman from California 
for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the middle class in America today is under assault. Over 
the past 5 years, 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty, 6 
million have lost their health insurance, and nearly 3 million 
manufacturing workers have lost their jobs. The Republican leadership 
has refused to increase the minimum wage, $5.15 an hour, which hasn't 
been raised in nearly a decade, and is now at a 50-year low in terms of 
purchasing power.
  And adding insult to injury, it is expected that next week we will be 
voting on a conference report that will allow large corporations to 
discriminate against their older employees by slashing their pensions 
up to half through cash balance pension schemes.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion is our only attempt to say no. Age 
discriminatory cash balance pension schemes are wrong. We must protect 
millions of employees who have seen their pensions slashed by as much 
as 50 percent through age-discriminatory cash balance pension schemes. 
That is what this motion is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, pension anxiety is sweeping the country. Millions of 
American workers who have worked at a company for 20 or 30 years, where 
promises have been made to them in terms of what their retirement would 
be, are now waking up to the fact that those promises are being reneged 
upon.
  Unfortunately, over the past two decades, large corporation after 
large corporation have been breaking the retirement promises they made 
to their employees, and that is wrong. Some companies are declaring 
bankruptcy so that they can break their retirement commitments. Other 
companies are freezing pension plans in order to slash the retirement 
benefits of older workers.
  And over 300 companies throughout this country have slashed the 
pensions of their employees through cash balance pension schemes, 
sometimes up to 50 percent.
  Congress must tell corporate America in no uncertain terms that when 
they make a promise to workers about their pensions, they must keep 
that promise.
  Mr. Speaker, last December, the House passed a so-called pension 
reform bill that was hundreds of pages long. Included in that bill was 
an obscure provision to legalize age discrimination in cash balance 
plans prospectively. No floor amendments were allowed to strike this 
provision or offer any alternatives to it. Members were forced to vote 
up or down on the entire bill.
  But the Senate did the right thing. In its bill, they provided 
important protections for older workers who would be negatively 
impacted by cash balance schemes.

[[Page H5535]]

  The Senate language is supported by the AARP, the AFL-CIO, the 
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the 
National Legislative Retirees Network, and the Pension Rights Center.
  Today, just like we did in April, we have an opportunity to do the 
right thing for American workers. We can and should instruct the 
conference committee to adopt the Senate language on cash balance 
plans.
  Mr. Speaker, there are some who support cash balance schemes. They 
argue that these plans benefit employees.
  Well, a couple of years ago I asked the Congressional Research 
Service a simple question: What would happen to Members of Congress if 
their pensions were converted to a cash balance scheme? If it is so 
good for millions of American workers, clearly it must be good for the 
Members of Congress.
  Well, shock of all shocks. Our Republican friends decided not to 
debate that issue on the floor of the House. And unless I am mistaken, 
they still do not want to convert Members' pensions to cash balance 
schemes, for good reason. Because if they did it, every Member would 
see a huge reduction in the pensions that they are looking forward to.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I think that is an important point. 
When the Federal Government made the decision to change to the TSP 
system, which is turning out to be a very successful system, we 
provided this kind of transition. What the conference committee is 
about to impose on the American working public no Member of Congress 
would impose on themselves. They would be asking for some kind of 
transition, some kind of hold-harmless so that people would be 
protected who are older, who have more years into the system, because 
they don't have the ability to gather other income.
  And I think the gentleman makes a very important point that, once 
again, life is different inside of the Beltway than it is outside of 
the Beltway. And the people outside of the Beltway have a lot less 
ability to try to make up for that lost savings to manage their 
retirement.
  I thank the gentleman for making the point. I continue to yield.
  Mr. SANDERS. Let me just pick up and agree with the gentleman.
  The CRS did a study on this issue: What would happen to congressional 
pensions if we went the direction of cash balance? Well, among other 
things, the Speaker of the House would not be too happy about this. His 
pension went down by 70 percent.
  So, today, I would ask the opponents of the Miller motion this 
question: If cash balance plans are so good for American workers, why 
don't we go first and adopt them here?
  Well, obviously, that is not going to happen. If it is not good for 
Members of Congress, it is not a good idea for millions of American 
workers. Let's support the Miller motion and stand for the rights of 
millions of American workers today.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I would yield.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I just want to again thank him for 
the point that this pension bill cannot be considered in a vacuum. The 
very same people who are going to be punished as a result of companies 
that convert to cash balance that will not provide this kind of 
protection, they can do it voluntarily, but they will not, and many of 
them won't, and the gentleman has struggled with companies who thought 
that they didn't have to.
  These are the same people that are getting their retirement health 
care benefits cut back, that are having trouble with or are going to 
have trouble with paying for prescription drugs. Today, people are 
continuing to work and people say to people, you know, just save more 
money.
  Well, as we know, most people, the average American working person 
has a great deal of difficulty saving. And to now tell them to save, if 
you are 50 years old, according to the GAO, you will lose about $238 a 
month. If you are 40 years old, you will lose about $188 a month. If 
you are 50 years old, this has to be net savings that you are going to 
have to try to save. You'd have to save, before your retirement, a net 
$40,000, outside of your rent, outside of your house payment, outside 
of your kids, outside of everything else, if you could get 5 percent 
return on your money.
  Where does the American family go to get that kind of money that 
Congress is about to take away from them? Where do they go?
  Most families, both people are working. And if you are 50 years old, 
it is highly unlikely that you are going to go out and find a job that 
is going to replace this loss of savings.
  So when people say, well, we can't guarantee the expectations of 
these workers. No, what we are guaranteeing is a contract that this 
worker made with the company and the company made with the worker. We 
understand the benefits and the changes for younger workers, and this 
isn't about being against cash balance plans. It is about fairness.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SANDERS. Let me reiterate the point Ms. Woolsey made a few 
moments ago. We have people who have worked for a company for 20 or 30 
years. During their careers, in many instances, they had offers to move 
elsewhere, but they said, no, I am going to stay here because I have a 
good retirement plan. And suddenly, for no fault of their own, that 
retirement plan is being pulled out from underneath them. They had 
dreamed of what their retirement would be. It is no longer. And they 
are 50 years of age. They are 52 years of age. Where do they go?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The idea, again, the suggestion is 
somehow, when the Senate passed this, 97-3, and when we voted 
overwhelmingly in a motion to instruct to do this, that somehow you are 
trying to reserve the status quo. The fact is that CSX, a very 
successful railroad company, Verizon Telecom, the Federal Government, 
Motorola, Dow Chemical, Federal Express, Wells Fargo, these are not 
slacking companies. These are leaders in their industry. They all 
realized billions of dollars in savings. They also took care of their 
older workers. And that is what we are asking that this conference 
committee do.
  You do not have to throw these older workers onto the wood pile. They 
can be protected. The company can realize billions of dollars over the 
life of the pension plans in savings that they can reinvest in their 
company, and they can change their pension plans. We just ask that you 
don't decimate older workers.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SANDERS. What was the vote in the Senate on this issue?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The vote was 97-3.
  Mr. SANDERS. So overwhelmingly a bipartisan vote. Let's stand with 
the Senate. Let's protect American workers.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. It was 97-2.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KLINE. Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely fascinating to listen to 
the speakers, one extolling the virtues of cash balance plans, and the 
other condemning them.
  I believe that the gentleman from California has the right to close, 
so at this time I would like to yield the balance of our time to the 
chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank 
him for running this debate for us.
  It is interesting. You know, I don't know what thrill there is in 
coming to the floor and trying to scare people that the Federal 
Government is trying to take away their pensions and trying to destroy 
their lives.
  We have been working hard to try to finish up this pension 
conference. It is a very complicated, very complex issue. It hasn't 
been done at this level by the Congress for decades. And we are working 
hard on this.
  And this week we have made tremendous progress. The fact is that what 
we have done this week, we are very, very close, and we should be able 
to wrap this up next week. And that is what we should be spending our 
time on, trying to finalize this bill, trying to get the help that is 
needed for these people and their pensions.
  A few years ago, we had over 100,000 defined benefit plans. We are 
down now to about 30,000. And the whole purpose

[[Page H5536]]

of this bill is to protect the American people, to protect the worker.
  Promises have been made. Promises should be kept. And so the fine 
line that we have been working on throughout this conference is to be 
able to strengthen the law that is currently in place, keep companies 
from going bankrupt, and keep companies from dropping their defined 
benefit plans. That is the goal; that is where we are.
  We are, you know, if this were a marathon, we are down to the last 
few yards; and hopefully we will bring this to the floor next week for 
a final vote. And that is what we should be spending our time on, 
instead of this political charade.
  I would encourage my colleagues to vote against this motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Let me inquire how much time I have 
left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 8\1/2\ minutes left.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the 
House, I would hope that when this vote comes on Monday, that the House 
would, once again, reaffirm its obligation and its commitment to older 
workers in this country.
  This is a defining moment for these workers. This is a defining 
moment about what kind of retirement many workers in this country who 
have been working for 20 or 30 years in a company, what kind of 
retirement they will have.

                              {time}  1545

  Will they have the retirement that was promised to them and that they 
have expected and that they have built their financial planning around, 
that they have built the decisions today about tomorrow around their 
families, their children, and others? That is really what this is 
about.
  The gentleman is quite correct. They are quite close. They have been 
working very hard. It has been a one-party bill, but they have been 
working very hard, the Members of the House in this conference 
committee, and they are very close. They are just also very wrong. They 
are very wrong in how they treat the older workers of this country 
because, as we see from the GAO report, under the GAO report, under the 
plan that the Republicans want to bring to the floor, if the conversion 
plan is done the way it is allowed under the conference report, which 
will be Federal law, the average 50-year-old worker will lose about 
$238 in income each and every month of their retirement plan.
  The question that most Members of Congress will not ask is, Where 
does that worker, where does that family, go to make up that income? 
Where do you go to earn the 40, the 60, the $80,000 you have to have 
over your retirement life to get that yield back? Most people cannot 
accumulate that kind of money in a 5- or 10-year period of time. So 
these workers who are under assault in terms of the retirement health 
care benefits, their retirement benefits, where do they go?
  We know what the savings rate is. We keep telling America to save 
more. And the fact of the matter is most American families at the end 
of the month have very little left to save. It is simply not there. Can 
Congress be that insensitive to how most of America lives? Most of 
America is bombarded with advice from Money Magazine, from CNN, from 
Lou Dobbs, from all these people about how to save for your retirement. 
And they try. Some could do better. But for many families they are 
doing the best they can. But one of the bedrocks for many people in 
their fifties is knowing that they have a retirement plan that they 
thought they could count on. But the fact of the matter is when they 
pick up and read the business section of the newspaper, they read the 
headlines of the newspaper, they see that some of the biggest, most 
reliable corporations in the country are changing their pension plans. 
United Airlines just went into bankruptcy. Without any showing of 
desperate need, they just got rid of the plan for their employees. Talk 
to those fight attendants when you fly home tonight or you fly home 
tomorrow. Talk to those pilots and realize the extent to which their 
retirements have been devastated, absolutely devastated. But it has 
happened to people in all of the industries around the country.
  And all that we are saying is follow the model by companies that have 
done it the right way, companies like Verizon, companies like Federal 
Express, companies like Wells Fargo Bank, Honeywell. There is a way you 
can do this and you can realize billions of dollars of savings, which 
are necessary. These plans are going to be changed, but they ought to 
be changed in a way that protects the older workers.
  That is why the AARP, the American Association of Retired People, is 
so dead set against this provision. It recognizes the impact this is 
going to have on future retirees. It recognizes the impact it is going 
to have on current workers and on their ability to plan for their 
retirement.
  They want to act like this is a carefully crafted pension plan and 
anybody who wants to suggest another alternative is only for the status 
quo and does not care about pensions.
  The Senate voted 97-2 to treat these older workers right. It is the 
Republican leadership that has stepped in and twisted that away. We 
didn't get a chance to vote on that in the House. When I finally did 
get a vote after the bill passed, the House voted overwhelmingly to 
protect older workers.
  Another class of workers who are at risk in this pension plan are the 
taxpayers. We now see that PBGC is telling us that current law is a 
better deal for the taxpayers than the plan they are coming up with to 
the tune of about $2 billion over the next decade.
  Don't shake your head. It is right here. You guys had this 
information for months. We just had to get it under a FOIA agreement 
under your wonderful bipartisan arrangements.
  So there is a lot to be concerned about with this pension plan. It is 
going to have a lot of bells and whistles, a lot of tax breaks. It is 
going to have more things than a monkey going to the circus. And a lot 
of people are going to vote for it. But what it is not going to have, 
it is not going to have protection for older workers. And Members of 
Congress ought to understand that when those older workers start to 
come to you, as their pension plans are dramatically changed by 
companies with no obligation to protect workers 50 and over, they are 
going to want to know where you were, and this is a vote which will 
tell them where you stand on this. And, hopefully, you will influence 
the pension conference, because this can be done. As we said, the 
Senate, after long deliberations on the pension bill, they voted 97-2 
to do it the right way.
  So I would hope that people would support this motion to instruct. I 
would hope they understand what this truly means to working people in 
this country and to their families and to their retirement.
  It is a devastating picture when you meet your constituents who have 
lost their retirement, who have lost big chunks of their retirement, 
and they come up and they talk to you at the shopping center, they talk 
to you at the grocery store, they talk to you at a town hall, and they 
tell you what it means to their plans.
  We were all stunned as a nation when pensioners got their plans wiped 
out and devastated by Enron. We called those people criminals. Here we 
call them legislators, because people are going to get a devastating 
hit on their pensions and we are going to say it is the law. There we 
said it was a crime. We said it was a crime.
  Mr. McKEON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. You have plenty of time on your 
side.
  You say it is a crime.
  Mr. McKEON. But I hadn't been called a criminal.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. What are you doing to people? What 
are you doing to people?
  You have controlled the conference. You control the White House. You 
control the House. You control the Senate. Control your time.
  The fact of the matter is this is the same thing. We are making a 
conscious decision, a conscious decision, to rip away these pension 
benefits from these workers. And the most devastating thing about this 
decision is it is not necessary. You can have massive pension reform to 
the benefit of the employees, to the benefit of the employers, to the 
benefit of the shareholders, without devastating the older workers.
  So why don't we do it right? Why don't we do it in a humane way? Why

[[Page H5537]]

don't we do it right, recognizing the situation that America's older 
workers find themselves in, people 50, 55, 60 years old? What are they 
going to do? Take a second job for their retirement? Maybe their spouse 
can go out and take a third job for their retirement?
  That is not the way we should treat American citizens. That is not 
the way we should treat taxpayers. And that is not the way we should 
treat hardworking American families who simply do not have enough money 
to make up for this kind of devastating cut in their retirement.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to instruct. It will be 
up sometime, I believe, Monday; and I would strongly encourage you to 
vote ``aye'' on this motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that the gentleman's 
words be taken down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Could the gentleman describe the 
words he is referring to?
  Mr. McKEON. I would like to know for sure if he was calling us 
criminals.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. No. Well, read the words back. Maybe 
we can clarify it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The words complained of were spoken too far 
back in the debate for the gentleman's request to be timely. Other 
debate has ensued.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I object, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is an objection to reclaiming the 
gentleman from California's (Mr. McKeon) time.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________