[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 113 (Wednesday, September 13, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1711]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         PENSION PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. RUSH D. HOLT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 13, 2006

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, last month President Bush signed into law the 
so-called Pension Protection Act. I opposed this legislation because it 
fails to address America's retirement security crisis--in fact, it 
accelerates the move away from defined-benefit pension plans and it 
makes it easier for companies to eliminate pensions or dump their 
obligations onto the backs of taxpayers. It also treats the pensions of 
CEOs and top executives as more sacred than those of workers.
  The Federal Government should ensure that, after 30 years of service, 
workers will receive the pensions that they have been promised and that 
they have earned. Unfortunately, this bill does not live up to that 
responsibility. I opposed this legislation when it originally passed 
the House, and I had hoped that its shortcomings would be addressed in 
conference. I am disappointed that Democrats were excluded from the 
conference committee. This exclusion was a disservice to all American 
workers who will not benefit from their knowledge and experience in the 
subject.
  Unfortunately, the shortcomings of the House bill were not addressed 
in conference. Far from protecting pensions for American workers, this 
legislation will allow companies to under-fund plans by simply 
promising to increase the contributions in future years. As the 
financial obligations on these companies grow, however, they will 
likely freeze or terminate pension plans, as they no longer make 
business sense to continue.
  Some provisions blatantly discriminate against workers in favor of 
executives. The legislation allows plans that are only 60 percent 
funded to continue increasing the lavish benefits that executives 
enjoy. However, a plan must be 80 percent funded before employees can 
get any additional assistance. It is fundamentally unfair to hold these 
two groups to two different standards.
  Most troubling to me is how American workers and retirees are 
increasingly being told, ``You are on your own.'' As President Bush 
continues to advocate privatization of Social Security, and more and 
more companies convert their defined-benefit pensions to defined-
contribution plans, retirees are having the rug pulled from under their 
feet. We have failed to apply the lesson that broad-based economic 
security facilitates sustainable growth, innovation, and productivity.
  America's employees deserve retirement security. President Bush 
should have signed a bill that would protect employees, discourage 
companies from freezing or terminating their plans, address the 
financial shortfall at the Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee 
Corporation, and treat all employees equally.
  Although the ``Pension Protection Act'' is now law, our commitment to 
employees who are so integral to our economy is not fulfilled. As we 
come off of Labor Day, I urge this body to assure the financial 
security of American employees through policies that achieve economic 
growth that is broad-based, not concentrated at the top of the income 
ladder.

                          ____________________