[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 97 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5569-S5572]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1270. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for reform of public and private pension plans, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the pension reform 
legislation I am introducing today. I am taking this step for a simple 
reason: America cannot continue sleepwalking into the financial 
disaster that awaits us if we do not get the public pension debt crisis 
under control.
  The bill I introduce today is called The Secure Annuities for 
Employee Retirement Act of 2013--the SAFE Retirement Act, for short. In 
addition to public pension underfunding, the SAFE Retirement Act 
addresses two other critically important aspects of retirement policy: 
401(k) plan coverage and access to professional investment advice for 
workers and retirees. I will briefly address each part in turn.
  I have been working on the public pension underfunding problem, which 
I call the pension debt crisis, for some time. Two years ago, I stood 
before this Senate and described the financial challenge public pension 
plans pose to Americans. I described how the gap between the pensions 
that have been promised to workers by State and local governments and 
the money set aside was as much as $4.4 trillion short by some 
estimates, more than the total amount of municipal bond debt 
nationwide.
  I explained that the problem of public pension underfunding existed 
before the 2008 recession and any attempt to lay blame for the problem 
at the feet of Wall Street or big business or some other group was just 
blame shifting.
  I observed how the business world long ago recognized that 
traditional pension plans--defined benefit plans--had become 
unsustainable for most private companies and that most had moved toward 
401(k)-style plans--or defined contribution plans--because costs are 
lower and more predictable and they fit well within an increasingly 
mobile and dynamic workforce. As usual, governments have been slow to 
innovate, slow to adapt, and when they have acted, their actions have 
been too limited to solve the problem.
  I said at the time I had not settled on the best solution, but that I 
was working hard and talking to the experts about the best way to 
proceed. That is what we did.
  Last year, after extensive study, I delivered a report about the 
public pension debt problem titled ``State and Local Government Defined 
Benefit Plans: The Pension Debt Crisis that Threatens America.'' The 
study showed that public pension underfunding is a longstanding problem 
and that thecurrent pension debt crisis goes back more than a decade, 
if not further. The report explained why public pension debt is a 
Federal concern, reviewed previous Federal attempts at legislation and 
more recent State legislative measures focused almost exclusively on 
new employees and the attempt by the Government Accounting Standards 
Board to restore a level of discipline to public pension accounting.
  At the end of the report, I laid out four essential goals for public 
pension reform. First, public pension plans must be affordable for 
public employers and taxpayers. Second, plans must be structured so 
taxpayers in the future have no liability for past years of employee 
service. Third, public plans should provide retirement income security 
for employees. Finally, fourth, a Federal bailout of the States must he 
avoided at all costs.
  As you will see, I listened to people on all sides of the public 
pension debate, including employee groups who want public plans to 
provide lifetime income. I could have merely recommended that State and 
local governments move to a 401(k)-style plan, but I settled instead on 
a policy of trying to achieve retirement income security as well.
  Despite numerous legislative initiatives enacted at the State and 
local level, the public pension debt crisis has gotten worse, not 
better. In my report, I warned that examples such as Prichard, AL, 
Vallejo, CA, and Central Falls, RI, were only the beginning. Sadly, I 
was right. Since that time, we have witnessed the pension debt crisis 
descend on much larger cities such as San Jose, CA, Stockton, CA, San 
Bernardino, CA, and Detroit, MI. Does anyone doubt that a State could 
be next? How many times does the credit rating of Illinois have to be 
downgraded before we act? How long can Rhode Island hold out when it is 
expected to save its struggling cities while it struggles with its own 
State pension crisis?
  The problem is getting more serious every day, and the four goals I 
outlined in my report cannot be reached merely by fine-tuning the 
existing pension structures available to public employers. A new public 
pension design is needed, one that provides cost certainty for State 
and local taxpayers, retirement income security for State and local 
employees, and does not include an explicit or implicit government 
guarantee.
  I am pleased to say I believe I have designed such a plan. Title I of 
the SAFE Retirement Act creates a new pension plan called an annuity 
accumulation retirement plan. I call it the SAFE Retirement Plan.
  The concept of the SAFE Retirement Plan is simple: take advantage of 
the lifetime income that fixed annuities can provide while mitigating 
the volatile effect of interest rates on pension levels by purchasing 
an annuity contract for each worker every year during their career so a 
worker builds a solid pension year by year during their entire working 
life.
  With a SAFE Retirement Plan, employees receive a secure pension at 
retirement for life that is 100-percent vested, fully portable, and 
cannot be underfunded. Employers and taxpayers receive stable, 
predictable, and affordable pension costs. Underfunding is not 
possible. The life insurance industry pays the pensions and bears all 
of the investment risk. Unlike current public pension plans, the SAFE 
Retirement Plan will be protected by a robust and multi-faceted State 
insurance regulatory system built to ensure financial strength and 
solvency and backed by a State law-based consumer safety net. Rather 
than repairing their pension plans, States that adopt the SAFE 
Retirement Plan will be upgrading their pension plans.
  Remember, there is no Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation backing 
State and local pension plans, and there never will be. Corporations 
that sponsor pension plans pay premiums to the PBGC, and their workers 
and retirees receive a level of insurance in the event the plan does 
not have assets sufficient to pay promised benefits.
  State and local workers enjoy no such protection, so another solution 
is

[[Page S5570]]

needed. The SAFE Retirement Plan, in my opinion, is the answer. It is 
supported by a well-regulated, highly solvent State insurance system 
and has a built-in financial backstop that does not rely on State or 
Federal taxes. Honestly, regardless of which side of the debate 
Senators have been on to date, they must acknowledge that from a 
solvency perspective, this is a big improvement over the current public 
pension system.
  I know some will argue my bill will give too much new business to the 
life insurance industry. That is not how I look at it. The way I see 
it, my bill takes advantage of the life insurance industry to help 
Americans solve a serious pension problem. After all, the life 
insurance industry is the only industry in the world designed from the 
ground up to manage longevity risk.
  Annuity contracts purchased through a SAFE Retirement Plan will be 
competitively bid upon, on a group contract basis, so the workers 
receive the highest possible pension in retirement. Government finance 
officers will be involved in the bidding process to ensure best 
practices, and life insurance companies will be supervised by their 
respective State insurance departments. The life insurance industry is 
reliably solvent because State insurance regulations are strict, with 
stringent reserve requirements and conservative investment standards. 
In fact, State-licensed life insurance carriers survived the 2008 stock 
market meltdown in far better condition than any other part of the 
financial sector.
  The status quo is no longer acceptable. In fact, maintaining the 
status quo comes with a very high cost. In 2011, S&P downgraded the 
United States in part because of the enormous debt represented by 
underfunded State and local pension plans. The credit rating agencies 
have downgraded Illinois multiple times, and Moody's has begun 
scrutinizing State and local pension obligations more closely. What 
will happen when the credit rating agencies see that most State and 
local governments have no serious plan to address the crisis?
  A pension is insurance against outliving the money you have available 
to pay your monthly bills. It cannot be denied that people are living 
longer. As wonderful as that is, it also means we need to find new ways 
to stretch our monthly pension dollars over longer lifetimes. The SAFE 
Retirement Plan can meet the test.
  In addition to public pension reform, title II of the legislation I 
introduce today has several important private pension reforms. The 
centerpiece is the Starter 401(k), a new type of 401(k) plan that 
allows employees to save for retirement while placing minimal burdens 
on employers. Starter 401(k) plans allow employees to save up to $8,000 
each year but do not require employer contributions. This plan will be 
especially useful to small companies that do not have a retirement plan 
and startup companies that must devote all of their resources to 
building their business in the early years.
  The Finance Committee has received evidence in hearings that access 
to a retirement plan at work is the best way to ensure that individuals 
save for retirement. The policy goal of Congress, therefore, should be 
to encourage employers to establish and maintain a workplace retirement 
plan. The corollary is that Congress should not adopt policies that 
discourage employers from maintaining a retirement plan.
  The Starter 401(k) is a winner on all counts. It is targeted at 
businesses that do not already have a plan for their employees, it 
allows employers to help employees save their own money in amounts 
greater than they could on their own, and it has none of the expensive 
and burdensome testing and contribution obligations for employers 
associated with other retirement plans. As one of the many supporters 
of this bill told me: `` [T]he Starter 401(k) is an idea whose time has 
come.''
  In addition to the Starter 401(k), the private pension reforms I 
introduce today will help employers by simplifying reporting rules, 
easing discrimination testing safe harbor rules, allowing modernized 
electronic disclosure options, and encouraging the provision of 
lifetime income options for employees. These are commonsense and long-
overdue reforms to our Nation' s retirement savings laws, especially 
with regard to small-and mid-sized employers.
  Last but not least, title III of the legislation I introduce today 
will ensure that retirees continue to have affordable access to 
professional investment advice.
  The Acting Secretary of Labor is set to rewrite a 1975 regulation and 
dramatically expand the ERISA fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction 
rules applicable to 401(k) plans. The Acting Secretary also intends to 
apply the new and restrictive rules to IRAs, which will cause 
investment advisers to stop providing advice to many IRA owners.
  I have written to the Secretary of Labor in the past about the issue, 
but my concerns have not been addressed. In fact, there have been a 
number of letters from Members in both Houses of Congress and on both 
sides of the aisle imploring the Department of Labor to reconsider the 
issuance of the expansive and burdensome regulations. Forty Members of 
Congress have written the Labor Secretary on this issue just since 
February, to no avail. In light of the DOL's--the Department of 
Labor's--intransigence, my bill includes a legislative solution to the 
problem.
  The IRA prohibited transaction rules are codified solely in the 
Internal Revenue Code and address transactions that involve self-
dealing and conflicts of interest. Prior to the issuance of a 1978 
Executive Order, Treasury had jurisdiction over the IRA prohibited 
transaction rules governing investment advice. The 1978 order 
transferred Treasury' s jurisdiction to the DOL.
  The SAFE Retirement Act restores jurisdiction for IRA prohibited 
transaction rules to the Treasury Department. In addition, Treasury 
will be required to consult with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
when prescribing rules relating to the professional standard of care 
owed by brokers and investment advisers to IRA owners.
  The 1978 Executive Order also transferred to the DOL some of the 
Treasury Department's joint jurisdiction over the prohibited 
transaction rules applicable to retirement plans. The bill I introduce 
today restores joint jurisdiction to Treasury and the DOL.
  Joint jurisdiction makes sense in light of the DOL proposal to expand 
the 1975 regulation because Treasury must enforce prohibited 
transaction violations through the assessment of excise taxes. Treasury 
should have a role to play in any expansion of the rules because 
expanded rules will mean more excise tax cases for the IRS to process.
  If the Acting Secretary of Labor believes that the 1975 fiduciary 
regulation that has governed retirement investment advice for nearly 
four decades should be revisited, then the 1978 decision to grant the 
Secretary of Labor additional ERISA regulatory authority also should be 
revisited.
  After all, we do not know that the DOL would have been granted 
additional authority in 1978 if the sensible 1975 regulations had not 
been issued.
  Make no mistake, the position I take today regarding IRA investment 
advice is not a partisan position. In the last Congress, 124 Members 
from both sides of the aisle and from both Chambers--including 75 
Democrats, I might add--wrote to the Labor Secretary asking her not to 
take this course of action. The Secretary finally withdrew the proposal 
last year. But now that the Acting Secretary is again threatening to 
introduce this ill-conceived rule, dozens of Members of Congress have 
again written the Acting Secretary asking that IRAs be protected.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I would like to submit for the Record two letters written 
in March and June of this year by a total of 40 Members of the House 
Democrat caucus once again asking the DOL to avoid the mistake it is 
about to make.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, March 15, 2013.
     Hon. Seth D. Harris,
     Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Harris: As Members of the Congressional 
     Black Caucus and the House Financial Services Committee, we 
     are following-up on the Department of Labor's

[[Page S5571]]

     progress on a re-proposal defining the term ``fiduciary'' 
     under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 
     (ERISA). We appreciate the Department's efforts to examine 
     this issue and protect investors from misleading investment 
     advice. However, we maintain concerns that if the re-proposal 
     reflects the Department's initial fiduciary proposal it could 
     disparately impact retirement savers and investment 
     representatives in the African American community.
       The African American community has been hurt to a larger 
     degree by the economic crisis and the challenge of day-to-day 
     expenses is making long-term saving difficult. The service 
     that an investment representative provides to these 
     traditionally underserved families is critical for them to 
     feel confident to understand and invest in the long-term 
     retirement vehicles intended by Congress to help them. In 
     fact, a Prudential study finds that for those African 
     Americans who use a financial advisor, ``product ownership 
     and detailed financial planning increase, and confidence in 
     meeting key financial goals typically doubles.''
       We are particularly concerned about the effects these 
     regulations will have on savers in individual retirement 
     accounts (IRAs). If brokers who serve these accounts are 
     subject to ERISA's strict prohibitions on third-party 
     compensation, they may choose to exit the market rather than 
     risk the potentially severe penalties under ERISA for 
     violations. If that occurs, it could cause IRA services to be 
     unattainable by many retirement savers in the African 
     American community.
       Due to these concerns, we urge the Department to take full 
     consideration of the rule's impact on African American 
     communities in its economic impact study. Also, it is 
     critical that the Department continue to work together with 
     appropriate agencies and stakeholders on a balanced approach 
     to both protect investors and maintain affordable access to 
     retirement savings products during this time of economic 
     uncertainty.
       Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. We look 
     forward to continue working with you on this critical issue.
           Sincerely,
         Gregory W. Meeks; Gwen Moore; Emanuel Cleaver; Al Green; 
           Maxine Waters; Wm. Lacy Clay; Terri Sewell; David 
           Scott.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 2013.
     Hon. Seth Harris,
     Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Harris: We are writing to discuss the 
     Department of Labor's proposed rule to amend the definition 
     of ``fiduciary'' for purposes of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (ER1SA). We applaud the 
     Department's efforts to engage on this important subject, but 
     we arc concerned that the re-proposal will disadvantage those 
     it aims to help.
       One of our goals as Members of Congress is to work together 
     on issues that affect the minority communities we represent. 
     We write this letter because of our joint concern the re-
     proposed fiduciary definition could restrict our 
     constituents' access to professional financial advisors.
       At a time when many Americans arc struggling to ensure a 
     secure retirement, we have concerns that the Department's re-
     proposal could severely limit access to low cost investment 
     advice. After years of hard work, often for long hours and at 
     low wages, many of our constituents face the challenge of 
     planning for their retirement without access to professional 
     investment advice and services. We are concerned that a new, 
     more restrictive definition of fiduciary would add yet 
     another barrier to accessing qualified retirement planning 
     services. As you know, studies have shown that even savers 
     with small IRA and 401k balances benefit greatly from the 
     ability to sit with a trusted adviser to help plan for their 
     future. We believe the Department should adopt policies that 
     expand access to advice, particularly in light of the racial 
     and gender disparities that currently exist in retirement 
     savings.
       We cannot overstate our desire to ensure that this re-
     proposed rule enhances investor protection without reducing 
     investor access to affordable retirement advice, products and 
     services. As many of us have expressed to the Department, any 
     attempt to change the existing regulatory structure governing 
     the fiduciary standard should be executed carefully, 
     prudently, and in conjunction with the SEC to avoid 
     uncertainty and disruption in the marketplace. We encourage 
     the Department to learn from its earlier experience by 
     ensuring that the reproposal addresses the concerns raised by 
     a bipartisan, bicameral Congress that caused the Department 
     to withdraw the original proposal in September 2011.
       Thank you for consideration of our concerns, and we look 
     forward to closely working with you on this issue.
           Sincerely,
         Frederica S. Wilson; Corrine Brown; Barbara Lee; Wm. Lacy 
           Clay; Danny K. Davis; Donna M. Christensen; Cedric L. 
           Richmond; Emanuel Cleaver; James E. Clyburn; Bobby L. 
           Rush; Hakeem Jeffries; Gregory W. Meeks; Scott 
           DesJarlais; Maxine Waters; Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.; 
           Bennie G. Thompson.
         Hank Johnson; Robin L. Kelly; Marcia L. Fudge; Karen 
           Bass; Joyce Beatty; Jim Costa; Elijah E. Cummings; 
           David Scott; G.K. Butterfield; Yvette D. Clarke; 
           Charles B. Rangel; Eleanor H. Norton; Pedro R. 
           Pierluisi; Ed Pastor; Terri Sewell; Tulsi Gabbard.

  Mr. HATCH. These letters are proof positive that opposition to the 
Labor Department's fiduciary regulation continues to be both bipartisan 
and bicameral.
  As I close, I also wish to have printed in the Record copies of the 
many letters I have received in support of the SAFE Retirement Act of 
2013.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    American Benefits Council,

                                                     July 8, 2013.
     Re SAFE Retirement Act of 2013.

     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: On behalf of the American Benefits 
     Council, I am writing to thank you for your leadership 
     regarding the critical challenges facing our private 
     employer-sponsored retirement plan system. Your bill, the 
     SAFE Retirement Act of 2013, includes many provisions that 
     would address important private retirement plan issues and 
     builds on the success of the current system.
       Your bill contains provisions that would broaden coverage, 
     increase retirement adequacy, and make plan delivery of 
     information more effective. In particular, the bill provision 
     facilitating electronic communication would allow employers 
     to use forms of disclosure that are far more effective in 
     communicating with participants. Your bill would also 
     facilitate greater use of automatic enrollment, which is 
     critical to increasing the level of retirement savings. There 
     are also many provisions that would broaden plan coverage 
     among small employers, including an enhanced credit for 
     establishing a plan. We believe these proposals are important 
     to further strengthening the private employer-sponsored 
     retirement system and helping workers obtain personal 
     financial security.
       We applaud your leadership and we look forward to the 
     opportunity to work with you on this bill.
           Sincerely,

                                               Lynn D. Dudley,

                                 Senior Vice President, Retirement
     and International Benefits Policy.
                                  ____

                                          Alliance Benefit Group--


                                               Rocky Mountain,

                                                    June 24, 2013.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Senate Finance Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: On behalf of the Alliance Benefit Group 
     (ABG), Alliance Benefit Group--Rocky Mountain (ABGRM), and 
     our affiliates, we hereby would like to offer our sincere 
     support of the SAFE Pension Act of 2013.
       ABG is a national association of record keepers, third 
     party administrators, and financial advisors dedicated to the 
     goal of helping Americans securely retire through a strong 
     system of public and private retirement programs. Alliance 
     Benefit Group works with over 14,000 Defined Contribution and 
     Defined Benefit plans across the country representing over 
     $51 Billion in retirement savings and 1 million plan 
     participants. We have been serving retirement and welfare 
     plan participants in Utah since our foundation locally in 
     1980.
       As a trusted service provider we deal firsthand with the 
     challenges facing plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries, and plan 
     participants across a wide spectrum. Many of these concerns 
     are addressed by your legislation. We are especially 
     encouraged by the provisions of the Act designed to increase 
     auto enrollment and auto escalation, allow for new timing 
     allowances designed to increased adoption of qualified plans, 
     increase portability, address longevity risks, and provide 
     for a more flexible safe harbor 401k environment.
       Thank you for supporting the retirement system that all 
     Americans depend on for their future to come.
           Sincerely,

                                  W. Jeffrey Zobell, QPA, QKA,

                                          Chief Executive Officer,
     Alliance Benefit Group--Rocky Mountain.
                                  ____



                                                         ACLI,

                                                     July 3, 2013.
     Re Safer Pension Act of 2013.

     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: We want to express our appreciation for 
     your leadership on retirement security issues. ACLI member 
     companies offer insurance contracts and other investment 
     products and services to qualified retirement plans, 
     including defined benefit pension, 401(k) and 403(b) 
     arrangements, and to individuals through individual 
     retirement arrangements (IRAs) or on a non-qualified basis. 
     For many years our members and their products have helped 
     Americans accumulate retirement savings and turn those 
     savings into guaranteed lifetime income.
       Our members will be eager to study the provisions of the 
     Safer Pension Act of 2013. We support enhancements to the 
     current employer sponsored system with the goal of increasing 
     simplification, coverage, and facilitating lifetime income 
     options. We look forward to working with you on a number of 
     enhancements including:

[[Page S5572]]

       Facilitating electronic delivery of participant statements;
       Expanding the ability of employers to offer annuities in 
     defined contribution plans;
       Encouraging multiple employer defined contribution plans; 
     and
       Expanding autoenrollment/autoescalation opportunities for 
     workers.
       As Congress considers tax reform, we appreciate your 
     continued support of the current retirement security system. 
     ACLI and its member companies look forward to working with 
     you and your staff to improve retirement security for all 
     Americans.
           Sincerely,
     Walter C. Welsh.
                                  ____

                                                ASPPA--WORKING FOR


                                         AMERICA'S RETIREMENT,

                                                    June 24, 2013.
     Re Letter of Support for the SAFE Retirement Act of 2013

     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Ranking Member, Senate Finance Committee,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member Hatch: On behalf of the American 
     Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries (ASPPA) and its 
     affiliates, we hereby express our strong support for the SAFE 
     Retirement Act of 2013.
       ASPPA is a national organization of more than 15,000 
     retirement plan professionals who provide consulting and 
     administrative services for qualified retirement plans 
     covering millions of American workers. ASPPA members are 
     retirement professionals of all disciplines including 
     consultants, investment advisors, administrators, actuaries, 
     accountants, and attorneys. The large and broad-based ASPPA 
     membership gives it unusual insight into current practical 
     problems with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and 
     qualified retirement plans with a particular focus on the 
     issues faced by small- to medium-sized employers. ASPPA 
     membership is diverse and united by a common dedication to 
     the private retirement plan system.
       The private retirement system provisions in Title II of the 
     SAFE Act will dramatically simplify the operation of 
     qualified retirement plans by eliminating unnecessary 
     paperwork and traps for the unwary, as well as providing new 
     approaches to expanding the availability of workplace savings 
     through qualified retirement plans, especially small business 
     retirement plans. These common sense proposals will go a long 
     way toward improving the retirement security of millions of 
     working Americans.
       ASPPA commends your offering of these proposals, and 
     applauds your commitment to enhancing the private retirement 
     system and the retirement security of our nation's workers.
           Sincerely,
                                        Brian H. Graff, Esq., APM,
     ASPPA Executive Director/CEO.
                                  ____



                                    AMERICANS for TAX REFORMS,

                                                June 26, 2013.

     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     United States Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hatch: On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform, 
     I write today in support of your new bill, the ``Secure 
     Annuities for Employees (SAFE) Retirement Act of 2013.'' I 
     would urge all senators to support this common-sense, job-
     creating legislation.
       The SAFE Retirement Act provides net tax relief for 
     retirement savings. Title II of the legislation spells out a 
     host of common-sense and long-overdue reforms to our nation's 
     retirement savings laws, especially with regard to small- and 
     mid-sized employers. Pending a final score from the Joint 
     Committee on Taxation, it seems self-evident that this 
     section alone makes the SAFE Retirement Act a net tax cut for 
     American families and employers.
       The SAFE Retirement Act is good public policy for state and 
     local taxpayers. Title I of the bill allows states to opt 
     into an annuity-based alternative (a ``SAFE Retirement 
     Plan'') to today's under-funded legacy defined benefit 
     pension regime. A state wisely choosing to do so would give 
     taxpayers the assurance that government employees won't 
     strain state government funding obligations into perpetuity--
     the harsh reality facing many states today as they struggle 
     with meeting the pension promises of an earlier era.
       The SAFE Retirement Act builds upon the modernization 
     efforts of the Pension Protection Act of 2006. This bill 
     gives ordinary employers what they've been looking for--a 
     cost-effective, easy to administer, and lower-hassle 
     retirement planning structure they can work with. Common 
     sense reforms like extending elective dates, providing safe 
     harbors, and simplifying paperwork should be able to get 
     broad support. In particular, the ``Starter 401(k)'' is an 
     idea whose time has come.
       The ``Secure Annuities for Employees (SAFE) Retirement Act 
     of 2013'' is a great example of good, solid legislative 
     blocking and tackling. I look forward to working with you on 
     this legislation as it winds its way through the lawmaking 
     process.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Grover Norquist.

  Mr. HATCH. These letters come from businesses and organizations 
representing employers, life insurance companies, State insurance 
commissioners, State guarantee associations, and tax policy groups. 
These letters demonstrate that the SAFE Retirement Act is good policy 
and will make good law. America's retirement system deserves no less.

                          ____________________