[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 16044-16045]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 DON'T LET TAXPAYERS GET ``RAILROADED''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this week the House of 
Representatives is expected to be voting on a bill, H.R. 4844, the 
Railroad Retirement and Survivors Improvement Act of 2000. This 
legislation has been advertised as a historic agreement that is 
overwhelmingly supported by both rail management and labor.
  Why have they agreed so easily? The answer is because American 
taxpayers rather then the private railroad companies are going to be 
footing the bill for their private pension fund.
  Let me talk about the facts of this railroad retirement bill. The 
railroad retirement system already has an unfunded liability of $39.7 
billion, according to our Committee on the Budget staff. The industry 
would need to increase contributions from 21 percent of wages to 31 
percent of wages for the next 30 years to cover this shortfall.
  Accurate accounting shows that the industry has received at least $85 
billion more in benefits than it has paid in contributions.
  The rail industry has for many years received special government 
subsidies that are available to no other industry. Under current law, 
income taxes paid by rail retirees do not go to U.S. Treasury. They are 
instead transferred to the Railroad Retirement System, costing 
taxpayers over $5 billion.
  The government also currently pays the cost of Amtrak's social 
security

[[Page 16045]]

contributions, costing taxpayers another $150 million a year.
  Now this plan, H.R. 4844, would reduce both employer and employee 
contributions to the retirement fund. Let me say that again. They are 
going to reduce both employee and employer contributions to the 
retirement fund while providing substantial increases in benefits, so 
they reduce the contribution, they increase benefits, and they charge 
the American taxpayers for these private business pension plans.
  Specifically, the bill will, number one, repeal a 26.5 cent per hour 
employer contribution for supplemental annuities; two, it will reduce 
employer contributions from the current 16.1 percent to 14.2 percent in 
the year 2002; three, it will expand benefits for widows; four, it will 
reduce the vesting requirement from 10 to 5 years; five, it will repeal 
the current cap on payments of earned benefits; six, it is going to 
reduce the minimum retirement age to 60.
  This legislation fails to move to a privatized retirement system. It 
reduces contributions of the employee and employer and while 
substantially increasing benefits. It is going to cost the taxpayers of 
the country huge amounts to subsidize these kinds of pension plans for 
private sector business. The bill as written should not be passed.

                          ____________________