[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 12025-12026]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      PENSION SECURITY ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. DENNIS MOORE

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 14, 2003

  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reluctantly support H.R. 
1000, and to express my reasons for voting against the Miller-Rangel 
substitute to this legislation.
  During my time in Congress, I have strongly supported legislation 
that would help employees prepare for their retirement. Pension reform 
legislation affects all working Americans. As such, both parties in 
Congress have a responsibility to work together in a thoughtful and 
conscientious manner on this issue.
  To that end, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1776, the bipartisan Pension 
Preservation and Savings Expansion Act of 2003, which expands savings 
options, empowers employees to take control of their retirement plan 
investments and gives workers substantial new rights to avoid over-
concentration in the stock of their own company.
  By modifying the rules that apply to retirement plans, the Pension 
Preservation and Savings Expansion Act provides workers with needed 
control over their retirement plan investments while preserving the 
opportunity for employee ownership. Through new diversification rights, 
new disclosure requirements and new tax incentives for retirement 
education,

[[Page 12026]]

this legislation would help employees achieve retirement security.
  I have serious concerns with the substitute before us today. 
Unfortunately, the substitute overreacts to the unfortunate 
circumstances surrounding Enron's historic bankruptcy. Congress has a 
duty to the American people to enact responsible legislation that will 
benefit employees rather than impose new administrative burdens on 
millions of retirement plans.
  The substitute would thwart bipartisan efforts to reduce 
administrative burdens on employers who voluntarily sponsor retirement 
plans by imposing new, expensive rules on such plans. The substitute's 
provision that would require retirement plans to insure against vaguely 
defined plan asset losses would increase the cost of these retirement 
plans, creating a disincentive for employers to offer their employees a 
pension plan.
  Additionally, under the substitute, a plan participant is allowed to 
divest of company stock held in an account after just one year. This 
one-year diversification provision runs the significant risk of causing 
disruptions in both plan administration and the markets.
  Further, the substitute would require employers to create joint 
employer-employee retirement plan trusteeships. Employers in Kansas's 
Third District have assured me that this provision has the potential to 
complicate plan administration to the point that some employers may 
drop their plans altogether. The working people of this country deserve 
a more thoughtful, careful process from their Federal representatives.
  While the substitute goes too far in seeking to ensure reasonable 
safeguards on employer sponsored retirement plans, the underlying bill 
before us today does not go quite far enough in protecting working 
Americans. But, it is a good start.
  I am voting for the underlying bill today to keep this process 
moving. I hope, however, that the Senate considers strengthening the 
bill's provisions with regard to investment advice to ensure that the 
advice workers receive through their employer is truly independent. I 
would suggest that the Senate consider allowing, on a tax-preferred 
basis, individuals to seek the investment advisor of their choice. In 
addition, I hope the Senate addresses the issue of corporate and 
executive abuses brought to light in recent scandals. I submit that 
imposing an excise tax on excessive corporate payments to senior 
executives in periods prior to bankruptcy is a good start. I believe 
this will help prevent insiders from draining assets from a company as 
its stock value declines.
  For the record, both of these suggestions are contained within H.R. 
1776, the aforementioned Pension Preservation and Savings Expansion Act 
of 2003. I urge the House to come together quickly and consider this 
bipartisan bill so that the Senate may have a range of options from 
which to advance reasonable, much needed pension reform that will 
benefit working Americans.
  I will continue to support bipartisan efforts to reform our Nation's 
retirement system in a manner that benefits both employers and 
employees. I urge my colleagues to do the same and hope that the 
legislative process will ultimately produce a bipartisan conference 
report which we may all proudly support.

                          ____________________