[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6397-6407]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3108, PENSION FUNDING EQUITY ACT OF 2004

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of April 
1, 2004, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3108) to 
amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to temporarily replace the 30-year 
Treasury rate with a rate based on long-term corporate bonds for 
certain pension plan funding requirements, and for other purposes, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Thursday, April 1, 2004, the conference report is considered as having 
been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
April 1, 2004 at page H 1997.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 3108.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 15 minutes of 
this time be controlled by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), 
the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding 
me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank everyone for bringing to fruition a modest bill which 
has a limited life, but which is extremely critical in today's economic 
environment. Twice the House has passed a short-term substitute for a 
financial structure that assists in pensions. Thirty-year Treasury 
bonds had been the standard. When the Treasury decided not to issue 30-
year bonds anymore, we did not have a surrogate.
  This surrogate is absolutely essential in the short term while we 
work out a long-term replacement for the 30-year Treasuries. As I said, 
twice the House passed this legislation, once in October of 2003 and 
then again in November of 2003. Neither time in passing this 
legislation did the House include multi-employer provisions.
  Multi-employers tend to basically be the representatives for the 
unions.

[[Page 6398]]

 Multi-employers determine their pension liabilities differently than 
other companies. It is important to make sure that there are provisions 
available for multi-employers, and what the conference did was work out 
a solution which we believe addresses those multi-employers in need and 
can be signed into law.
  We are going to hear a lot of comments about what we did or did not 
do. It seems to me that when we look at those people who are willing to 
write letters in support and we get one letter from the United Auto 
Workers and the other from Ford, Daimler Chrysler, and General Motors, 
both management and labor in support of what we did in the short-term 
solution, we begin to think maybe we have it about right.
  So as we look at this, this is not permanent legislation; it is 
legislation that needs to go to the President to be enacted, hopefully 
no later than next week; and we will then sit down and look at long-
term, formal changes to the pensions in this country in a number of 
different ways, in the Tax Code and in the jurisdiction of the 
gentleman from Ohio's Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) on 
the way in which he has conducted himself while working on this 
legislation in the House and especially his leadership in conference. 
It is a pleasure to work with my colleagues where, notwithstanding the 
jurisdictional differences in committee, we are able to work together 
to solve problems, because it is the problem that needs to be addressed 
and not the particular concerns or interests of any committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, the chairman is aware that some stock life 
insurance companies are facing taxes on their policyholder surplus 
accounts due to corporate reorganizations.
  Is the chairman examining ways to prevent this tax from hitting 
companies in the process of reorganizing to be more competitive?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I will tell the 
gentleman we have, and we are. I know the gentleman's interest in this 
issue based upon his State and one of the things his State is famous 
for.
  We are working with a number of individuals on Joint Tax, in 
industry, to gather the information needed to craft an equitable 
proposal. Once the committee receives this information, I will tell the 
gentleman, we intend to seriously pursue relief options because of the 
current unfair relationships, as the gentleman described.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his insightful and 
reassuring response.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Portman) control the remainder of the time of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1230

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews) is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner) who very ably and fairly chaired this conference and for 
all the participants and staff who worked very hard in the conference 
and did yeomen's work on both sides of the Capitol and both sides of 
the aisle.
  As the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means said a minute ago, 
this bill solves a problem. I think he is correct, that there is a 
problem. I think he is correct that it solves the problem for some 
people who suffer that problem, but I would respectfully say he is most 
decidedly incorrect when he says it solves the entire problem.
  The problem here is that people running pension plans, defined 
benefit plans, have suffered an unusual series of economic 
circumstances, declining stock prices, very low interest rates, which 
have given them great fiscal distress in their plans.
  Under the existing law, it is necessary for the employers who pay 
into those plans to make huge increases in their contributions in the 
very near future. This translates, in my view, into lost jobs, slower 
growth, and significant economic problems for many industries. 
Commendably, this conference tried to address that problem and has, in 
fact, done so for many of our employers, but the conference report 
fails miserably to help a number of employers who need this help, and 
those are the employers in what is called the multi-employer plans.
  Now multi-employer plan is a very antiseptic term. Who are we talking 
about? We are talking about air conditioning contracting companies. We 
are talking about people who build houses. We are talking about people 
that do plumbing repairs and heating repairs, that do sheet metal 
contracting. We are talking about 60,000 small businesses across this 
country affected by this change.
  Now, the experts in the field have told us that about one in five of 
those small businesses is going to experience a significant problem in 
their pension plan within the next 5 years. Twenty percent of these air 
conditioning repair companies and plumbing companies and home builders 
are going to experience a problem in the next 5 years. So about 20 
percent of these small businesses and their employees need help right 
now.
  This bill helps about 3 or 4 percent of these small businesses in the 
country. Think about this. The experts tell us that 20 percent of these 
small businesses and their employees need help. This bill steps forward 
and helps 3 or 4 percent.
  Now one might be inclined, Mr. Speaker, to think that this is a 
technical oversight or it is a problem that cannot be fixed because of 
some fiscal or budgetary reason. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. This bill represents a deliberate choice to exclude thousands of 
small businesses and their employees from the relief that they need to 
continue creating jobs, and I believe that deliberate choice is made 
because these plans are all affiliated with organized labor. That is 
what this is about.
  There are a bunch of people that fell off the boat and they are 
drowning and need a life preserver and we are standing on the deck of 
the rescue ship throwing out life preservers so people can survive. And 
that is commendable. But we will not throw the life preservers for 
union plans and union workers. That is wrong. There is no substantive 
basis for that judgment. There is no fair basis for that judgment. And 
it is wrong.
  We will have an opportunity to fix this injustice in the motion to 
recommit to conference that I will be offering. Under the rules of the 
House, there will be no debate on that motion, so I want to bring it up 
now.
  What the motion will permit us to do is to reconvene the conference 
with the instructions that the small businesses adversely affected by 
this bill will have the chance to be included. We will go back to the 
bargaining table and say, as the experts have told us, that the 20 
percent of small businesses who are drowning out there in the sea will 
also get thrown a life preserver.
  To make a judgment based on dollars is reasonable. To make a judgment 
based upon technical disagreement is reasonable. But to make a judgment 
based upon ideological opposition to a certain segment of the American 
business community, those who employ unionized workers and against a 
segment of American workers, those who happen to exercise their right 
to collectively bargain, is wrong.
  That is why the motion that I will submit is supported by, and final 
passage is opposed by, the Teamsters, the IBEW, the building and 
construction trades of the AFL/CIO, the bricklayers, the boilermakers, 
the roofers, the asbestos workers, the carpenters, the iron workers, 
the operating engineers, the laborers, the sheet metal workers, the 
plasterers, the plumbers and pipe

[[Page 6399]]

fitters, the elevator trades and the painters.
  The small businesses that employ these Americans should not be 
excluded from this bill, irrespective of who they support in the 
election, irrespective of how they view things politically. It is wrong 
to throw a life preserver only to the favored few.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit that 
will be offered and oppose final passage of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews) for his comments. I have enjoyed working with him over the 
years. He works closely with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) 
who we will hear from in a moment on pension issues.
  I would say I cannot agree exactly with his analysis of this bill. 
This is a very strong bill that I strongly support. I commend those who 
played a role in putting it together, and the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews) was there in the conference helping put it together.
  The bill that came through the House, as my colleagues will recall, 
had no help from multi-employers because it was a 30-year bill. That 
was the issue that we started with, and that is the source of the 
legislation, also the reason for the legislation, and that legislation 
then got added to. But it is interesting that all but I think two 
Members of this House voted for the bill last go-around without any 
multi-employer relief and now somehow the bill is not good enough 
because it does not have enough multi-employer relief.
  It does solve the 30-year problem, and that is extremely important to 
34 million American workers. It is only a 2-year short term bill, as 
the gentleman knows; and in those 2 years the idea is that we will 
reform all of the pension rules and regulations, including the funding 
rules, the accounting rules, the disclosure rules, something that is 
long overdue, and including within that, of course, the multi-employer 
rules, which I believe do need to be altered. But this was never meant 
to be the bill to do that.
  My colleague talked about problems that might come up in the next 5 
or 10 years for these plans. We will have time to deal with that in the 
next 2 years. That is the whole idea. The critical thing here is, 
before April 15 when these quarterly payments are going to be made or 
not made, that we make a decision to save millions of employees from 
having their benefits frozen, from perhaps losing their benefits 
altogether, new entrants into the workforce. We know we had 300,000 new 
jobs last month. Let us be sure those people have an opportunity to get 
into a pension.
  What is happening out there, as we know, is we not only have seen a 
precipitous drop in the number of plans that are insured by PBGC, 
meaning these traditional guaranteed, defined benefit plans, we have 
gone from roughly 114,000 plans to 32,000 plans just in the last 18 
years.
  More disturbing to me is that recently we have seen a lot of these 
plans freeze benefits for existing participants and not allow new 
participants in. The best study we have got shows that we have about 27 
percent of plans that are not offering benefits to new hires as they do 
to existing hires. We have about 21 percent of plans, that is more than 
one in five, who are scaling back benefits through a freeze or other 
similar mechanisms.
  We have got a crisis, and we need to deal with it. We have spent 2 
years talking about it. I am delighted this bill is before us to 
finally correct the major reason that plans are freezing and cutting 
benefits and that is the fact that the interest rate they have to use, 
called the 30-year rate, is not accurate.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who I see is 
on the floor, and I introduced legislation to correct this problem. It 
is bipartisan legislation, strongly supported in this House. It 
provides for a long-term, conservative corporate bond rate to be used 
instead of this 30-year Treasury, as the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Thomas) said earlier, which is now defunct and no longer a 
good interest rate. It provides a slightly higher interest rate, which 
allows companies to make the adequate and accurate contribution but not 
overcontribute. And this will help, again, 34 million American workers.
  I am pleased to see the conference report we have before us 
incorporates that model. It only does it for 2 years. I wish we could 
have gotten 3 or 4. I would have loved it to be permanent. It would 
give the plans the predictability they need. We were not able to do 
that. But to have the 2-year change in the 30-year is extremely 
important to those 34 million workers, including, by the way, 12 
million union workers.
  To my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), he talked 
earlier about the fact that this somehow does not take care of union 
workers but it takes care of non-union workers. I would just remind him 
there are 9 million union workers in multi-employer plans, but there 
are 12 million union workers who get a very direct benefit from the 30-
year Treasury fix in this bill.
  I would also say that, for those folks who are concerned about who 
this covers and does not cover in terms of the multi-employer plans, we 
really do not know. It may be three 3 or 4 percent. It may be more than 
that. That is not what we intended to do, was to choose a percentage. 
We tried to put in place some screens to be sure that the benefits that 
were added to, again, the 30-year Treasury bill that went through this 
House with all but two votes, to be sure that those plans that were 
added to that were those plans most in need. That was the only 
criteria.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Houghton), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good things in this 
bill, a lot of things you can argue about. The two things that I think 
are important, one is the section 809, which we all know about. It is a 
conference report and permanently extends the suspension of section 809 
on an antiquated tax on mutual life insurance companies. That is very 
important. But the most important thing for me is the temporary 
replacement of the 30-year Treasury bond.
  Now, people have talked about that. A lot of people are going to 
discuss this. But, having been in business, this is very, very 
important. They are out now. They are gone. There is nothing to base a 
pension plan formula on. Something has to take its place, and what we 
want to do is to try to have something which is timely and can be voted 
on by April 15 when many of these companies have to make their 
decision.
  So to protect the money that goes into the pension plans for 
employees, you must have a guideline. It is very important. It is very 
critical timewise. This is not an intellectual issue. This is not 
something we can have bandied about forever. People's very retirement 
depends on this. It is not so much the money, but it is the guideline. 
I hope very much we will support this.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who is really one of our leading voices on 
pension reform in this country.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews) for his leadership on pension issues and protecting 
working people. I agree completely with what he has said with regards 
to multi-employer. I am very happy that my friend, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman), is on the floor. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for all of his help on dealing with 
particularly the ERISA provisions as it affects pension rules.
  It is interesting, in regards to the multi-employers, it was included 
in legislation that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and I 
authored to try to deal with the current problems of funding a pension 
plan. I regret it is not included in this legislation.

[[Page 6400]]

  Mr. Speaker, let me point out that when this bill passed this body I 
urged my colleagues to support the bill, but I pointed out that it is 
not going to correct the problem. It is a temporary Band-Aid, that we 
should have done more. We should have had a longer than 2-year 
replacement of the 30-year Treasury.

                              {time}  1245

  We should have had a permanent correction. We know what we should be 
doing. Using the formula that is in this bill, we should have had it 
for more than just 2 years.
  I also pointed out that there are many other provisions in funding of 
pension plans, defined benefit plans that need to be addressed. I know 
there is an attempt here to deal with the mortality schedules, but we 
should deal with it broader. There are a lot of blue collar workers 
that today their pension plans are overfunded in regards to the 
mortality schedules.
  We had the issue of smoothing contributions to allow employers to 
make more predictable contributions to the defined benefit plans. All 
that needs to be dealt with.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will support this bill 
because it is important that we get this relief in effect before April 
15, but I hope that we will do a lot more in protecting the defined 
benefits because, if we do not, if we do not take this issue up, next 
year when we talk about it or 2 years from now, we are going to find 
there are less defined benefit plans that are out there.
  The well-funded plans are going to freeze or convert, but they are 
not going to do the current roles that are out there. We need to reform 
and make sure that plans are accurately funded, fully funded so that 
employees are protected, but we also have to make sure that there are 
incentives for companies to continue their defined benefit plans.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, support my 
colleague's, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), motion to 
recommit so we can then deal with the multi-employer issue, but let us 
get this bill to the President's desk as quickly as possible.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I want to thank my colleague from Maryland for all of 
his hard work and his support today and make that commitment with him 
and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Thomas), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews) and others. We will work together on this issue for the next 
couple of years. We do need to reform our entire defined benefit 
pension system.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson), my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman; and I 
want to congratulate my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who have long 
been leaders on complicated pension issues, and to the whole conference 
committee for bringing a bill back that we can get to the President's 
desk to sign because there is literally nothing more important to 
working Americans than retirement security.
  They have the right to know. We have the obligation to assure them 
that, when they retire, their retirement plans will come to reality and 
they will receive the benefits that they have long counted on.
  When the rate on the 30-year Treasury bond plummeted after the bonds 
were discontinued, companies found themselves forced to make 
artificially high contributions to defined benefit pension plans. That 
is all this does. This just eliminates that requirement for companies 
with defined benefit pension plans, which we all know are extremely 
valuable to working people. It protects those companies from having to 
make artificially high contributions.
  With the economy just coming back, this is about as important a jobs 
bill as we could pass right now because if we do not give these 
companies relief, they will be forced to divert funds from paying for 
current employees or hiring new employees because they will have to 
make sizeable, significant, new, higher contributions to their pension 
funds.
  So this will free up $80 billion over the next 2 years to help grow 
this economy, and that is about jobs now. It is about retirement 
security later. So this is a must-pass bill. Is it everything? No, it 
is not everything. We need a permanent fix to this problem, and we have 
a permanent fix that needs to go to everyone; but this is a must-must-
pass bill, and I urge the body to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I would just point out that the argument from the other side, we 
keep hearing the bill is not everything, that we cannot do everything 
all at once.
  It seems like the things that we never quite get around to are the 
ones that most benefit the working people of the country. We never 
quite get around to extending unemployment benefits. We never quite get 
around to consideration of raising the minimum wage. We never quite get 
around to including pension relief for employees of small businesses, 
60,000 small businesses across the country. We never quite get around 
to debating legislation that would help the 45 million people without 
health insurance in the country. We never quite get around to that.
  We always do get around to helping very powerful players in our 
economy and our political system who, in fact, deserve help in this 
circumstance. I do not dispute that; but I hope one of these days, Mr. 
Speaker, we get around to helping the rest.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and also the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Boehner) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for their work on 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about the conference 
report for H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act. Mr. Speaker, I am 
extremely disappointed that this conference report fails to address the 
real dangers facing multi-employer pension plans.
  When we considered this bill last October, I supported the temporary 
extension of using a composite of corporate bond index to replace the 
30-year Treasury. I think that is a good move. It is good to, I think, 
adjust in the current climate the funding obligation calculations that 
we include in this bill. Few of us doubt that this country's retirement 
system is in desperate need of reform. However, today we are missing an 
opportunity to meaningfully address the funding struggles that are 
crippling many of the multi-employer plans in this country.
  When the Senate considered H.R. 3108, they recognized this growing 
crisis, and they included protections for multi-employer plans by an 
overwhelming vote. Sadly, this good work was undone yesterday by 
Republican conferees who gutted multi-employer pension relief with a 
so-called compromise that was strictly conducted on a party-line vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the real losers today are our Nation's workers. Multi-
employer pension plans cover 9.5 million workers and retirees who have 
put their faith in the retirement security system. Hardworking families 
should not be forced to pay the price of partisan politics. They 
deserve this body to comprehensively address this problem facing multi-
employer plans. Congress should be taking a fair look at this issue and 
making a good faith effort to provide meaningful pension reform. The 
Senate tried to do just that; but sadly, the conference report failed 
in its similar attempt.
  There is a pattern here, Mr. Speaker, of conduct that the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has addressed in part; and I, too, find 
it troubling that unemployment benefits are blocked by the Republican 
leadership; that overtime pay for our workers is

[[Page 6401]]

blocked by the Republican leadership; that minimum wage increases are 
blocked by the Republican leadership. And now, Mr. Speaker, again, 
because of the obstructions created by the Republican leadership, we 
are missing an opportunity here to provide real multi-employer pension 
relief.
  I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. 
Andrews) motion to recommit and oppose this conference report.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just briefly, I say to my colleague who just spoke, I appreciate his 
support. Last time through he said he did support the legislation 
without any multi-employer provisions. He should know that no one who 
has spoken on the floor today mentioned the multi-employer issue when 
it came to the floor last time. In fact, when we look through the 
debate, not one Member of Congress on either side of the aisle 
mentioned the multi-employer issue or suggested that it be added.
  I would also say with regard to all these small businesses, 23 
million small businesses in America, let us assume all the multi-
employer employers are small businesses which, of course, they are not. 
Let us assume they were, that would be .2 percent of our small 
businesses in America. So let us be careful about saying we are talking 
about 20 percent of the small businesses here.
  We are talking about at the most .2 percent and of course, not all 
multi-employer employers are defined as small businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Camp), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report, 
and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for all their hard work on this 
important legislation.
  This does make important, commonsense changes to help keep workers' 
pensions intact, and replacing the 30-year Treasury bond rate is one 
step in addressing the crisis companies with pensions face, especially 
the airline and steel industries. These companies are facing massive 
mandatory payments because of the simultaneous collapse of the stock 
market and record low interest rates.
  Many defined pension plans have gone from an overfunded surplus to an 
underfunded deficit in just 3 years. Since these plans are now less 
than 90 percent funded, companies will be required to pay hefty 
surcharges, known as deficit reduction contributions. These payments 
are no less than a government-mandated surcharge requiring companies to 
make enormous additional payments in an unreasonable period.
  This bill would provide relief to those affected employers without 
sticking taxpayers with the bill. More importantly, this legislation 
protects employee pensions and the ability of companies to keep the 
doors open for business. It is both pro-worker and pro-employer.
  Under the bill, companies would continue to make their normal pension 
payments, but be allowed partial 2-year deferral for contribution 
payments.
  In no way does this plan relieve any company from their pension 
liabilities. They must continue to make their normal pension 
contributions. This bipartisan plan is supported by both unions and 
management. This legislation is essential to maintaining healthy and 
viable employers and to protecting the pensions of thousands of 
workers, including the 305,000 new jobs and new pensions that were 
created last month.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I consume, and 
I know that there are elements of the union movement who support this 
bill. I understand that, but I want to reiterate, the Teamsters, the 
IBEW, the building trades, the bricklayers, the boilermakers, the 
roofers, the asbestos workers, the carpenters, the iron workers, the 
operating engineers, the laborers, the sheet metal workers, the 
plasterers and cement masons, the plumbers and the pipefitters, the 
elevator trades and the painters all oppose this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank, in particular, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for his leadership, courage, in 
fact, on a bill that looked like it was already ready to make the last 
mile and cross the finish line.
  Many might wonder why we would come to the floor and allegedly 
interfere with a bipartisan legislative initiative that has the support 
of employers and unions. Well, I tell my colleagues why he has come to 
the floor, because he is absolutely right; and not only is he 
absolutely right, it is shameful that we would allow ideology to 
interfere with the rightness of making whole all of the pension funds.
  Mr. Speaker, I come from Houston, Texas. I saw 4,500 employees laid 
off from Enron. I heard the stories of individuals who had lost their 
entire life's savings and ability to provide for their family. I am 
still being confronted by those families who lost homes and are not 
able to provide for the college education of their children.
  Today, we have an opportunity to make better and to make whole 
prospectively thousands upon thousands of workers who are having a 
funding deficiency, but the actual insult of this motion to recommit, 
the actual insult and the actual, I think, outrage that caused the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) to come to the floor is that 
this was in the legislation, working on funding a deficiency, helping 
the neediest of needy who really did not suffer this loss through any 
fault of their own.
  In fact, this is not an indictment of the companies or the unions. 
This is an indictment of the marketplace, the investments that were 
made that show that this underfunding came about, this funding 
deficiency, and this is clearly pointed to the marketplace, and why we 
had such a condition.
  Why would we not today support helping 9 million workers and their 
families? Why would we yield to the White House that asked this 
language to be taken out?
  Mr. Speaker, let me equate to a situation in our community right now 
in Houston. We are abandoning municipal employees, fire fighters and 
police employees by refusing to cast a positive vote to protect their 
public funds, not through any fault of the unions or the pension 
boards, because their moneys were also deficient because of investment; 
but because of their plight, they are now looking to suffer the loss by 
having the question raised as to opt-out of the State law that protects 
them from having their pension interfered with or changed, and so they 
are being attacked on an earned benefit right.
  This motion to instruct is a motion that will provide an opportunity 
to protect the 9 million of those who are losing moneys now and to help 
their families and to make this bill, Mr. Speaker, whole and to help 
those who are needed to be whole. I ask for full support on the motion 
to recommit.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the pension security measure that we have before us is 
of great urgency for American workers and their employers, and that is 
because the 30-year Treasury bond that is used to calculate the 
contributions and obligations for employers for single-employer defined 
benefit systems are so low that it is causing companies to have to take 
money that they would invest in their business, that they would invest 
in more jobs, and put it into their pension plans when, in reality, 
they do not need to put that money there.
  Mr. Speaker, this issue of what we do with defined benefit pension 
plans is a very difficult path that we must follow. On one hand, we 
want to protect the obligations and the rights of employees who have 
been offered these plans and to maintain the retirement security that 
they have been promised and that they are expecting. At the same time, 
we need to find a way to make these plans work more smoothly so that 
employers do not continue to leave these

[[Page 6402]]

plans in droves, as they have over the last 15 years.
  That is why the bill we have before us today was intended to fix this 
discount rate for single-employer defined benefit plans, and we go from 
a 30-year Treasury bond to a blend of corporate bond indexes that we 
believe more appropriately reflects the marketplace in terms of what 
the discount rate should be as they calculate these obligations.
  Yesterday, the House and Senate reached an agreement on a short-term 
bill that is good for the economy, it is good for American workers and 
the overall health of the Nation's pension system. I should say 
temporary. This is a 2-year bill. As the gentleman from New Jersey 
pointed out, the people who are opposed to this bill do not have 
funding obligation problems for 5, 6, 7 years; and for those multi-
employer plans who do have problems here in the short term, over the 
next 3 years they will in fact, by and large, get the relief that they 
need.
  The measure that was adopted by the conferees yesterday, I think, is 
a fair and responsible proposal that meets all of the goals that the 
conferees started with when we had the conference. The most critical 
urgent measure is the 30- year Treasury bond fix. It also includes 
limited relief from deficit reduction contributions for airlines and 
integrated steel companies, and it targets funding relief for multi-
employer pension plans that we believe are most in need. It is also a 
bill that the President of the United States has agreed he will sign 
into law.
  It is important to note that the interest rate provision really is 
the sole reason that we are here. Last fall, when we passed this 
measure on a 397 to 2 vote, everyone voted for this bill except two 
Members from the other side of the aisle. There was never any 
discussion about multi-employer relief, and we worked with our Senate 
and Republican colleagues on both sides of the aisle, both sides of the 
Capitol.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas), Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for his 
willingness to work closely with us, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) on our side, along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), and I guess that would be it on our side; 
along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel). We worked together very closely in an open and 
bipartisan process that I think speaks well of how we should legislate 
here in the House.
  I think we have come an awful long way, and we need to get this bill 
finished, and we need to get it finished today. These funding 
obligations for employers are due on April 15, and if this conference 
report is not passed by the House and Senate and signed into law before 
then, companies will be making contributions that they really are not 
required, we believe, to make.
  Beyond thanking all of the Members who have worked on this, I want to 
take a moment to thank all of our staff. As we all know, Members are 
only as good as the staff we have around us, and we have staff on both 
sides of the aisle who have done really an awful lot of hard work to 
get us here today.
  From my own staff, I want to thank Paula Nowakowski, Ed Gilroy, 
Stacey Dion, Jo-Marie St. Martin, David Connolly, Jeff Dobrozsi, Kevin 
Smith, Greg Maurer, Dave Schnittger, Linda Stevens, Kevin Frank, and 
Deborah Samantar.
  I would also like to thank Shahira Knight and Lisa Schultz from the 
staff of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas); Kathleen Black 
from the staff of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson); Kurt 
Courtney from the staff of the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon); 
Angela Klemack from the staff of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi); 
and Barbara Pate from the staff of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) for all her work on this as well.
  I would also like to thank John Lawrence, Michelle Varnhagen and Mark 
Zuckerman from the staff of the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller), and Jody Calemine from the staff of the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and Mildeen Worrell from the staff of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for an awful lot of really long, 
long nights in getting us here.
  I also want to thank Wade Ballou and Larry Johnston of the House 
Office of Legislative Counsel. They were under a great deal of pressure 
yesterday to get this bill drafted so we could get it filed.
  Now there are some groups out there opposing the bill we have before 
us today, but there are also a lot of people supporting the bill we 
have before us today: the Airline Pilots Association, the International 
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the United Auto 
Workers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Motor Freight Carriers 
Association, Delta Airlines, the Business Round Table, New York Life, 
United Parcel Service, Northwest Airlines, Ford Motor Company, Daimler 
Chrysler, General Motors, and the Financial Services Roundtable.
  If you want to see a broad bipartisan nonideological coalition of 
people supporting the bill, I think the list I have just read does in 
fact do that.
  I would urge all of my colleagues today to reject the motion to 
commit and to vote ``yes'' on final passage of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who is a leading voice on pension 
issues.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I commend him and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), 
Chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for their 
very hard work in trying to move this through conference committee. I 
also see my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), in the 
Chamber. He has been a tireless advocate of moving in place this much-
needed pension fix. I admire very much his leadership and work in this 
effort.
  The bill before us must pass. It is estimated by Watson Wyatt, the 
consulting firm, that 20 percent of defined benefit pension plans, one 
in five, have been frozen or canceled within the last 3 years alone.
  We are seeing a wholesale rout in the marketplace of defined benefit 
plans, and what is so sad about this is this is the old traditional 
pension. This is the thing that provides that guaranteed monthly 
payment upon retirement based upon a calculation of earnings and years 
served that really does provide secure retirement income in retirement.
  We have some work ahead of us, Mr. Speaker, in trying to fix the 
underlying funding requirements of pension plans in this country. 
Because when times are good, we prohibit additional funding flowing 
into the plans. When times are bad, and we are asking these businesses 
to do everything they can to grow and hire more workers, we also 
require, under the formula, disproportionate funding of the pension 
program. At a time when they can least afford it, we make them fund it 
the most.
  There are many industries hard hit with this, but the airline 
industry has been particularly hard hit. They have encountered the 
perfect storm of unfortunate circumstances. No need to go into them 
here. We are all aware of them. But we literally are going to be 
pushing airlines into bankruptcy if this legislation does not move. Now 
we need to again look longer term at addressing their pension funding 
issues and doing so in a way that comports with reason.
  So I support the bill. Everything in it is good, but something is 
missing: support for the multi-employer pension plans.
  I specifically asked the Secretary of Labor when she was before the 
Ways and Means if the administration opposed helping multi-employer 
plans. She refused to answer. She said she would get back to us. I am 
still waiting. But we know what is clear is the role they played in the 
conference committee in terms of trying to stop the

[[Page 6403]]

conference from providing assistance to the multi-employer plans as 
well.
  Our motion to recommit will fix that, which is why I will be voting 
for the motion to recommit and then for the underlying bill.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I also want to echo the comments of the chairman regarding the staff 
on both sides, here in the House and the other body. Staff put in 
innumerable hours, did very high-quality work on both sides, and we are 
very grateful to each of these ladies and gentlemen.
  I have listened to the arguments from the other side, and I certainly 
respect their intent, but I want to clarify the record.
  We have heard that the bill that is in front of us really does help 
the multi-employer plans, the small business plans who need help, and 
that it only excludes those who do not. I again state that The Segal 
Company, which is widely recognized as an objective and authoritative 
source in this field, has concluded that over the course of the next 5 
years 20 percent of the multi-employer plans will experience grave 
trouble. As I understand their analysis of this bill, this bill will 
help fewer than 4 percent of those plans. So a lot of plans in distress 
are going to have further distress.
  Another argument we hear is that not that many people are really left 
out. My friend from Ohio talked about the relatively tiny percentage of 
small businesses affected by this. But it is important that we 
understand that these businesses employ nine and a half million people. 
Now, not all those nine and a half million people are in plans that are 
in distress, but a significant portion of them are. So it is nine and a 
half million workers who are affected and, I believe, left out of this 
important consideration.
  We hear that this is only a temporary fix and we will come back and 
fix it later in 2 years. I hope that is true, and I have no doubt that 
is the intention of the majority. But we sometimes do not move very 
quickly in these areas. If someone is in trouble, and again I think the 
record shows about a fifth of these plans are in trouble, telling them 
they have to tread water for another 2 years until the life preserver 
comes is a rather unhelpful answer.
  We have heard that no one in the House brought up multi-employer 
relief the first time this came through. That is true. The bill was 
brought up under a unanimous consent agreement in which no amendments 
were permitted, by agreement of both sides. Frankly, our side entered 
that agreement because we wanted the bill to move quickly and because I 
think we made a rather reasonable forecast, based upon our experience, 
that Democratic amendments that alter decisions by the majority are 
very often not considered under the rules passed by this House.
  So the idea we could have come to the floor and offered an amendment 
that would have included the multi plans is rather at variance with the 
record.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, when H.R. 3108 was brought to the floor, it 
was brought to the floor and developed in total agreement between 
myself, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel). We came to an agreement on what the bill would be, and 
that is why it was brought up the way it was.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate 
that. I also appreciate the fact that the record of this House is that 
Democratic amendments to bills very often do not get fairly considered.
  Finally, we are told the President will not go any further than what 
is in this bill. Well, I certainly respect the Office of the Presidency 
and the man who holds it now, but we are a coequal branch of 
government. Our job here is not to limit our expression of what we 
think the right answer is to what the people at the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue think. We have both the right and the 
responsibility to stand up and be counted for what we think.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just wanted to say again that I have enjoyed working with the 
gentleman from New Jersey. I look forward to working with him on multi-
employer relief over the next 2 years. This is a short-term bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
California is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentlemen for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the record really needs to be absolutely crystal clear. 
We are not talking about the minority offering amendments and 
amendments being rejected. We are talking about in consultation with 
the chairmen and the ranking members of the committees of jurisdiction, 
what is it that we want to do in terms of legislation. It was 
completely agreed upon, evidenced by the fact that in October we passed 
nothing but a short-term 2-year extension with two ``no'' votes. In 
November when we expanded it to cover airlines, an absolute opportunity 
to include multi-employers, it was never mentioned, it was never 
offered, never considered, never presented by the minority; and that 
measure passed on a voice vote.
  So when we analyze what goes on around here, the record really needs 
to reflect that the House in a bipartisan fashion acted, the Senate in 
a bipartisan fashion acted, and the conference came together and melded 
two significantly different bills. It is incontrovertible, the House 
twice sent out bills with no multi-employer provisions in it. We have 
before us in the conference report a conference report that includes 
multi-employer. That is the way this place is supposed to work.
  If you vote on the motion to recommit, understand that recommitting 
conference reports kills the conference report. Do not look at what 
they want to do. Understand what the action does. It kills the 
conference report.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I again would like to express my appreciation to the majority for the 
fair and evenhanded way in which the conference was handled. I dispute 
its result and disagree with its result. I do look forward to our 
cooperation over the next number of years in addressing the long-term 
problems.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to recommit 
because I do not believe, as the distinguished chairman just said, it 
kills the chance for relief. I think it improves relief. I think this 
is a legislative body that is capable of producing a better product. I 
think that indisputably we have a situation here in which a number of 
small businesses who contribute to multi-employer pension plans are 
going to not receive the relief that they need in order to continue to 
generate and create jobs.
  One of the ritualistic things that we say around here is that 
everyone loves small business, that they create three-quarters of the 
jobs created in the private sector in America, and we regularly have 
contests between each other to see who can be most in love with small 
business. The issue in front of us is 60,000 small businesses who pay 
into multi-employer pension plans. The record reflects that the best 
judgment of objective analysts concludes that 20 percent of the plans 
are at risk of being in financial jeopardy in the next 5 years. The 
bill in front of us helps only a tiny fraction of that group that is 
going to be in such trouble. It subjects thousands of those employers 
to difficult situations where they are going to have to steeply 
increase their contributions to their pension plans and thereby 
jeopardize their ability to keep handing out paychecks, which is so 
very, very important.

[[Page 6404]]

  I would urge my colleagues to join the very broad and strong 
coalition of working men and women in supporting the motion to recommit 
and opposing final passage of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As we said before, this is a short-term, 2-year temporary effort to 
help with the Nation's ailing pension system. There is not an issue 
that is in the bill that any of the conferees disagreed with. There are 
more things that people would like to add to the bill; but the bill 
that is before us, everybody agrees to, other than some people have 
been disappointed because they want more. We all want more, but the 
gentleman himself said that the multi-employer relief that is not 
included in the bill is for firms and plans that have a problem 5 or 6 
years from now. Trust me, we will be back here within the next 2 years 
with a broad overhaul of our Nation's pension laws, which is greatly 
needed. This is a broad bipartisan bill. I think it will be supported 
in a broad bipartisan way here today. The motion to recommit is nothing 
more than a way to kill the bill. We do not want that to happen. It 
would be bad for American workers and their employers.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and to 
vote for final passage.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, in voting against the conference report on 
H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2003, I want to be clear 
that I voted for the original House version of the bill. When we 
considered this bill in the House of Representatives, it simply 
contained a replacement rate for the defunct 30-year Treasury rate used 
for calculating pension liabilities. Using a rate based on a blend of 
high-quality corporate bonds, companies with pension plans are expected 
to realize about $80 billion in appropriate funding relief.
  When the other Chamber produced its version of the bill, however, the 
merits of the House bill were more than offset by special interest 
favors for a few airline and steel companies. This version would give 
automatic waivers to airlines by law, but the relief would only benefit 
a few companies in these industries. The companies that would not 
benefit would then be at a competitive disadvantage. Such legislation 
puts Congress in the position of picking winners and losers.
  I was joined by some of my colleagues in communicating to the House 
leadership and the conferees our concern over the direction the pension 
legislation was headed. We urged that, at the very least, companies 
that would benefit by the special provisions should be subject to an 
application and review process before being approved for relief. We 
also suggested that if any relief was granted, then it should be 
reduced in order to leave taxpayers less exposed.
  What came out of conference, however, was even worse. The few 
companies who will benefit from the special provisions included in the 
legislation will be allowed to forego more of the payments to their 
pension plans than had been proposed prior to the conference.
  These narrow waivers are expected to amount to about $1.6 billion in 
relief for these few companies. If this measure is necessary to keep 
these companies going, they must be dangerously close to failure as it 
is. Forgiving their deficit reduction contributions may only grow the 
size of their liabilities and delay inevitable failure. I am concerned 
that there we may be setting taxpayers up for a bailout like that of 
the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.
  I am aware of the need for a replacement for the 30-year Treasury 
rate, and I support such a replacement. I understand that the broader 
business community supports this legislation. But I cannot support this 
conference report because of the special interest provisions included 
in it. While providing short-term relief for a few companies, this 
legislation may result in a taxpayer bailout that will hurt all 
taxpayers and result in much more long-term damage.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to voice my strong 
and unwavering support for the conference report on H.R. 3018, the 
Pension Funding Equity Act, and also to express my sincere appreciation 
for the hard work and dedication of Chairman Boehner in bringing this 
important legislation to the floor this afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker, protecting and strengthening the retirement security of 
American workers is a top priority for my Republican colleagues and I. 
Indeed, since coming to Congress in 1995 I have sought a solution to 
the pension-funding shortfall that will soon face countless American 
workers.
  The Pension Funding Equity Act Conference Report before the floor 
today is critical to protecting the pension benefits of millions of 
workers and their families. I strongly believe it will provide an 
effective and temporary replacement to the current 30-year Treasury 
interest rate, while at the same time allowing Congress the opportunity 
to craft a long-term solution to this issue in the weeks and months to 
come.
  I was pleased to support the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2003 upon 
its original introduction and passage in the House of Representatives 
last year, and look forward to working alongside my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to develop permanent solutions to this issue that 
effects millions of American workers.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3108. This bill 
passed both the House and the other body in a bipartisan manner, and I 
had hoped that we could conclude this process in a bipartisan manner. 
However, I must say that I am disappointed that the conference report 
is actually quite partisan.
  The conference report would jeopardize the retirement security of 
millions of hard-working middle-class families who work for small 
businesses. Though it provides needed reform for some pensions, it 
ignores the need to provide relief to the more than 60,000 mainly small 
businesses that join together to pool resources and reduce risk for 
their employees' pensions. Without relief, these small businesses face 
excise taxes and mandatory additional contributions, putting the 
companies and the family-supporting jobs they produce at risk. The 
conferees have chosen to forget the retirement security of 
approximately 9\1/2\ million workers who rely on these jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the conference report's changes to 
pension plans that are sponsored by large, individual companies. The 
people who work for these companies deserve to have their pensions 
strengthened and improved. For example, replacing the current 30-year 
Treasury bond interest rate that employers use to determine their 
defined benefit pension contribution with an index based on corporate 
bonds will add stability to long-term pension growth. It is critical, 
however, that we provide the same pension security to people who work 
for small businesses. Congress should not pick and choose which pension 
plans can get relief--we should provide relief for all defined benefit 
plans regardless of the size of the company offering them. I ask my 
colleagues to oppose this bill so that we can come back with new 
legislation that would provide proper pension security for all 
employees.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
conference report on H.R. 3108, the ``Pension Funding Equity Act'' and 
in strong support of the motion to recommit.
  While the conference agreement contains needed assistance for single-
employer pension plans, it is crafted to provide no assistance to 
multiemployer pension plans, which cover over 9\1/2\ million workers 
and retirees and some 600,000 small businesses.
  Rather than enacting a reasonable and equitable package to offset the 
severe investment losses experienced by nearly all pension plans in the 
last few years, the effect of this conference report is to cynically 
distinguish between classes of business. It grants an estimated $80 
billion in relief to large corporate sponsors of single employer plans, 
while rejecting real relief for multiemployer plans, which are jointly 
administered by small employers and unions. Even though multiemployer 
plans have a long history of sound funding and stability since their 
fortunes are not tied to the fate of a single corporation, only 4 
percent of these plans are eligible for help under this bill. This is 
unacceptable.
  Perhaps even worse, however, this conference report sets a dangerous 
precedent that could severely injure the integrity of the collective 
bargaining process for years to come. Employers that seek either 
Deficit Reduction Contribution or multiemployer relief would be 
precluded from increasing worker benefits during the relief period. 
Thus, under this agreement, employers could seek minimal relief not to 
further secure workers' retirement security, but as a way to prevent 
unionized employees from bargaining over benefit increases.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Andrews motion to recommit, 
which would provide fair relief to multiemployer plans, and against 
final passage of this stilted and discriminatory conference report.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by 
thanking the chairman, Mr. Boehner from Ohio, for trying to conduct a 
fair conference committee on this bill, H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding 
Stability Act.

[[Page 6405]]

  Regrettably, however, I must oppose the conference report before the 
House today. However, I strongly urge support for the Andrews motion to 
recommit because it provides urgently needed relief for multi-employer 
plans.
  The conference agreement was significantly weakened after intense 
lobbying by the Bush administration to strike provisions that would 
have protected the long-term stability of multiemployer pension plans.
  While this conference report provides significant relief to many 
single-employer pension plans, it is outrageous that it does not 
provide relief to the many multiemployer plans across the country that 
need relief, plans that include many small businesses and others that 
need short-term relief. As a result of this deficiency, I oppose this 
bill.
  Last week, House and Senate Democrats and Republicans on the 
conference committee had an agreement that the final bill would include 
pension funding relief for the 20 percent of multiemployer pension 
plans hardest hit by the recent economic and financial market downturn.
  But then, 2 days later, the White House started to make clear to the 
Republicans that it did not want any help for multiemployer pension 
plans included in the agreement.
  Not for any substantive reason--just political reasons, plain and 
simple.
  The White House's opposition stemmed from the fact that multiemployer 
plans are administered jointly by employers and unions. And the Bush 
political appointees did not want any agreement that would help those 
unions.
  Even if it meant they would hurt the tens of thousands of small and 
large employers that are unionized and contribute to these plans.
  Even if it meant they would hurt the hundreds of thousands of working 
men and women and their families whose retirement security depends on 
the financial viability of these plans.
  This is pure and simple hardball politics of punishing unions and 
undermining workers who earn decent wages and benefits. The Bush 
administration is doing everything it can to destroy middle-class 
America.
  This is the same administration that is about to promulgate 
regulations that would take away overtime pay from millions of workers.
  Let us remember that this administration has done nothing to protect 
workers' pensions.
  I wrote the administration in July 2002 to take action when pension 
deficits skyrocketed from $26 billion to over $100 billion. It failed 
to act.
  Now, over a year and a half later, the problem is substantially 
worse. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation says that pension plans 
are $400 billion in the red nationally, the largest liability in 
history, and the PBGC itself is reporting an $11.2 billion deficit as 
of December 31.
  The General Accounting Office is so concerned that it has placed PBGC 
on its list of Federal programs that are at high risk of failure.
  The Bush administration and Congress' failure to take decisive action 
on pensions, their failed economic policies and neglect of our 
manufacturing industries and the failure of some companies to honestly 
estimate their pension liabilities have together precipitated one of 
the largest underfunding of private pensions in history.
  The conference agreement before us today is a short-term fix. 
Everyone recognizes that. And I agreed at the outset of this process 
that given the absence of any viable alternative at the moment, a 
short-term fix was better than nothing. But this conference report does 
nothing to reform defined benefit plans to ensure their future 
soundness. And as I have said, the final report fails to provide relief 
to the broader universe of plans that need it.
  The conference agreement provides $80 billion in short-term funding 
relief for the largest corporations by letting them use higher interest 
rate assumption to value their pension plan liabilities. And it permits 
a handful of struggling airlines and steel firms to delay for 2 years 
their underfunded pension plan contributions.
  But the conference agreement does almost nothing to help 
multiemployer pension plans that do not benefit from the other two 
provisions. The conference agreement only provides temporary funding 
relief to multiemployer pension plans that can meet five conditions. 
According to the respected Segal consulting company, almost no 
multiemployer plan could meet all of these five conditions.
  The Republicans will claim that the conference agreement does provide 
some limited relief to multiemployer plans. But, they cannot cite a 
single plan or company that will be covered.
  Once again, the Republican majority is exercising its political 
muscle at the expense of hard working Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration must get serious about pension 
reform. The retirement security of millions of Americans depends upon 
timely actions by this Government. What we do here today is important 
to provide this relief. Companies need to shore up their pension 
obligations. But the American people's anxiety about the future of the 
retirement security is highly justified in light of this 
administration's and this Congress' failure to seriously address the 
problems in our pension system.
  Once again, I appreciate the hard work of Chairman Boehner to try to 
accommodate the many interests in this bill and to try to conduct a 
fair conference meeting. But the final product does not fairly address 
the many pension plans left without any relief here today and for that 
reason I regrettably oppose the conference agreement.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Andrews

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I am, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Andrews of New Jersey moves to recommit the conference 
     report on the bill (H.R. 3108) to the committee of conference 
     with instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
     disagree to section 104 (relating to election for deferral of 
     charge for portion of net experience loss) in the conference 
     substitute and amend, within the scope of conference, the 
     conference substitute with a provision that provides an 
     amortization hiatus for the 20 percent of multiemployer 
     pension plans with the largest net investment losses.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of 
the conference report.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 195, 
nays 217, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 116]

                               YEAS--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez

[[Page 6406]]


     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--217

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Bishop (UT)
     Brady (TX)
     Culberson
     Deal (GA)
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Fossella
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Hulshof
     LaHood
     McGovern
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Norwood
     Paul
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Waxman

                              {time}  1345

  Messrs. SIMPSON, BOYD, BACHUS, and SMITH of Michigan changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. KUCINICH and Mr. OWENS changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McGOVERN. I was unavoidably detained and did not vote on rollcall 
vote No. 116. Were I present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 
vote No. 116.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 336, 
noes 69, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 117]

                               AYES--336

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--69

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Baca
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Berman
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capuano
     Clyburn
     Costello
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Gephardt
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Majette
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (NC)
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne

[[Page 6407]]


     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Burr
     Culberson
     Deal (GA)
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gutierrez
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     LaHood
     Miller, George
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Portman
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Waxman
     Whitfield


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry) (during the vote). Members 
are advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1352

  Mr. SWEENEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, because of a previous commitment I missed 
the recorded vote today on rollcall No. 117, final passage of the 
conference report on H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________