[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 28543-28552]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2830, PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 
                                  2005

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 602 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 602

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2830) to amend the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform the pension funding 
     rules, and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered 
     as read. In lieu of the amendments recommended by the 
     Committees on Education and the Workforce and Ways and Means 
     now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute printed in part A of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted. All points of order against the bill, as amended, 
     are waived. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of debate equally 
     divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce and the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2830 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 602 is a closed rule providing for 90 
minutes of debate in the House on H.R. 2830, the Pension Protection 
Act, as amended, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means. The rules waives all points of order against 
consideration of the bill. In lieu of the amendments recommended by the 
Committees on Education and the Workforce and Ways and Means now 
printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
the resolution shall be considered as adopted. The rule waives all 
points of order against the bill, as amended, and provides one motion 
to recommit, with or without instructions. Finally, it provides that 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may 
postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the 
Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, the recent financial troubles and pension terminations 
at several large companies underscore the need for fundamental pension 
reform. H.R. 2830, the Pension Protection Act, will ensure that 
millions of hardworking Americans who rely on single and multi-employer 
pension benefits can continue to count on them. It is vital that we 
modernize current pension laws by strengthening workers' retirement 
security and reducing the prospect of a future multi-billion-dollar 
taxpayer bailout. The Pension Protection Act will fix outdated pension 
rules and help workers by giving employers incentives to properly and 
adequately fund their pension plans, and by enhancing transparency and 
disclosures about the status of their pension plans. In recent years, 
we have seen participants mistakenly believe that their pension plans 
were well funded, only to be surprised when their plan was abruptly 
terminated. This bill is intended to end that practice.
  The Pension Protection Act encourages workers to increase their 
personal savings by permanently extending several provisions to enhance 
pension participation and retirement savings that are currently set to 
expire in the year 2010. Among the provisions to be permanently 
extended are: increasing annual contribution limits for individual 
retirement accounts and qualified pension plans, allowing additional 
catchup contributions to individuals age 50 and older, and establishing 
incentives for small employers to offer pension plans. The bill also 
encourages lower income workers and families to plan and save for their 
retirement by permanently extending a Federal ``match'' in the form of 
an income tax credit for the first $2,000 of annual contributions to an 
individual retirement account or qualified pension plan.

                              {time}  1030

  Madam Speaker, the Pension Protection Act implements a comprehensive 
and bipartisan investment advice proposal that allows employers to 
provide workers access to qualified investment advisers who can inform 
them of the need to diversify and help them choose appropriate 
investments while including safeguards to ensure that the advice is 
solely in their best interest. This changes outdated Federal rules 
which actually discourage employers from providing workers with access 
to professional advice.
  One provision, Madam Speaker, I am especially pleased was included in 
this bill, was to allow employees who participate in tax-preferred 
flexible spending accounts to carry forward up to $500 of their unused 
balances each year. This provides flexibility to employees that 
otherwise must use all of their balances each year or lose it to their 
employers.
  Madam Speaker, without a comprehensive fix to our outdated pension 
plans more companies will default on their worker pension plans and 
more will stop providing defined benefit pension plans to their workers 
entirely. Now is the time for Congress to act on this important piece 
of legislation.
  The Rules Committee approved this House Resolution 602 by a voice 
vote. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and 
the underlying bill, the Pension Protection Act.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague 
on

[[Page 28544]]

the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, Mr. McGovern, my 
distinguished friend from Massachusetts; my good friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from the State of Washington; and I were in 6 
hours of hearings yesterday on something called border security, anti-
terrorism, and illegal immigration, and we came here this morning at 7 
a.m., ostensibly to pass out the rules necessary to hear that bill. 
Until 15 minutes ago, I was on this floor of this House waiting to hear 
that bill.
  I ask my colleagues in the majority: Where is this terribly onerous, 
atrocious bill? Why do you not pull it? The reason that we are not 
taking it first, rather than what we are now patching up as pensions, 
and caution to America, what we are about to see is protection of CEOs 
with their golden parachutes while workers and their pensions are 
getting a brass shaft.
  But that is not my point I want to make. What I want to say is we are 
getting ready to create fear and confusion, and there is substantial 
confusion on the majority side in light of the fact that they are 
shifting from this bill to that bill and not dealing with the things we 
need to do and get on out of here.
  We do not need to do this immigration and border security bill, and I 
hope that your confusion led you to the same conclusion and that you 
will pull that sucker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Well, let me thank my colleague from Florida for that 
eloquent and accurate statement and assessment of where we are here.
  And, Madam Speaker, let me thank my friend from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
7 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, millions of Americans who work in the private sector 
are relying on having an employer-sponsored pension plan when they 
retire. An important part of the American dream is to have a nest egg 
that people can tap into during their golden years so that they are not 
forced to literally work until they die. American workers have fought 
for and earned the right to pay into a pension system that will provide 
an income once they retire. Unfortunately, there are serious problems 
with America's private pension system.
  Madam Speaker, pension security is an important issue, one indeed 
which should be addressed by this Congress, but pension security must 
be addressed in the right way and it deserves to be addressed in a 
democratic way.
  Bankruptcies in the airlines, steel, and the auto parts industries, 
for example, are straining the abilities of the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation, or the PBGC, to guarantee the private pensions of 
workers in these industries. The PBGC was created as an insurance 
system for America's private pension plans. It exists to make sure that 
America's workers will receive a pension when they retire, even if the 
company they work for cannot pay that pension.
  Now, while there are real problems in some industries, like the steel 
industry, there are also serious cases of pension dumping, where a 
corporation claims it cannot fulfill its obligations and dumps its 
pension onto the PBGC. The net effect is a real strain on the PBGC and 
ultimately a crisis in the pension system.
  The PBGC is an insurance policy for America's workers. It is a safety 
net should a company not be able to pay its pension obligations. But it 
is not supposed to be a dumping ground for corporations who want to 
boost their bottom line and just do not feel like paying the pensions 
they promised their workers. It is this looming crisis in America's 
pension system that brings us here today.
  Now, no one believes we should sit and wait while America's pension 
system crashes around us, but we need to address this problem in the 
right way, and regrettably, Madam Speaker, the Pension Protection Act 
the Republicans have concocted is not the right way.
  Mr. Boehner, one of the authors of this bill, told the Rules 
Committee yesterday that this bill is tough medicine. What he did not 
say is that it is tough medicine for America's workers. Madam Speaker, 
this bill will have a real effect on millions of Americans' lives and 
on the quality of their lives as they grow older.
  The fact is that this bill that Chairman Thomas and Chairman Boehner 
have brought before us will make the problem worse, not better. This is 
the wrong prescription for what ails America's pension system. Both the 
Congressional Budget Office and the PBGC estimate that the Pension 
Protection Act will actually lead to an increase in pension plan 
terminations and an increase in the PBGC's liabilities by billions of 
dollars. Clearly, that simply cannot be what anyone in this Chamber 
really wants.
  The goal should be to enact legislation that guarantees workers their 
full pensions. Instead, passage of this bill will allow corporations to 
turn their backs on their loyal employees and shirk the 
responsibilities they face to provide a real pension to their 
employees.
  There exists in this country a culture of corporate corruption, where 
companies like Enron and WorldCom squander billions of dollars in 
retirement funds, and this legislation does not do anything, nothing, 
to fix that.
  Congressman George Miller, a strong champion of the American worker 
and working families, recently released a report entitled: Broken 
Promises--America's Pension Plans At Risk. This report shows that 
pension plans are underfunded by $450 billion; that the PBGC is $23 
billion in the red, with more obligations coming in every day, and that 
the current pension and bankruptcy laws allow companies to dump their 
unwanted pension obligations on to the PBGC. Proving that this bill 
makes things worse and not better, the report documents that the 
Boehner-Thomas bill could, and I quote, ``cause as many as half of all 
large pension plans to freeze benefits.''
  Ranking Member Miller, along with Ranking Member on the Ways and 
Means Committee Rangel, have an answer. They have crafted a substitute 
that actually protects workers' pensions. The substitute also reforms 
the bankruptcy laws so that corporations cannot hide behind bankruptcy 
in order to dump their pension obligations onto the PBGC.
  In addition, the Miller-Rangel bill addresses a serious inequity 
where rank and file pension plans are at risk of being dumped onto the 
PBGC but somehow the corporate executives continue to receive golden 
parachutes. A CEO should not receive millions of dollars in bonuses and 
other incentives if they have terminated the pension plan for their 
rank-and-file workers.
  Now, I am sure my friends on the other side of the aisle will boast 
about how their legislation they have crafted is fabulous. I disagree, 
but I respect their right to have their say and to have their views 
debated. Those of us on this side of the aisle believe we have a better 
approach, one that is fair to millions of Americans and their families 
who get up every morning, put in a hard day's work and are the very 
backbone of America's economy and our communities.
  Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, we will not have an opportunity to 
present our proposal. The Republicans on the Rules Committee late last 
night said, no, an alternative viewpoint will not be tolerated, cannot 
be presented to the Members of this House, and it certainly will not be 
debated and voted on on this floor.
  Apparently, the Republican definition of democracy is my way or the 
highway. They have decided that the United States House of 
Representatives is really not a deliberative body, it is a place that 
does not respect differing viewpoints, and it is unreasonable to have a 
full and open debate on an issue as important as pension protection.
  Last night, Chairman Boehner, to his credit, said he had no problem 
with Democrats having an ability to offer a substitute. So what 
happened? I will tell you what happened. The Republican leadership, in 
yet another display of arrogance and disrespect, decided to close the 
process, to gag us, to use the

[[Page 28545]]

Rules Committee as a weapon to stifle debate. Once again the Rules 
Committee is where democracy comes to die.
  Now, let me say, with all due respect to my friends on the other side 
of the aisle, it is the majority that is responsible for creating a 
climate in this House that is devoid of bipartisanship and civility. It 
is beyond my comprehension why the majority would deliberately choose 
to shut us out of being able to offer an alternative.
  This is not the House of only Republicans, this is the people's 
House, where serious issues should be debated and voted on. This rule 
is anti-democratic, this rule is closed, and this rule should be 
defeated.

Broken Promises--America's Pension Plans at Risk: Independent Analysis 
         Finds That Republican Plan Makes Pension Crisis Worse


      Broken Promises Put Millions of Americans' Pensions at Risk

       Americans are worried sick about their retirement nest-egg, 
     and they are demanding decisive action by Congress. They saw 
     what happened at Enron and WorldCom and at other companies--
     where billions of hard earned investments by employees 
     disappeared forever in only months due to corporate fraud and 
     mismanagement.
       Today employees and retirees are watching as some employers 
     like United and USAir have rushed to dump their pension 
     promises onto the taxpayer and other employers, at the 
     expense of employees and retirees who face billions in 
     uninsured pension promises. Traditional pension plans, once 
     the sturdy pillar of retirement security, are very much at 
     risk unless Congress takes immediate action.
       Here are the serious warning signs that threaten our 
     nation's pension plans:
       Pension plans are now underfunded by $450 billion, up over 
     1,000% since 2000.
       The agency that insures traditional pension plans (the 
     Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation) is $23 billion in the 
     red, and is facing billions more in possible claims from 
     companies such as Delta Airlines, Delphi, and Northwest 
     Airlines.
       Pension and bankruptcy laws allow companies to dump their 
     unwanted pension promises onto the PBGC, leaving taxpayers, 
     employees and retirees to foot the bill.
       Like the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s, taxpayers 
     are at risk of having to pay billions of dollars due to 
     broken promises, this time by company-sponsored pension 
     plans.
       Many employees and retirees face severe reductions in their 
     promised pension benefits as their plans are turned over to 
     the federal government, or frozen by companies when their 
     sponsor falls behind in their obligation to fund promised 
     benefits.
       Employees are blindsided when their plan is dumped onto the 
     federal government because they are not provided up-to-date 
     information on the real financial condition of their pension 
     plan.
       Employees and retirees in such cases are not only cheated 
     out of promised pension benefits, but sometimes suffer 
     further injury and insult by company executives who cut their 
     own sweetheart golden parachute deals.
       Now Delta and Northwest are in bankruptcy and very well 
     could dump their pension plans onto the PBGC. According to 
     the PBGC, Delta Airlines is underfunded by $10.6 billion. The 
     PBGC loss would be $8.4 billion, and the employees and 
     retirees would lose $2.2 billion in promised benefits. 
     Northwest Airlines is $5.7 billion underfunded. The PBGC loss 
     would be $2.8 billion, and the employee loss even greater--
     $2.9 billion. And now more dominos are falling. Delphi Auto 
     Parts has filed for bankruptcy--the largest such filing in 
     the history of the auto industry. According the PBGC, the 
     Delphi claim on the PBGC would be $4.1 billion. The hit on 
     employees--estimated over $10 billion in uninsured losses--
     would be the largest ever. That tops the $6 billion in worker 
     losses that PBGC estimates occurred from its 4 previous 
     largest pension plan terminations.


  Republican Proposal Actually Makes Pension Crisis Worse, Not Better

       According to the Congressional Budget Office, the 
     Republican House Bill (H.R. 2830) passed by the Education and 
     Workforce Committee and Ways and Means Committee would 
     increase the PBGC's red ink by $9 billion over the next ten 
     years. The PBGC also analyzed the House bill and found it 
     would increase the agency's deficit bill billions more than 
     current law projections. Specifically, it found that 
     Republican House bill would permit pension sponsors to slash 
     required contributions by $75 billion over the next ten years 
     compared to contributions required under current law. The 
     PBGC's 35 page study released on October 26, 2005 analyzed 
     detailed information of 400 pension plans, representing 50% 
     of the liabilities and underfunding in the pension system. 
     The Republican proposal could cause as many as half of all 
     large pension plans to freeze benefits. The PBGC estimates 
     that more than 50% of a sample of large pension plans would 
     either have to freeze some or all benefits if the Republican 
     proposal's benefit limitation provisions had been in effect 
     (based on the Administration's most recent data.) The 
     limitations would prevent benefit increases and lump sum 
     payments for all affected plans, and prohibit future benefit 
     accruals by the most underfunded plans.
       H.R. 2830 fails to reform pensions in several other 
     respects. The bill fails to stop companies from dumping their 
     obligations on to the federal government, fails to provide 
     employees with accurate information on the financial 
     condition of pension plans, fails to stop executives from 
     cutting and running with their own sweetheart pension deal 
     while slashing employee pensions, fails to protect older 
     employees when a company converts to ``cash balance'' plans, 
     permits conflicted investment advice, and punishes employees 
     for plan underfunding by curtailing benefits.


    Democrats Fight to Save and Strengthen Traditional Pension Plans

       Democrats are fighting to save and strengthen pension plans 
     by: Stopping companies like United from dumping their 
     unwanted pension promises onto the taxpayers and employees. 
     Because the Congress didn't lift a finger to stop United from 
     unloading its pension plan, we have a new group of companies 
     ready to dump and run. The government should not be a cookie 
     jar for companies who failed to keep their fiduciary promise 
     to set aside funds for their employee pension plans.
       Requiring pension plans to follow a clear and fair plan to 
     restore their pension funds. The pension bills going through 
     Congress right now actually make underfunding worse according 
     to the Congressional Budget Office and the PBGC government 
     pension insurance agency.
       Requiring pension plans to give employees accurate, up-to-
     date information on their pension plans financial condition. 
     Employees should never have to wake up one morning and read 
     in the papers that their pension plan has failed. Today, 
     sponsors of pension plans are permitted to keep two sets of 
     books, one set of books make available to the public and one 
     set of more accurate books that is kept secret by the federal 
     government.
       Prohibiting company executives in charge of underfunded 
     pension plans from entering into sweetheart retirement deals 
     while they're moving to dump their employees pension plan on 
     to the taxpayers.


                               Conclusion

       Millions of Americans have worked hard to earn the 
     retirement promised by their company. Without urgent, 
     decisive action by Congress, millions of Americans face the 
     loss of billions in irreplaceable like savings due to the 
     broken promises of their plan sponsor. The Republican answer 
     to this crisis is to hasten the unraveling of pension plans 
     by allowing companies to skip out on over $75 billion in 
     contributions over the next 10 years, and increasing PBGC's 
     red ink by billions of dollars. At the same time, Republicans 
     are refusing to stop companies from dumping their unwanted 
     pension promises onto the PBGC at the expense of taxpayers, 
     employees, and other employers.

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 602, the 
rule for consideration of the Pension Protection Act, H.R. 2830. Both 
the rule and the bill are excellent. I would especially like to commend 
Chairman Boehner and Chairman Thomas for their work on this very 
important pension bill.
  In recent years low-interest rates, the stock market decline, and the 
increasing number of retirees have left many defined-benefit pension 
plans underfunded. As a result, companies from many industries claim 
that they will soon be unable to contribute the amount they are 
required to contribute under law. In particular, the aviation and 
manufacturing industries have been hard hit by these and other 
financial difficulties, and the penalties under the current pension law 
are creating tremendous financial burdens for already struggling 
employers, and in fact encouraging them to go into bankruptcy so they 
can get out from under the burdens of the current pension law.
  The Pension Protection Act provides the long-term solution that is 
sorely needed to shore up pension benefits for millions of Americans. 
It makes the most comprehensive reforms to our Nation's traditional 
pension system in more than a generation.
  The bill ensures that employers fund their pension promises to 
workers. It

[[Page 28546]]

also keeps employers and unions from making pension promises that 
cannot be kept. I would note that the manager's amendment includes 
compromise language that will ensure that UAW retirees' pensions are 
protected, something very important in my district and, indeed, in all 
of Michigan.
  I was surprised at the comments of the previous speaker, who has 
attacked the bill on that point. And certainly if the UAW believes it 
is a good bill, it cannot be as bad as the speaker claimed it is. In 
fact, I believe it is a very good bill, and it is designed to address 
the problems that he outlined.
  The bill does not, however, ensure that airline workers' pensions 
receive needed additional protection. The Senate bill, the Pension 
Securities and Transparency Act of 2005, contains airline pension 
provisions. The Senate bill allows the airlines to pay their pension 
obligations over an extended period of time, ensuring that airlines can 
fund their pension obligation and helping to prevent the Pension 
Benefit Guaranty Corporation from becoming insolvent as a result of 
taking on the burden of the airline pensions.
  I understand that Chairman Boehner intends to support airline pension 
provisions in the conference committee, and I strongly support him in 
his efforts to include airline pension provisions in the final version 
of the conference report.
  I urge my colleagues to support this excellent rule and also 
encourage them later in the day to support the Pension Protection Act 
when it is considered.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, we will have an opportunity to debate 
the substance of this bill, I guess not only during the rule but 
afterwards, but I am still kind of baffled as to why this bill has to 
be brought to the floor under a closed rule, why the ranking Democrats 
on the committee of jurisdiction could not even be given the courtesy 
of being allowed to offer an alternative. This is unbelievable to me, 
that a bill of this importance would come to the floor and we are 
entirely shut out.
  And speaking of being shut out, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) had four amendments to be brought before the Rules 
Committee. He waited patiently and testified before the Rules 
Committee. Four good amendments, and all four of those were dismissed 
routinely as well.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
the restrictive rule for H.R. 2830, the Pension Protection Act, and I 
ask my colleagues to join me in opposition.

                              {time}  1045

  Last night not only were my four amendments disallowed, but a 
substitute measure offered by Mr. Rangel and Mr. Miller was also 
disallowed. From my perspective, given the importance of the underlying 
legislation, we ought to have an open debate. We ought to have votes, 
and we ought to have decisions made by the full membership.
  In terms of the amendments I offered last night to the Rules 
Committee, the first set essentially said that the funds in retirement 
accounts are the workers' money, and employees ought to have a voice in 
single employer pension plans regarding the management of those moneys. 
Given the number of pensions that have been thrown overboard, and given 
the tens of thousands of Americans who have been hurt, I also think, as 
a bare minimum, companies ought to once, every 3 years, be required to 
inform their employees of the health of their pension funds.
  The third amendment I offered essentially said that every last 
option, whether it be from the perspective of the PBGC or the company 
be exhausted before that pension is assumed by the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation, given the fact that, on average, at least 15 
percent of the retirees who have their pensions assumed by the 
corporation are going to receive less than their full promised pension.
  A case in point was in United Airlines negotiations, the unions of 
the company were still bargaining and the PBGC came in and unilaterally 
assumed that pension.
  The final goes to the heart of the matter, and that is to close that 
gap. For those pensioners that do not receive their full pension under 
the PBGC, they are out that pension money. I am disgusted by the fact 
that they do not have standing under the procedures. And I would use 
Adelphi Corporation, which recently declared bankruptcy as an example 
of the abuse of the system and the disadvantage that the employees are 
put under.
  Adelphi, headed by Mr. Smith, who also was at Bethlehem Steel when 
they went bankrupt and they dumped their pensions over, really has no 
interest in going out of business. They want to dump their liabilities. 
Under the Bankruptcy Code, Mr. Miller and up to 500 executives at 
Adelphi are entitled to 30 to 250 percent bonuses for running their 
company into the ground, going through bankruptcy, dumping their 
liabilities and hurting people.
  What happens to the workers who do not get their full pension after 
Mr. Miller and his gang dump those pensions overboard, they have no 
standing under the Bankruptcy Code.
  All I asked the Rules Committee last night was that we ought to talk 
about that here on the House floor and we ought to have a debate. Those 
people who gave their lives to that company who are now short money for 
the rest of their lives when they need it the most should have some 
standing. I ask Members to oppose the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this restrictive 
rule for H.R. 2830, the Pension Protection Act and I ask that my 
colleagues join me in opposition.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, I offered four amendments that I 
believe would have made this a better bill, none of which were found to 
be in order. Furthermore, this restrictive closed rule does not even 
make in order a substitute measure authored by Ranking Members Miller 
and Rangel. In a time when Delphi will be awarding 500 executives, 
bonuses of 30 percent to 250 percent of their base salaries, workers 
are seeing their pensions frozen, I find it very troubling that the 
majority refuses to have a full and open debate on an issue so critical 
to our Nation's retirement security.
  My first amendment would have put employee representatives on the 
trustee board of single employer pension plans, which would ensure that 
employees have a voice in how their investments are managed. The 
growing significance of pension plans in the U.S. economy has sparked a 
continued public debate over the control of pension fund investments. A 
generation ago, Congress took action to safeguard pensions in response 
to an Enron-like debacle at Studebaker. These protections for defined 
benefit plans included diversification requirements as well as 
government insurance. Pension funds represent deferred compensation and 
there is no reason why single-employer pension plans still lack 
employee representation on their boards.
  My second amendment would have required that plan sponsors furnish 
pension participants with the most current benefit statement at least 
once every 3 years. Fiscally unhealthy pensions have caused severe 
hardship on employees who have depended on their pensions as part of 
their retirement security. In order for pensioners to have a more 
complete understanding of the health of their pension fund, it is 
necessary to provide full and accurate information on a timely basis. 
Both the underlying bill as well as Mr. Miller's substitute address 
this issue, but I do not believe that they go far enough.
  My third amendment would make it more difficult for companies to 
abuse the bankruptcy process in order to dump their pension 
obligations. Specifically, this provision requires that alternatives to 
pension-dumping be identified, which would essentially make pension-
dumping a last resort for companies rather than a financial-planning 
tool. The amendment would require both employer-initiated and PBGC-
initiated terminations to identify and disclose alternatives to dumping 
their pension obligations. 
  There is a disturbing trend of companies dumping their pension 
obligations not because the company is going out of business, but 
because the company does not want to follow through on the financial 
commitment made to its employees. This legislation would make it more 
difficult for financially-viable companies to engage in pension dumping 
to increase their long-term profits. Current law does not sufficiently 
protect against the termination of plans. By implementing this 
provision, pension participants would have greater opportunity to work 
with companies to find alternatives to eliminating existing pension 
plans.

[[Page 28547]]

  After a company successfully terminates its pension plan, the Pension 
Benefit Guarantee Corporation, PBGC, takes over the financial 
obligations to make payments to pensioners. In certain instances, the 
maximum amount the PBGC will pay is less than the original amount 
promised by the pension.
  My final amendment would have made the cost of the pension payment 
``gap'' an administrative expense for the company, which would make it 
easier for pensioners to collect the missing funds in bankruptcy court. 
Pensioners deserve the full pension amount they were promised. In cases 
where the company goes bankrupt, and the PBGC payment is less than the 
original amount promised, pensioners deserve to be near the front of 
the line when it comes to collecting debts from the company in 
bankruptcy court. I believe that a promise is a promise, and if a 
company emerges from bankruptcy with the finances to pay the difference 
of a lower pension, they should do so.
  Once again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of the committee.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time to address both the rule and the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the bill. And 
frankly, I never cease to be amazed by some of the discussion from the 
other side, for oftentimes they accurately identify the problem, and 
then completely ignore the solution.
  Madam Speaker, traditional pension plans once the legacy of a 
lifetime of work are crumbling. They are crumbling. We are able to 
bring this bill to the floor today for swift passage because there is 
an ever-growing coalition of support behind it from labor and employer 
groups to other individuals who know acutely the problem that we have.
  Action by Congress is necessary to protect the important retirement 
of all hardworking Americans. Large and small businesses need changes 
to current law in order to have greater flexibility to help their 
employees plan for their financial security.
  Current plans, defined benefit plans primarily, have not adapted to 
the times. They have used the same formula since their inception: The 
number of years worked multiplied by a certain amount of money. This 
formula does not account for a changing marketplace, and it does not 
result in the most benefit for workers. Today, a retirement plan must 
be as dynamic as our society. Inflexibility for both employers and 
employees is imperative. This Pension Protection Act is a step in the 
right direction, and it is important that Congress pass it.
  A couple of the provisions I would like to highlight are reforms. 
These are significant changes and require employers to make significant 
contributions to the plans to meet 100 percent of the funding target. 
That is an improvement. This bill provides for a permanent interest 
rate to more accurately measure liabilities. That is an improvement. It 
appropriately raises premiums that employers pay into the PBGC. We 
understand and appreciate that the PBGC, that cushion between pension 
plans and the taxpayer, needs to be more financially secure. It 
requires defined benefit plans to include detailed information and 
greater disclosures, and allows employees to receive better investment 
advice. Madam Speaker, these are all improvements.
  The other side says this allows employers to shirk their 
responsibilities. Frankly, that is just plain wrong. Without reform, 
the system may very well collapse under the weight of mounting deficits 
and the government and taxpayer bailouts are not fair for employers, 
they are not fair for employees, and they are not fair, certainly, for 
taxpayers. Americans expect us to solve difficult problems. The Pension 
Protection Act is one of those things that requires and deserves ours 
attention.
  I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying 
bill. I also look forward to the discussion with the chairman of the 
committee during the debate on the bill itself, and highlight the need 
for reform in the airline industry, which, in my area and across this 
Nation, is so drastically calling out for reform.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia just gave a 
nice speech, but nobody on that side has explained why on this very 
important issue that the Democrats and people with alternative views 
should be entirely locked out from participating in amending this bill. 
This is an outrage.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Speaker, I see the chairman of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce is in the Chamber. I want to give him initially a 
compliment. That committee has had a number of hearings. I believe the 
gentleman has wrestled with this issue, and I believe he has come up 
with a deeply flawed solution, but I give him credit for an initial 
effort.
  Now on the other hand the chairman deserves much rebuke for 
tolerating the process that is unfolding here.
  Madam Speaker, getting pension funding fixed, getting this done 
correctly is a technically exacting proposition with enormous risks 
because if we miss the mark, pension plans are going to terminate. 
Pension plans are going to freeze. Millions of workers will lose their 
pension coverage. This is not a Republican thing, it is not a Democrat 
thing. Trying to get this right ought to be a shared purpose, and so 
how dare you participate in a process that does not give us a 
substitute? Your way is not the only reasonable way. Reasonable minds 
differ here. There are issues that we put forward in our substitute 
that were important for consideration by this body.
  The legislative process ought to be run with a fundamental fairness 
that allows the consideration of various issues. There are a lot of 
important constituencies watching this debate, and I want them to know 
that the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
complicit with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee complicit 
with the majority leadership of this body worked to shut down the 
process, to shut out the consideration of other views, to present only 
their way or the highway as an ultimate resolution of this issue.
  I firmly believe that healthy pension plans today will terminate or 
freeze their benefits for other workers going forward, because I 
believe this is a deeply flawed proposal, and I know there has been an 
effort to pick a group here and pick a group there and make a 
compromise here and make a compromise there, but the core of the bill 
is rotten and we could have had a much better result. Shame on you for 
depriving us of our alternative. Defeat this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule 
and the underlying bill.
  I believe this piece of legislation is one of the most important 
pieces of legislation that we will take up in the 109th Congress, and I 
do not believe it is getting an adequate level of public attention 
considering the enormity of the significance.
  In my 11 years in the House of Representatives, I have seen more and 
more the movement of our economy into a global economy where our U.S. 
corporations are increasingly finding themselves having to compete no 
longer with other domestic corporations, but foreign companies that 
operate under very, very different rules in their domestic country of 
origin, and particularly as it relates to pension plans.
  What I am getting at, Madam Speaker, is that we desperately need to 
modernize our pension laws and probably most importantly, more than 
anything else, we have seen tragically, in recent years, many workers 
come to their retirement years to find that their pension plans are 
insolvent, that the company that had guaranteed them a retirement is 
bankrupt, and increasingly

[[Page 28548]]

that these pension plans are underfunded.
  Now is this a perfect bill? No. There is no bill that comes through a 
legislative process as complex as this involving two committees that 
anybody can label as perfect. But this is moving us in the right 
direction. We are going to go to conference with the Senate and what is 
going to emerge is going to be a good bill. I think this is a very good 
product.
  Chairman Boehner and Chairman Thomas deserve a great deal of credit 
for the effort and hard work they have put into this. I believe this is 
going to have ramifications for protecting our workers and making our 
companies more competitive in this global marketplace so we can 
increasing compete effectively and create jobs and protect jobs and 
defend the hardworking American people who are depending on these 
retirement plans to be there in their retirement years.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, once again, we heard an interesting speech but no 
explanation as to why we have to bring this bill to the floor under a 
closed process and why we are shut out from even offering an 
alternative.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for all his hard work on the Rules Committee.
  It is rather interesting, and Mr. McGovern has alluded to this a 
number of times, but it is interesting today as we watch with great 
anxiety and anticipation and a sense of celebration as Iraqis run the 
gauntlet of violence to go out and vote for democracy, at the same time 
the Republicans in the House of Representatives close down democracy in 
the people's House.
  Republicans, a number of them stood up here today and said this is a 
very complex bill. This is the most important bill that may come before 
this Congress because it affects millions of Americans' livelihoods and 
retirements, but it has to come under a closed rule. It cannot 
withstand debate, it cannot withstand amendments, and it cannot 
withstand changes. That is the death of democracy in the people's 
House.
  So let us applaud it in Iraq today, but let us understand what is 
happening here, the gradual glacial process of destroying debate on the 
floor of the House of Representatives and the right of Members. Mr. 
Visclosky wanted to talk about people who were being impacted by these 
policies who were losing their jobs and losing their workplace and 
losing their retirement benefits, but he was not going to be allowed to 
offer those amendments to have that amendment because of the autocratic 
nature of the Republican leadership in this House. They cannot stand 
democracy, they cannot stand open rules, and they cannot stand open 
debate. Because it is their way, as Mr. McGovern says, or the highway.
  This Republican pension bill is the greatest assault on the middle 
class standard of living in the history of Congress because this bill 
accelerates the process by which millions of American workers will lose 
the retirement nest eggs that they were counting on. They will lose the 
security of their golden years, if you will, because of the accounts 
that they were counting on.

                              {time}  1100

  And it need not happen. It is not just about the organized plans, UAW 
or the Teamsters or the building trades. This is about millions of 
Americans who do not have the benefit of a union, who do not have the 
benefit of collective bargaining, because in a survey of the major 
employers by the Benefits Association, 60 percent of those people say 
that this bill will cause them to freeze their plans, freeze their 
retirement benefits. You can continue to work, but you will not 
continue to get any retirement, additional retirement benefits.
  What does the CBO say about this bill? It says it makes this problem 
$9 billion worse for the Pension Guaranty Corporation. What does the 
Pension Guaranty Corporation say about this bill? That it will make it 
billions of dollars worse over the next few years. So we have made the 
problem worse, which is the solvency of the Pension Guaranty 
Corporation, and that is a corporation that protects pensions that now 
is anticipating hundreds of billions of dollars of potential 
liabilities in the future.
  So we accelerate the problem and we diminish the capacities of the 
government to deal with this and the ability of the private sector to 
deal with it. And interestingly enough, we make it easier for 
corporations to simply get rid of these pension benefits without 
negotiations just as United Airlines did. We were told that a couple of 
those plans possibly could have been saved, according to the Pension 
Guaranty Corporation. Two days later they were put into bankruptcy.
  This pension plan was designed when corporations went out of 
business. The gentleman from Indiana is here. When Studebaker went out 
of business we created this because there was no more company. 
Yesterday in USA Today United Airlines announced it is coming out of 
bankruptcy and a couple of hundred executives are going to take 15 
percent ownership in the company and they are going to leave bankruptcy 
with $285 million in their pocket, in their pocket. And those workers 
who gave back their pensions, gave back their wages year after year 
after year to help this airline which was mismanaged and run into the 
ground, they leave with nothing. You say, oh, they have a job. Well, 
the people who are responsible, the executives for running this 
company, they leave with stock bonuses.
  That is what this bill does. It continues this problem, this absolute 
problem of corruption of the rights of people to protect their 
retirements.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend and colleague from 
California's passion, even when he is wrong and overstates his case. 
The comparison to Iraq is just such an egregious misrepresentation of 
American democracy to anybody in the world who is watching this. We sat 
in the Education Committee for days, into the late hours of the night 
taking amendment after amendment. They lost the amendments. That does 
not mean democracy does not work. It means that we spent in the areas 
of the subcommittee and the committee working this for years, working 
through committee and bringing the document to the floor with many 
compromises in it.
  Now, I share some of the concerns of my colleague from California, 
because I have had a frustration in watching people who work their 
whole life, see their pensions reduced or eliminated at the time some 
of the executives have enriched themselves. And I supported this bill. 
I supported this bill because long term it will help the Pension 
Guaranty Corporation, but short term our goal has to be how are these 
companies not going to go into bankruptcy? How can we make sure that 
they can function, have their pension funds there and avoid the 
problem, and then long term stabilize the Guaranty Corporation?
  Secondly, as a representative of the number one manufacturing 
district in America, I have more manufacturing jobs and percentage of 
the work force in my district in manufacturing than any other, I was 
very concerned about some of the provisions and how this might relate 
to GM. I very much appreciate the leadership of Chairman Boehner in our 
committee of working first the process through so that people have the 
hopes of pension. I mean, we all understand the basic principle here. 
We have the same problem in Social Security. We are more underfunded, 
quite frankly, than private areas. We have this in Medicare. We have 
this in any savings program where we assumed there was going to be a 
huge work force paying in and now it is a declining work force paying 
into a huge retirement population. How do we work this through? This 
bill is an attempt to

[[Page 28549]]

address it in a comprehensive way. But I was concerned about a 
provision that would allow the basic pensioners to have to pay first. 
In other words, there would have been the option, even when the company 
had an ability, through changing their funds around, to not freeze 
pension wages, and pension benefits, that they could have done so.
  Chairmen Boehner and Chairman Thomas have fixed this. This is now 
supported by the UAW and by GM. That is a pretty big accomplishment, to 
have a pension bill supported by the UAW and GM, and I want to commend 
the leadership of the Education Committee, Chairman Boehner and the 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for working out this critical 
thing so that management does not get crippled in their ability to put 
funds in to strengthen these pensions. At the same time, people who are 
50, 55, already retired, who do not have the ability to adjust their 
pensions will not get it arbitrarily frozen. And I think this is a 
great compromise that had hours and hours and days and days of work on 
this, and it is an example of how democracy works, not how it does not 
work.
  Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the distinguished 
chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee for putting together 
a well-balanced bill to reform our Nation's outdated pension laws. 
Putting this bill together has been a long and difficult process, and 
the Chairman should be commended for his perseverance and diligence.
  Our Nation's pension laws have not undergone comprehensive reform for 
over 30 years. Unfortunately, the recent examples of United Airlines 
and Bethlehem Steel show that this system is broken. We cannot have a 
situation where companies continually underfund their pension plans, go 
bankrupt, and then transfer their pensions to the PBGC. Workers lose 
the money they were depending on for retirement, and American taxpayers 
are expected to pick up the slack for companies' irresponsibility.
  H.R. 2830 will help ensure that workers' pensions are better funded. 
It changes current law to require plans to be 100 percent funded. If 
plans are underfunded, this bill will force companies to make up their 
shortfall in 7 years. H.R. 2830 will also help stabilize the PBGC by 
raising the premiums companies pay for the PBGC's protection. Further, 
by requiring employers that terminate their pensions in bankruptcy to 
pay an annual premium of $1,250 per participant to the PBGC for the 3 
years after they emerge from bankruptcy, this bill makes terminating 
pension plans a less attractive option for employers. Companies who 
want to dump their pensions to escape bankruptcy and raise their bottom 
line will have a tougher time doing so.
  Furthermore, the Pension Protection Act will help stop the 
unacceptable practice of labor and management negotiating for pension 
benefits that both sides know are unaffordable. If a pension plan is 
underfunded, it will not be able to increase benefits or pay shutdown 
benefits unless it pays for such benefits immediately.
  I would also like to commend Chairman Boehner for his efforts this 
week to reach an agreement with the United Auto Workers union over 
their concerns with the bill. Mr. Chairman, I have the largest 
manufacturing district in the country, and many union members let me 
know their concerns with this bill in its original form. Unfortunately, 
this bill would have allowed some companies to freeze their employees' 
pension benefits and limit accruals--even if they had the money to fund 
them. The agreement that Chairman Boehner reached with the UAW requires 
companies to use all the money in their plan before they can freeze 
benefits and limit accruals. This will prevent companies from gaming 
their funded status in order to deliberately trigger these benefit 
restrictions.
  Again, I thank Chairman Boehner for his hard work writing a bill 
supported by such a broad coalition of both labor and management 
groups, and urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Indiana tells us we should all be happy because 
the Education Committee deliberated on this and there were votes in 
that committee. I should remind the gentleman that there are 49 members 
of the Education Committee. There are 435 Members of the House of 
Representatives.
  The gentleman gets all upset when Mr. Miller talks about the fact 
that it is important for us to be an example to Iraq about what 
democracy is, and that there are elections in Iraq and, you know, here 
we are engaged in an undemocratic process here today. But I will say 
this. At least in Iraq everyone has an opportunity to vote. Here we are 
being denied an opportunity deliberately on this floor on an issue that 
impacts millions and millions of our fellow citizens. This is an 
outrage. You know, I am amazed that people on the other side, who only 
a few years back would decry a closed process like this, have now come 
to embrace this process. This has become the norm in this House, and it 
has to stop. This is not democracy. This is not a deliberative process. 
This is a closed process where legitimate, important debate on 
important issues is being denied routinely.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have to join the gentleman 
from Massachusetts on his concern and dismay, frustration, and I think 
that outrage that the opportunity for a Democratic substitute, first of 
all, to express some of the failures of this particular underlying bill 
and as well the opportunities to improve this legislation seemingly has 
been denied.
  I speak from a particularly unique perspective, Mr. Speaker, because 
my district contained Enron, and the thousands of employees that, 
within hours of the bankruptcy filing by Enron, lost not only their 
jobs but their lives, their homes and their future. I cannot tell you 
the number of individuals in Houston and the surrounding areas and 
other areas that were impacted, lost their lives, actually died because 
of the absolute oppression and outrage and the impact of what happened 
to them.
  And then we speak to the pensions and the investment of course in 
company stock. But this particular bill as it relates to the pension 
issue just does not go far enough because what it happens to do is it 
emphasizes the pension crisis, and it causes many of the companies, and 
I think those who are listening beyond the borders of this particular 
Chamber should understand that this bill that will be voted on today 
really causes companies to freeze or abandon your pension plans. This 
does not encourage investment in your pension plans. It also denies the 
necessary flexibility and relief for airlines that unfortunately did 
not get in this bill, but is in the Senate bill.
  Any of us who fly the Nation's airways know that the flight 
attendants are constantly saying that we, after 20 years and 30 years, 
are being forced to give up our pension rights. Why could we not come 
to the floor of the House and have a better plan?
  This, of course, provides a funding crisis that is far worse. It 
increases the debt by $9 billion. It causes companies, it does not stop 
companies from dumping underfunded pension plans onto taxpayers. And 
so, if you want to look into the eyes of despair, just follow the track 
of Enron when those particular employees who had bought into the 
seriousness and the depth of commitment called family that Enron 
represented, and in a matter of a pen, in the matter of 48 hours, they 
were not only dumped, their pensions were dumped and they had nothing.
  What we should be doing in this instance is then ensuring and shoring 
up those liabilities or the potential of those liabilities and the 
negative impact it would have on people who work so very hard.
  I would ask my colleagues, we have enough time. There is time to 
continue this debate and to send this particular underlying bill back. 
There is time to make this bill compatible with the Senate before it 
even leaves the House. There is time, I guess if we wanted to waive the 
points of order, to allow a democratic substitute. But this is not the 
route that we should be taking. And in the name of those who we 
pretended to be concerned about, not only the Enron employees who spent 
almost 2 years with us here in the United States Congress, but other 
employees and workers around America, I would ask my colleagues to send 
this bill back and make a better bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support 
of this

[[Page 28550]]

rule and of H.R. 2830, the Pension Protection Act of 2005. I sincerely 
appreciate the strong leadership today of Mr. Hastings, as he is 
certainly presenting this in a very positive manner. I commend Chairmen 
Boehner and Thomas for crafting just a comprehensive and necessary 
legislation. This measure will both preserve and strengthen our private 
sector, employer sponsored retirement system for both current and 
former retirees.
  This legislation, when enacted, will provide the most significant 
reform of our pension system since the initial passage of ERISA in 
1974. This legislation will require higher levels of funding for single 
employer plans and provide the tools necessary to trustees, both labor 
and management, of multi-employer plans to more effectively deal with 
distressed plans. This legislation is the product of more than a year 
of hard work among Congress, the executive branch and a broad coalition 
of employers, labor unions and retirement system advocates. This 
coalition strongly supports passage of the Pension Protection Act of 
2005, and it will go a long way toward preserving the benefits of 
millions of American workers and their families.
  That is why it is so disheartening to see the Democrats and their 
leader Nancy Pelosi continue their just say no obstructionism by urging 
their Members to oppose this critical legislation. Rather than support 
pension reform that would aid American workers, the Democratic 
leadership continues its cynical and destructive strategy of opposing 
all substantive legislation in a futile attempt to influence public 
opinion against the Republican Congress. The opposition's motives could 
not be more transparent on this issue.
  Employers, including auto makers, airlines and manufacturers, along 
with labor unions, including the United Auto Workers, Carpenters, 
United Food and Commercial Workers all support this reform measure and 
have urged all Members of Congress to support passage of H.R. 2830. For 
those Members on the other side of the aisle who demonstrate courage 
and reject their leadership's contemptuous call to oppose this 
legislation, you will be rewarded by the gratitude of your constituents 
and all Americans for doing the right thing.
  I urge all Members to support retirement security reform and vote yes 
on H.R. 2830.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just again say to the gentleman from South Carolina who just 
spoke, what we are asking for here is an opportunity to offer what we 
think is best. We disagree with you. We disagree with your approach. 
Not only do we disagree with your approach, the AARP disagrees with 
your approach.


                                                         AARP,

                                                December 12, 2005.
       Dear Representative: AARP is writing to express its 
     opposition to a number of critical elements of H.R. 2830, the 
     Pension Protection Act of 2005, scheduled for House 
     consideration this week. We share the goal of enacting new 
     pension funding rules that will require employers to fully 
     fund their pension plans and provide new revenue for the 
     Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. These changes are long 
     overdue and should be enacted into law as soon as possible. 
     However, we cannot support legislation that would clarify the 
     legal status of cash balance pension plans without providing 
     protections for older, long-service workers involved in cash 
     balance plan conversions and without including a prohibition 
     on all discriminatory age based ``wearaway.'' We are also 
     deeply concerned that this bill would, for the first time, 
     permit defined contribution pension plans to provide 
     investment advice subject to inherent financial conflicts.
     1. Cash Balance Pension Plans
       AARP believes that cash balance plans have a role to play 
     in the private pension system if--and only if--they are 
     designed and adopted in a manner that protects the millions 
     of older workers who have given up wages in exchange for 
     traditional defined benefit pensions.
       Cash balance pension plan conversions change the rules in 
     the middle of the game, and older, longer-service workers are 
     at considerable risk. They generally lose out on larger late 
     career benefits, have less time to accumulate benefits under 
     the new cash balance formula, and are less able to leave 
     their current job if benefits are cut because they typically 
     have fewer job prospects.
       H.R. 2830 does not protect older and longer-service workers 
     that are involved in cash balance pension plan conversions. 
     The bill represents a step back from the Administration's 
     legislative proposal, which would eliminate wearaway (both 
     normal and early retirement) and provide transition rules to 
     protect some benefits for current workers. The recently 
     passed Senate bill includes similar protections. The current 
     legislation clearly fails to recognize the need for 
     transition rules to protect promised benefits and fails to 
     protect the most vulnerable older, longer service workers.
       H.R. 2830 would not only lower the bar for transition 
     protections for older workers set in the Administration 
     proposal, but would lower it substantially below the ``best 
     practices'' followed by companies involved in conversions 
     over the past few years. Many employers--recognizing the harm 
     to older workers--have adopted transition rules, such as the 
     choice to remain under the old plan formula, or have 
     ``grandfathered'' older, longer service workers under the 
     traditional plan. As recent reports by both the General 
     Accounting Office and AARP confirm, most employers have 
     adopted transition practices designed to protect the benefits 
     that older and longer serving employees have earned. Any 
     legislation should ensure these protections for older 
     workers, not undercut them.
     2. Investment Advice
       AARP shares the Committee's goal of increasing access to 
     investment advice for individual account plan participants, 
     but we oppose the elimination of the conflict-of-interest 
     protection. The approach advanced in this bill would, for the 
     first time, permit plans to provide advice subject to 
     inherent financial conflicts. This is inconsistent with the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act's (ERISA) 
     longstanding protections for plan participants. While we 
     agree that individualized advice can be helpful, such advice 
     must be subject to ERISA's fiduciary rules, be based on sound 
     investment principles, and be protected from conflicts of 
     interest.
       H.R. 2830 would turn back the clock and replace ERISA's 
     prohibition on conflicts of interest with a weak disclosure 
     model--an inappropriate and unnecessary step given today's 
     marketplace. Over half of existing plans already provide 
     investment advice to their employees through financial 
     institutions and firms that do not have a financial conflict. 
     In fact, most large financial service providers have already 
     developed alliances with independent advisors to make such 
     advice available.
       Rather than permit advice subject to financial conflict, 
     Congress should encourage more employers to provide 
     independent advice by addressing the key barrier--employer 
     liability. Potential employer liability is by far the most 
     important reason that advice is not offered. Congress should 
     clarify that the employer would not be liable for specific 
     investment advice so long as the employer undertook due 
     diligence in selecting and monitoring the independent advice 
     provider. It is in the best interest of both the plan and 
     participants to enhance the independent advice market, and we 
     urge Congress to adopt this approach.
       AARP urges you to stand with us in opposition to these 
     critical provisions in H.R. 2830 in order to provide 
     protections for older workers that are necessary, reasonable 
     and fair, and to ensure that employers provide quality 
     investment advice without the potential for conflict. If 
     there are additional questions or you need further 
     information, please feel free to call me or have your staff 
     contact Frank Toohey at (202) 434-3760.
           Sincerely,
                                               William D. Novelli,
                                          Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I mostly want to talk about substance. But 
you know it is so hypocritical for anybody on the majority side to come 
here and say that the minority is just saying no when you will not 
allow us to put on the floor a substitute to which we want to say a 
resounding yes. That is really hypocrisy. This is too important a 
subject to be governed by the tyranny of the majority. We need to 
strengthen and to save defined benefit plans in this country. This is 
the question. Will this bill do that? And I think the answer is 
basically, in all likelihood, it will not strengthen and preserve, but 
it will weaken and over time eliminate.
  Look, when it came to Social Security your mantra was save, 
strengthen Social Security. And the President, in this Chamber, used 
those terms, when the real purpose was not to save and strengthen 
Social Security. The purpose was to replace it. And there is a 
legitimate issue here, whether what you are proposing here, when 
combined with the Senate's and with the administration's position, will 
it preserve and strengthen defined benefit plans or will it likely 
undermine?

[[Page 28551]]



                              {time}  1115

  And the answer, I think, is that it will do the latter.
  When we come to the general debate, I am going to be talking about a 
number of the factors. There are four key factors at play in this bill. 
They are technical, but they are vital: the yield curve, the credit 
balance issue, the credit rating or how assets are evaluated, and the 
averaging and smoothing issues.
  As to just one of them, the yield curve provision in this bill, the 
people who work with these issues, the chief financial investment 
people, 60 percent, say essentially that most of the pension plans are 
going to either be frozen or they are going to be eliminated. That is 
what 60 percent of these officers say will be the result.
  So you are not going to be protecting workers from underfunded 
pension plans. What you are going to be doing, essentially, is putting 
in place rules that will make it difficult for pension plans to exist 
and, therefore, they will be withdrawn, if not, frozen. So that is 
really the basic issue here. And it is heightened because of the 
administration's position. They want to so tighten the rules that it 
will be hard for any of these defined benefit plans to survive.
  So this is the basic issue, whether in this country we want to try to 
preserve defined benefit plans. Most of them are not in trouble. Many 
of them would be placed in trouble through a combination of the 
provisions in this bill and in the Senate bill.
  So I want to close with this: What you are saying, and you have said 
it on the floor, is leave it to the conference committee. For example, 
there is no protection for airline workers here at all. Leave it to the 
conference committee. What you have said to a few of the people is we 
will make some adjustments here in this bill, but there is no assurance 
that those adjustments will prevail. So in a word, what you are trying 
to do is not protect defined benefit plans, but through these 
provisions and those in the Senate bill, with the help of the 
administration, you are going to accelerate their demise. That is our 
position. And it is worthy of discussion. It is worthy of debate, and 
it is worthy of your giving us a substitute that would make sure that 
defined benefit plans can survive in the United States of America for 
the workers of this country.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the 
Pension Protection Act. Over the past several years, we have all 
witnessed some disturbing occurrences as we have seen far too many 
hardworking Americans contribute money into a pension plan, only to 
find their benefits dwindle or depleted entirely.
  We must find ways to ensure that employers keep their promises to 
their retiring workers. I believe we have done so in this bill. 
Chairman Boehner and Thomas are to be applauded for their determination 
to make this happen. They have spent countless hours in negotiations 
with employers, employees, unions, and all other parties who have a dog 
in this fight. The resulting bill we consider here today does exactly 
what its title says: It further protects the pensions of America's 
workers.
  As I see it, the two most important parts of the Pension Protection 
Act are provisions to require more accountability and provisions that 
ensure fiscal responsibility. This bill strengthens current law and 
requires more accountability on the part of employers in funding their 
workers' benefit plans. It requires employers to put more cash 
contributions into worker pension plans. It closes loopholes allowing 
underfunded plans to skip pension benefits, and it calls for more 
transparency about the status of workers' pension plans. How can anyone 
oppose instilling more accountability into the pension system?
  The Pension Protection Act is supported by a broad coalition of labor 
unions and employers like the United Auto Workers, the Brotherhood of 
Carpenters, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Financial Services 
Roundtable. The bill includes a broad package of multiemployer reforms 
sought by unions and employers. In addition to these reforms, the bill 
ends excessive compensation for executives if an employer plan is 
severely underfunded. It also insists on more accountability by 
prohibiting employers and unions from offering pension benefit 
increases when plans are already severely underfunded.
  The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is suffering from a $23 
billion deficit. Unless we want all taxpayers to pony up and bail out 
the PBGC, we must demand reforms to place the defined benefit system on 
more solid ground. We must continue to fight for fiscal responsibility.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are numerous problems with this bill. This bill, 
as Republicans have drafted it, makes the pension crisis worse. This 
bill would cause many employers to freeze or terminate pensions. This 
bill does nothing to protect the struggling American Continental, 
Delta, and Northwest Airline employees and retirees. This bill does not 
stop companies from dumping pension plans in bankruptcy or protect the 
United Airline employees and retirees. The bill would freeze and cut 
worker pension benefits. The bill does not ensure fairness between 
workers and executives. I mean, I could go on and on and on.
  The bottom line is that many of us who have been on the side of 
workers consistently have deep concerns about this bill and what its 
impact will be on working families. We think that this bill should not 
only be much better, but, in fact, this bill, as it stands, will be 
harmful to American families. And there will be a debate about that, 
but absent from the debate will be what we want to propose, what others 
in this House want to propose, what other ideas may be.
  Let me just say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that you 
are not perfect. You are not always right. In fact, you are usually 
wrong. And when it comes to workers, you are usually wrong, in 
protecting workers' rights. To allow a bill this important to come to 
the floor without a single amendment being made in order, to allow this 
bill to come to the floor and shut us out and gag us is unconscionable.
  For the life of me, I cannot understand what the hesitation is by the 
leadership on that side of the aisle to allow us to be able to 
deliberate on this bill, to have a give and take, to be able to offer 
an amendment, to be able to have an up-or-down vote.
  The distinguished chairman of the Education Committee, when he was 
before the Rules Committee last night, said he had no problem with our 
offering an alternative. I commend him for that. I mean, that is the 
way this should be. We disagree. We have honest disagreements. We 
should be able to work them out in a deliberative way on the House 
floor. But here we are on a bill that impacts millions and millions of 
Americans, a bill that we believe adversely impacts millions of 
Americans, and we are totally shut out of this. It is not because of 
lack of time. We have plenty of time today. And the immigration bill 
seems all messed up; so we even have more time than we thought. But the 
fact of the matter is this important kind of legislation should not 
come to the floor under a closed process. This is outrageous. This has 
become the norm in this House.
  And I would simply say to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, someday the tables are going to turn. You are going to be in the 
minority again, hopefully sooner rather than later. I hope nobody over 
there cries and shouts and complains if a bill comes to the floor under 
a closed rule.
  Defeat this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Washington 
for yielding me this time.

[[Page 28552]]

  And I appreciate the concern that my colleague from Massachusetts has 
raised. Now, if this bill was as bad as the gentleman has tried to 
define it, why would we bring it to the floor? Why would any Member of 
this House seek to bring a bill to the floor that would hurt American 
workers?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I can say why do you bring most of the bills that you 
bring to the floor that I think adversely impact American workers, from 
repealing worker protections and worker benefits.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman 
is well aware that there is a crisis in America when it comes to the 
issue of protecting people's pensions. And I think all of us on both 
sides of the aisle have a responsibility to work hard, to develop 
legislation that will, in fact, protect American workers and retirees 
in the pensions that they have been promised.
  Over the last 5 or 6 years, I have spent hundreds and hundreds of 
hours meeting with stakeholders from companies that offer plans 
voluntarily to union members and others, trying to craft a bill. We 
have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle in order to develop 
this legislation.
  So what are the goals here? The goals here are, very simply, to make 
sure that those companies who offer defined benefit pension plans 
continue to keep them. Secondly, for companies who make promises to 
their workers, there ought to be some insurance that they will keep the 
commitments that they have made to their workers. And, thirdly, to the 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that ensures that these pension 
payments will be made, we need to strengthen the financial condition at 
the PBGC to avert a possible taxpayer bailout in the future.
  What does this underlying bill do? It will, in fact, ensure that 
there is more money contributed to these pension plans, whether it is 
restricting the use of credit balances, whether it is using a more 
accurate interest rate to determine what those obligations are, whether 
it is closing down the amount of averaging that goes on. There are a 
number of provisions that we will talk about when we get into this bill 
that will strengthen these pension plans by moving more money into 
them.
  The second part of this is to reduce the long-term exposure to the 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that is, in fact, facing a 
deficit. We not only increase premiums paid by employers to the Pension 
Benefit Guaranty Corporation as part of strengthening them; but long 
term, by requiring companies to fully fund their plans at 100 percent, 
we will, in fact, reduce the exposure of the PBGC long term to a 
taxpayer bailout.
  Now, we are going to hear a lot of debate today as this bill comes up 
from those who have their own views as to how this should work, and I 
would ask my colleagues let us not make perfect the enemy of the good. 
We have a very good, sound bill that we are bringing to the floor, 
supported by many employer groups, supported by virtually every major 
labor group in America as well. There is a finely tuned balance in this 
bill, and I do, in fact, believe that it will pass today with broad 
bipartisan support.
  Now let me address one other issue. And that issue is the fact that 
there is no substitute today. As the gentleman knows, in the Rules 
Committee last night and in a letter to the Rules Committee yesterday, 
I asked them to make a substitute in order. There was a question posed 
to me last night about supporting such a measure. And I said I would 
support not only amendments, but also a substitute as long as it did 
not contain tax issues in there that were unrelated or dealt with the 
tax side of this bill. I do not know whether the substitute had these 
or not. But all I can say is that there is no one in this House who has 
argued more for a fair, open debate than I have.
  I have been in the minority. I have been in your position. I have 
made the arguments that you are making, and I do believe that when we 
stymie debate in the House, we short circuit our constitutional 
responsibilities.
  I am sorry there is not a substitute here. I am not sure why, but I 
am sure there are very good reasons. Whether there are tax issues 
involved in what you were offering, I do not know.
  But the fact is that it is a good underlying bill. We are going to 
have a very healthy debate about it today. And I would urge my 
colleagues, on behalf of American workers, that we have a 
responsibility to pass this bill now.
  Is it perfect? I am sure it is not, but I do believe when this bill 
passes here today with bipartisan support, we will get to a conference 
with the Senate where we will hammer out the differences between the 
House and Senate bill. But the longer this House waits to move this 
bill, the longer we make arguments, that we make perfect the enemy of 
the good, the more we are jeopardizing the retirement security of 
American workers. And I believe that we have to act now, get ourselves 
to conference, and get a bill passed that brings comprehensive reform 
to our pension laws.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate has been on the rule to deal with a very 
important bill that has been talked about on both sides that needs to 
be addressed. I would just simply point out that there will be a motion 
to recommit, which has always been part of what the Republican majority 
has suggested on every major piece of legislation since we have been in 
control.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________