[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3023-3028]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2830, PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table 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, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


     Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. George Miller of California moves that the managers on 
     the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing 
     votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill 
     H.R. 2830 be instructed--
       (1) to agree to the provisions contained in section 403 of 
     the Senate amendment (relating to special funding rules for 
     plans maintained by commercial airlines that are amended to 
     cease future benefit accruals) and section 413 of the Senate 
     amendment (relating to plan benefits guaranteed when 
     regulations prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration 
     require an individual to separate from service after 
     attaining any age before 65);
       (2) to insist on the provisions contained in section 907 of 
     the bill as passed the House (relating to direct payment of 
     tax refunds to individual retirement plans);
       (3) to insist on the provisions contained in section 902 of 
     the bill as passed the House (relating to making the saver's 
     credit permanent); and
       (4) to insist on a conference report that imposes the 
     smallest additional funding requirements (permitted within 
     the scope of conference) on companies that sponsor pension 
     plans if there is no reasonable likelihood the termination of 
     the plan would impose additional liabilities to the Pension 
     Benefit Guaranty Corporation or there is no reasonable 
     likelihood the plan sponsor would terminate the plan in 
     bankruptcy.

                              {time}  1330

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Pursuant to clause 7 of rule 
XXII, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) each will control 30 minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve all points of order against the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, we offer this motion to instruct, 
because today, all across America, employees are worried sick about 
their retirement nest egg. They have seen big airlines like USAir and 
United cut and run on their obligations to pay the promised pension 
benefits and are wondering if they are next. They have seen major 
companies like Verizon, IBM, Motorola, Northwest, Delta, Sears Roebuck 
Company, Alcoa, Hewlett Packard, Lockheed Martin freeze their plans. We 
just read that General Motors will close its defined benefit plan to 
new management hires and give them a 401(k) instead. These are 
devastating developments that need urgent action by this Congress.
  Unfortunately, this House bill makes none of these provisions better. 
In fact, it may make some of them worse. This motion addresses two 
urgent issues. First, it provides needed help to the airline pension 
plans hurt by 9/11 and skyrocketing fuel prices from terminating. It 
would be devastating to hundreds of thousands of workers across this 
Nation if more airlines were permitted to dump their plans into the

[[Page 3024]]

PBGC. When this happens, the big losers are the employees.
  Look at the pilots of United, for example. They had a vested pension 
benefit cut in half. The average pilot lost $1,270. Here is what you 
see what happens when an airline or any employer is allowed to simply 
dump the plan into the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the 
government body that is set up to protect pensions. You see here that 
the pilots, 14,000 pilots, and 6,000 of them were retirees who lost 50 
percent of their benefits, they lost $1,370 a month for the rest of 
their lives, for the rest of their lives. Management, employees and 
ticket sellers and others; 42,000 of them, 12,000 retirees lost $221 
for the rest of their lives as did the machinists and the ground crews, 
who lost $493. That is because the company made essentially a 
unilateral decision simply to dump this plan without justification into 
the PBGC.
  There are other actions that could be taken. The reason that we are 
here today is because a number of airlines have said, let us see if we 
can work with our employees if we can stretch out these plans, if we 
can keep from terminating them. We can work through these difficult 
times for the airline industry, that there may be a way to do this and 
get away from the tragedy that happened to these retirees and to their 
families.
  Let us just be very clear about this. These are not 401(k) 
investments that went wrong in a bad market, these pension plans that 
were dumped into the PBGC. They were rock solid pension benefits that 
were stripped away from these employees and retirees for the 
convenience of United executives and shareholders.
  While these employees, the pilots, flight attendants, machinists and 
others, were losing millions of promised benefits, the majority party 
in this Congress didn't fight for them, didn't lift a finger for them, 
didn't even offer a fair hearing to the people who were going to be 
most impacted by the decisions by people like United. This is a 
national disgrace.
  This motion accepts the Senate provision that gives these airlines 
the ability to keep their plans going while stretching out payments. 
Freezing plans is a lot better than terminating. Go ask the ticket 
agents, the pilots and the mechanics at United whether they would have 
rather had their pension plan frozen while the airline worked through 
its difficulty, or whether they would have it terminated.
  The motion would also support the Senate provision to provide full 
Pension Guaranty Corporation retirement protection up to the maximum 
guaranteed amount, about $47,000, by the Federal Government, for those 
pilots who are required by the Federal Government to retire at age 60. 
This was a double hit to these pilots. The Federal law said they had to 
retire at age 60, and then the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 
told them, because you had early retirement at age 60, you are going to 
lose even more of your pension every year. We should protect those 
pilots. They had no way to protect themselves.
  This motion also makes it clear that the bill's onerous funding 
requirements do not apply to companies that pose no risk of termination 
or liability to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Forcing 
healthy plans out of the system does not make our pension system more 
secure, it makes it less secure. The House bill as written will give a 
financial hit to company pension plans that do not face the risk of 
termination and don't threaten the solvency of the Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation.
  Finally, this motion supports the commonsense provision that will 
encourage savings through the savings credit to allow people to deposit 
a portion of their tax refunds into savings accounts. Let us keep these 
airline plans going so hundreds of thousands of employees at Delta, 
Continental, Northwest Airlines are not put in the same position as the 
employees of United, and I urge the Members to support this motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be clear this motion to construct is nothing less 
than an attempt to undermine bipartisan efforts on the pension reform. 
The Democrat motion to instruct is hypocrisy at the highest level. They 
want these plans to be well funded, as we all do, yet want to mask the 
health of pension plans and make them look better funded than they 
really are. The result will be status quo. Plans will continue to 
freeze or terminate, and employees will continue to lose their hard-
earned benefits.
  I would like to point to a colloquy between the majority leader and 
the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Price) on the floor on December 15 of 
2005. During the colloquy, the majority leader pledged to work on a 
responsible and appropriate solution to addressing the airline pension 
issue in conference, which is what we plan on doing. The time has 
arrived, and we are about to debate the Senate airlines provision on 
the merits.
  The Democrat motion to instruct is an attempt to undermine the 
conference process and should be seen as nothing more than an effort to 
weaken and, in fact, derail pension reform. Again, an examination of 
legacy airline relief is appropriate in conference, which we will do. 
Examining the process is the Democrats' attempt to end run around the 
rules for their benefit. I urge you to reject the motion to instruct 
and let us get our work done.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) of Ways and Means.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Mr. Miller for yielding this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we do need pension legislation. We need pension 
legislation that will protect the worker, that will reform the PBGC, 
the guaranty fund, and will encourage companies to maintain and 
strengthen their pension plans. The Miller motion to instruct 
encourages us to be able to accomplish those goals.
  Mr. Miller has already talked about the provisions related to the 
airline industry that is very, very important. He mentioned the fact 
that we have to help younger workers and lower-wage workers by the 
refundability, by the savers credit, making permanent, and by dealing 
with split refunds of taxes.
  Let me deal with one provision that Mr. Miller covered very quickly, 
which I think is important, that is, encouraging companies to continue 
their defined benefit pension plans. If we put more and more burdens on 
companies that are well funded, that are in no danger of going into 
bankruptcy, these companies are going to freeze their plans, they are 
going to terminate their plans. Why would they stay around in the 
defined benefit world if we put more and more restrictions and more 
onerous funding rules that are unnecessary?
  The Miller motion is commonsense and asking us to be very careful on 
new requirements that we place on plans that are properly funded, plans 
that present no danger to the guaranteed fund. We are in danger of 
losing more and more defined benefit plans which are well managed, 
where the employees are guaranteed a certain annuity payment, and we 
don't want our legislation to be responsible for the termination of 
more plans.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this motion. I would urge my 
colleagues to make sure that in the pension legislation that comes out 
of conference, that we have legislation that, yes, we will protect our 
workers, and, yes, we will protect the guaranteed fund, but we will 
also make it easier for companies to maintain and expand pension plans 
for their employees. That is the best way that we can help provide 
security for all Americans on their retirement. I urge my colleagues to 
support the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California continue 
to reserve his point of order?
  Mr. McKEON. I continue to reserve that point of order.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to our 
subcommittee

[[Page 3025]]

chairman of the Employee-Employer Relations Subcommittee, the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
Democratic motion to instruct conferees. You know, I voted for a bill 
that will strengthen pension plan funding. I want pension plans to have 
the right amount of money to pay benefits as promised. It is crazy to 
require overfunding, but it is also crazy to allow more time for them 
to recover. I mean, if, in fact, those plans were well managed, as the 
gentleman just said, we wouldn't be in this fix we are in.
  Too many companies make bigger promises than they can pay for, and 
they dump their underfunded pension plans on the PBGC. We are facing an 
ocean of red ink at the PBGC, and we need to be sure that companies put 
their money where their mouth is.
  I think that since we marked up our bill, we have heard from many 
sources that some of the bill needs to be modified in conference. We 
need to go to conference without restrictions. We need to be able to 
negotiate with our colleagues from the Senate to get a great bill 
signed into law. This Democrat motion would weaken the House bill, and 
I can't support pretending that plans aren't healthy.
  We need to be very clear with the pension plan sponsors and employees 
who are expecting benefits out of these plans there needs to be 
adequate funding to make good on the private promises. Unfortunately, 
fewer Americans every year are lucky enough to have one of these 
defined benefit plans. We are backed up by the Federal Government.
  We need to strike the right balance in pension funding rules so that 
the correct amount of money is there to pay benefits. The House bill is 
pretty close to the right answer. We should oppose the Democrat motion 
to undermine the good work of this House that was passed by a vote of 
294 Members, and let us work with the Senate for a great bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of the point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The reservation is withdrawn.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for 3 minutes.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, this is yet another example of the 
government under this majority in the House, and the Senate and the 
Republican White House of failing to live up to its role to protect the 
American people from circumstances beyond their control.
  We have troops over in Afghanistan and Iraq that are not protected in 
the manner in which they should be protected. We have people down in 
Louisiana and Mississippi and other areas affected by the storm, 
Katrina, who are not getting the attention and the protection that they 
deserve and their situation warrants.
  Here we have a failure of the government to step forward and to 
protect the American working family, who has paid into pension funds, 
expected them to be protected, expected something to be there after 20, 
25 or 30 years of work and contributing to these funds, only to find 
out that management people, CEOs, walk into bankruptcy court and 
somehow wipe out the workers' interest while they end up with golden 
parachutes and protection for benefits once they come out of 
bankruptcy.
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Miller and I and others have been fighting this 
issue for the working people for some time. In committee we offered an 
amendment that would allow the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 
that corporation, an entity which would protect workers. We wanted that 
to intervene earlier to be able to work with companies to make sure 
that they first exhausted all of their possible remedies by permitting 
them to terminate plans and go into bankruptcy only after they had done 
that.
  We presented a substitute for this bill, but we weren't allowed to 
have a vote on it. Our colleagues in the majority, I think, speculate 
or were afraid that Members of their party would have joined in this 
motion, because it would have improved the bill. Companies should first 
have to exhaust every possible remedy to create financing and be 
creative in order to save and restore pensions before they are allowed 
to go into bankruptcy court and wipe them out while enhancing the 
position of the CEOs and other management people.

                              {time}  1345

  We are fighting here, Mr. Speaker, to protect the retirement security 
of American families. We are protecting benefits of airline employees 
and seeking to encourage retirement savings.
  Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
Corporation say that H.R. 2830 would actually add to the Pension 
Benefit Guaranty Corporation's deficit. They say the bill would 
actually chase companies out of the defined benefit system, that 
traditional benefit system that people have come to rely on, and it 
would leave workers with fewer choices actually than the plans for 
retirement that they have now.
  This motion to instruct conferees would at least address some of 
those issues, Mr. Speaker. It would protect the pension benefits of 
airline employees by asking to support the Senate provision, to keep 
American and Continental and Delta and Northwest from terminating their 
plans at the expense of employees and taxpayers, giving them additional 
time to actually work on their plans.
  It would support the Senate provision to provide full Pension Benefit 
Guaranty Corporation retirement protections for pilots that are forced 
to retire at age 60. As Mr. Miller says, they are getting a double-
whammy now, and they should not have to face that situation.
  The motion would also make permanent the Saver Tax Credit, urging 
conferees to accept the House provision for the credit that provides a 
matching contribution for low- and moderate-income workers, and make 
sure that that provision, which is used now by 5.3 million people both 
in 2002 and 2003, to continue on, and support the House provisions to 
split the tax refund for automatic forwarding to a retirement account 
and to provide for the protection of traditional plans, dropping new 
funding provisions in either the House or Senate bill that would 
encourage companies to terminate or freeze.
  Mr. Speaker, all those things are necessary to improve this bill, and 
I ask for support for the Miller amendment.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
subcommittee chairman of Select Revenue from the Ways and Means 
Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, 
and I rise to oppose this Democrat motion.
  This motion takes some parts of our tax agenda and says they are 
important, like the savers credit, the direct payments of tax refunds 
to IRAs, but ignores so many other parts of our bill that are critical, 
like the permanency of the pension and IRA provisions, many of which 
were in the Portman-Cardin legislation which this House has debated 
long before, I noticed Mr. Cardin was here earlier, and long-term care 
insurance, which is a critical issue, and FSA rollover, which many of 
my friends on the other side are vitally interested in as well. So this 
motion to instruct is really incomplete, and I would urge all Members 
to vote against it.
  With regard to airlines, I am vitally interested in the viability of 
our airline industry and certainly their ability to provide pensions 
for their employees. But I think to simply accept the Senate language 
would not allow us to go to conference and deal with the airline issues 
in a comprehensive and thorough way in conference.
  So I would urge Members, especially those Members interested in the 
airline issue, to oppose this motion to instruct.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I rise 
in support of this motion.

[[Page 3026]]

  This motion asks the Members three questions. The first question is 
whether we should take the position that before airline pension plans 
of companies that are in real trouble terminate their pension plans, 
whether those companies should be required to take every reasonable 
step prior to that termination; whether we should be able to put those 
companies in a position where they can stretch out their payments to 
the pension plan, look for other ways they can fund the pension plan, 
and meet their pension obligations to their retirees.
  I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, we should require 
that the law do that, which is why this motion takes the right course.
  The second question that this motion asks is with respect to healthy 
pension plans. Should it be the principles of the new law that we 
should operate with care and avoid new funding requirements on these 
healthy pension plans which are more likely to push them into disrepair 
and trouble?
  I would suggest that the answer is yes, we should. The guiding 
principle, as the conference proceeds in writing this new law, should 
be to first do no harm to the healthy defined benefit plans that exist. 
So I think this motion correctly answers that question and follows the 
right path.
  Finally, this motion raises the question as to whether we should 
permanently enshrine in the law the savers credit. The savers credit 
has been used by more than 5 million Americans in recent years. These 
are Americans who wait on tables, fix engines, work in child care 
centers, who have managed to squeeze out just a little bit of what is 
left out of their paycheck to put it away into a retirement plan. 
Wisely, Uncle Sam matches a part of that small savings from that worker 
to try to encourage more people to do that. This is good for those 
families, it is good for the country's economy, it is good for the 
Social Security system.
  That credit is due to expire at the end of 2008. This resolution 
raises the question as to whether we should let that credit expire. We 
think the answer is no, we shouldn't let that credit expire, it should 
be permanently enshrined into law.
  So I think those are three eminently reasonable propositions. We 
should encourage airlines not to terminate their plans if there is a 
reasonable and viable alternative; we should go to well-funded healthy 
plans and do no harm to them as we write new rules about funding 
pension plans; and, finally, we should take this very useful provision, 
supported by both the Republican and Democratic parties, that more than 
5 million Americans have used, and keep it in the law.
  For these reasons, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
Miller motion.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would feel a whole lot better about this 
debate if it were being carried out in October or November and we had a 
chance to actually make some permanent changes in pension law prior to 
the first of the year. We are now in March. Frankly, we have been very 
lucky that the real world hasn't reacted in a way that would make our 
job even that much more difficult.
  The gentleman from New Jersey, in his usually scholarly fashion, has 
laid out what we ought to do. I would like to remind the gentleman that 
the House bill contains the Savers Credit. We put it in. We obviously 
support the Savers Credit. Why there is a need now to reaffirm the fact 
that we support the Savers Credit is beyond me. The House has voted for 
it. It is the House position. Do you need to then put another nail in 
it?
  But, interestingly, you only mentioned that. You didn't mention the 
other really good provisions that are in there. I think they all should 
be given equal weight and we should support it.
  In terms of the airlines, the House bill is silent on airlines. I 
think that is, frankly, the smartest position we should be in. Do you 
think that based upon the conferee, the gentleman from Michigan's 
statement, that we aren't vitally concerned about airlines? I think 
what we ought not to do is to begin drawing lines in the sand. And, by 
the way, they aren't even lines in the sand, because this particular 
bill has no bearing of any meaning to the conferees. It is basically a 
political statement on the part of the minority in which they wish to 
select certain provisions and highlight those over others.
  You have every right to offer it, we have every responsibility to 
reject it, because it means then other provisions that you chose not to 
pick, which you were not successful on, should not be dealt with in 
conference, and that isn't the way the world works. The majority will 
carry forward, not just the Savers Credit, but the other good 
components in the bill.
  You can be assured that we are very, very concerned about airlines. 
We are so concerned that we didn't spend time spinning our wheels on 
the floor trying to determine who should be rewarded and who should 
not. We are going in there with total flexibility to try to solve the 
problem, and we will do the best we can to address the problem.
  I will just have to tell you that to the degree we play political 
games, as indicated by the gentleman from Massachusetts' speech in 
terms of class warfare, once again we may run the chance of failing in 
the conference. We cannot afford that chance. And if we are successful 
in conference, we are going to have to convince the administration to 
sign the bill.
  This is the time to be prudent, to turn down that wick of partisan 
rhetoric, get serious about trying to begin to solve an institutional, 
demographic, and economic structural problem. I want to go to 
conference with maximum flexibility in taking the House position and 
solving the other problems that need to be solved.
  Please. You have every right to offer it. We should reject it. Let us 
get on to the conference so we are dealing with real issues instead of 
imagined political ones that continue to seem to be the primary 
motivation of the minority party in this House.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the chairman said, this 
isn't games playing. This is not partisanship. This is a plea for 
serious attention to a real problem on a bipartisan basis.
  Yesterday, General Motors announced that it will freeze its 
guaranteed benefit pension plan for salaried employees and replace it 
with a defined contribution plan in which employees take the risk.
  This is what we are saying in part four of our motion: If the 
conferees follow the direction set by the current House and Senate 
pension bills, there will be far more announcements like GM's in the 
future.
  The changes in both the House and Senate bills would dramatically 
increase the chances of companies having to make large, unexpected 
contributions by making pension funding more volatile, the risk that 
GM, struggling with manufacturing challenges the U.S. Government has 
failed to consider, decided it could not afford.
  It would mean companies facing challenges even less serious than 
General Motors' will make the same decision GM did. In a survey, 60 
percent of chief investment officers for large pension plans said that 
changes like those in the House and Senate bills would lead them to cut 
benefits or freeze or terminate their pension plans. Despite our 
repeated requests, the administration has failed to tell us how their 
proposals would affect specific industries.
  Our motion includes a critical provision instructing conferees to 
drop those provisions which would encourage healthy companies to freeze 
or terminate their pension plans. Those provisions include the shift to 
a yield curve, take away what is called smoothing, classifying 
companies as at-risk based on credit ratings, as in the Senate bill, 
and provisions regarding advanced funding.
  Look, we are putting our motion forward for a simple reason: If your 
goal

[[Page 3027]]

is to force employees to terminate their pension plans, leaving their 
workers on their own to face a risky and uncertain future, vote against 
the motion. But if your goal is to preserve the defined benefit pension 
system for workers, as well as the continued competitiveness of the 
companies they work for, do in fact vote for this motion to instruct.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from hundreds of workers 
about H.R. 2830. Over 400 UAW members called my office to express their 
concerns about 2830 as it has been reported out of committee.
  I was not alone in hearing from concerned workers. Workers from 
across America called congressional offices and asked for protection 
for their pension benefits.
  Now, my vote in favor of the Pension Protection Act in December was 
cast to codify the improvements negotiated by auto workers and to 
enable the steel workers to press for further improvements in the 
conference committee. I have some hope there is a process for making 
additional improvements. But my vote was conditioned on the expectation 
that the bill would be substantially improved in the conference 
committee. I will need to see significant further improvements before 
voting again.
  There are still some serious problems with H.R. 2830, and these 
problems must be addressed to ensure that all workers' pensions are 
protected. One such problem, which I hope will be fixed in the 
conference committee, concerns the rules affecting plant shutdown 
benefits for companies with small numbers of facilities.
  The rules are biased against such companies, which will be faced with 
onerous funding requirements in the event of the shutdown of a 
facility. The workers, of course, would be the ultimate bearers of the 
burden, since older workers would lose the shutdown benefits that 
enable them to fully vest in the event of a plant shutdown.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage the conferees to adopt further shutdown 
benefit reforms. Conferees must also address the issue of cash balance 
plans. This bill does a great disservice to older workers by denying 
the reality that conversions from traditional defined benefit plans to 
cash balance plans harm older workers.
  A report released in early November by the GAO found that a majority 
of older workers experienced deep cuts in their pension when converted 
from a traditional plan to a cash balance plan, without transition 
protection. This is not only unfair, it is wrong. Providing transition 
protection for older workers should not be a choice for employers, but 
a requirement, and any change in the plans must protect the accrued 
benefits of employees, and the conference report should reflect that 
reality.
  Finally, I strongly support a provision to help airlines avoid 
terminating their pension plans by giving them additional time to fund 
their workers' plans. Section 403 of Senate bill 1783 will give 
airlines the time they need to meet their pension obligations, and that 
is a good provision, and we ought to support that. You know, then there 
will not be any bankruptcy movements because of pensions. There will 
not be any dumping of pension obligations on the PBGC, and there will 
not be any jettisoning of obligations to workers who have worked a 
lifetime and expect their pension benefits. And that kind of a 
provision will serve the workers and the American taxpayers.
  I want to say that we have an obligation here of the American 
retirees to support full PBGC retirement protection for pilots who are 
forced to retire at age 60. Workers should not be punished for retiring 
at the age of 60 when safety regulations require them to stop flying. 
The American people are waiting to see if we care for those who have 
put in their time. They deserve their security.
  This Congress has an obligation to America's retirees. We see 
corporations all over the country trying to throw their obligations 
onto the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, but when we have some 
companies that are trying to do the right thing, as we do with the 
Senate provision that recognizes that American Airlines is trying to do 
the right thing, then we should provide them with the help that they 
need to meet their pension obligations.
  This is a moment of truth for this Congress. Are we going to be true 
to our commitment to the American workers? Are we going to say to 
people who worked a lifetime, deserve the commitment that corporations 
made to them, that they are going to get the pension that they spent 
their lifetime for?
  There are a lot of people who are watching this debate, asking if 
Congress is going to do the right thing. I strongly support Mr. 
Miller's work here, and I hope this Congress will agree with this 
legislation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, pensions are being frozen every day. 
Workers are having their retirement benefits reduced, yet the 
administration supports proposals which will dramatically accelerate 
the freezing of pensions.
  When I asked the Department of Labor how many pensions will be frozen 
as a result of their proposals, they could not answer. They said they 
had not even modeled or considered the implication.
  Well, the CFOs of the Nation have considered it, and a gathering of 
them have said these proposals will have long-term consequences for 
current and future workers, with the potential to damage the retirement 
security of millions of Americans. Indeed this same group estimates 60 
percent of existing pension plans may be frozen. That is what this 
looks like on a chart: 29,700 pension plans in force, 17,800 of them to 
be frozen under the 60 percent proposal. The administration has not 
considered it.
  That is why the motion to recommit is so important. We say that fully 
funded pension plans should not face dramatically severe additional 
funding requirements, they are already fully funded. Why would you want 
to punish employers who have funded pension plans? One very clear 
reason: to end pensions. And that is really what is at stake. They want 
to move from a defined benefit pension guarantee to defined 
contribution 401(k)s. It is as simple as that.
  We should resist that. Pensions ensure that the risk of participating 
is universal. The workers participate. They ensure that the risk of 
investing is handled collectively. They ensure that you are not going 
to outlive your assets in retirement. That is what pensions provide. 
That is why we should be able to agree on a bipartisan basis to 
continue these pensions.
  But yet just last week at the Nation's Savers Summit, I heard a 
committee chairman say he prefers the 401(k) to pensions. Why, he was 
asked? Because it is part of the ownership society.
  Oh, we get it. You own your risk. You own your risk of investing 
appropriately. And you own the risk that you are not going to outlive 
the assets as you live on to retirement years.
  We ought to be doing everything we can to keep workers' pensions. We 
all ought to feel some failure when we read, like today's headlines, GM 
to cut retirement costs, following, as the article notes, not just 
troubled companies, but healthy as well. Verizon, IBM, Motorola, the 
trend continues and will be accelerated dramatically by this bill which 
seeks to push all of the Nation's pension plans into termination in 
favor of 401(k)s.
  Pass this motion to recommit.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further 
requests for speakers. I believe I have the right to close. Is that 
correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers either. You know, it has 
been

[[Page 3028]]

decades since we have had real, meaningful pension reform. And we could 
sit here and we could talk. It kind of reminds me of fiddling while 
Rome burned.
  I think the time to move is now. We passed the bill with 294 Members 
of our House voting for it. Now it is time to go to conference, meet 
with the other body, get this resolved so we can help all of these 
people that we are all talking about.
  I would ask that my colleagues reject this motion to instruct, and we 
get on with the business of the conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Members, this is a very straightforward proposition. 
This is about whether or not this House of Representatives will go on 
record to try and give the airlines the ability, the time, and the 
means by which they may treat their employees better by holding onto 
their current pension plans; whether they freeze them or they take some 
other action in conjunction with their employees so that their 
employees will not be thrown for the loss that the United employees saw 
when that company decided that it would use the PBGC, the Pension 
Benefit Guaranty Corporation, just as a convenient tool to discharge in 
bankruptcy those employees' pension plans that devastated those 
employees, the United employees, and devastated their families.
  Why are we doing this on this legislation? Because it is very 
interesting, through the course of this legislation during the 
consideration in the committee and on the floor, we could never quite 
get a vote on airlines. Now we are going into a conference committee, 
and the Republicans say, oh, everything is going to be just fine. And 
yet we know that already this conference committee is starting to 
attract attention, that this may be a vehicle for other measures that 
are unable to move in this Congress.
  And so we do not know what is going to be in play. So we wanted to 
make sure that the Members of the House have the opportunity to say 
that these airlines ought to be able to try and work this out.
  The other factor is that time is running against these airlines. They 
are going to have to declare and make a decision relatively soon.
  We do not know if this conference is going to be committed. So it is 
just a question for the Members, do you or do you not want to be able 
to be on record to suggest that this would be better treatment for 
these employees, hopefully for these companies, than what happened 
under the United pension plan.
  You saw what Mr. Pomeroy said: many, many business executives, people 
involved in the pension business, have looked at this bill, and they 
have said that this bill is going to make it more difficult, make it 
more costly and probably lead to additional terminations.
  The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the people that handle this 
problem when all else fails, told us this is worse than current law. 
Now, you can ride that animal if you want, but you may also, if you are 
deeply concerned about the airline employees in your area, you may also 
want to vote for this motion to instruct so we send a clear message to 
the House conferees and the committee, have refused to have this vote 
at any stage of the process, that we be allowed to have a vote, and 
that we support the effort of having the airlines be able to work this 
provision out.
  That is what this motion to instruct does. It is important. It is 
important to the airlines. It is important to the employees. It is 
important to their families. It is important to how we look at solving 
this difficult problem of holding onto people's retirement nest eggs 
and to the pension plans that they are currently in.
  This is presented as some great pension reform. It really does little 
or nothing to forestall the trend that we now see developing in terms 
of the termination of pension plans and people losing their retirement 
nest eggs.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge the House to support the motion to 
instruct.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________