Washington, D.C. - Mr. Speaker, the good news is that this Congress is at long last attempting to address the looming crisis in our nation’s pension system. The bad news is that the best available evidence suggests that today’s optimistically entitled Pension Protection Act doesn’t achieve its stated objective.
Pension rules are complex. But in my view, the goals of pension policy are really pretty simple. First, we must protect taxpayers from an S&L style bailout of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). And second, we must shore up the long term viability of the pension benefits promised our workers.
The PBGC today faces a current deficit of about $23 billion, with additional liabilities estimated at up to $100 billion. However, rather than closing that gap, HR 2830 actually increases the PBGC’s deficit by $9 billion over the next ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot support pension legislation that puts taxpayers in greater jeopardy than they already face today.
With respect to pension security, we would do well to recall the Hippocratic admonition to “First, Do No Harm”. Congressional action that results in companies terminating or freezing or failing to establish defined benefit plans in the first place hurts precisely the same workers we say we are trying to help. Yet that’s precisely what this bill does.
A recent survey of the Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets (CIEBA), an organization representing Chief Investment Officers from the nation’s largest corporations, found that 60% of pension plans would be frozen or terminated if this legislation becomes law. The CIEBA goes on to warn that HR 2830 would “have long term consequences for current and future workers, with the potential to damage the retirement security of millions of Americans.”
If we are not effectively securing the earned pension benefits of our workers, then what are we doing here today?
Mr. Speaker, I have a final objection to today’s proceedings regarding the inability of our side to offer a Democratic substitute. If we had been allowed a substitute, this House would have had an opportunity to debate a range of critical issues not adequately addressed by the underlying bill – including the inappropriate use of the PBGC as a dumping ground for underfunded pensions run by companies seeking a competitive advantage in the marketplace, the right of older workers not to face age discrimination under federal pension rules and the ability of all workers to receive disinterested investment advice for their company sponsored defined contribution plans. Because the majority has abused its procedural power to block our alternative, these and other important issues that ought to be receiving our careful attention will not see the light of this day.
Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the millions of hardworking Americans counting on their hard-earned pension benefits to support themselves and their families in retirement, this Congress has an obligation to pass meaningful pension reform.
However, I cannot and I will not support pension legislation that further imperils the taxpayers and workers real pension reform is supposed to serve.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on HR 2830, and I yield back the balance of my time.