Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected for those who celebrate Christmas.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, when we are starting to deal with the pension plans that protect America's retirements, one of the things we should do is to make a decision not to do any harm. But the fact of the matter is that this bill makes things worse in many ways for many pensioners in this country and many future pensioners.

First and foremost, we created the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to be there to protect some of the retiree benefits of people if pension plans went bust or the corporations went bust. We are now told that this legislation makes that problem worse.

The speaker who was just in the well said there was some $23 billion in deficit in that plan. And what we now see is a Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that this makes it at least $9 billion worse over the next decade. So while we narrow the deficit, in fact we see that we increase this agency's deficit problems.

This is an agency that can look out into the future and can see up to $100 billion of liabilities possibly coming their way. Maybe some of them will not come because of this bill, but many of them will come because of this bill, because this bill, in fact, makes it easier, makes it easier to terminate plans. It makes it easier to put plans into bankruptcy. It certainly does not make it any more difficult to put into bankruptcy as we saw with United Airlines.

So what does that mean? That means that a plan that was designed, an insurance policy that was designed for when companies went out of business, now companies can take their pension plans, the retirement nest eggs of their workers, and put them into bankruptcy, and the company can go merrily on its way. I do not choose that term lightly, ``merrily on its way,'' because after what we saw after years and decades of manipulating the pension plans of United Airlines, about not being truthful with the employees, not being truthful with the public, not being truthful with the shareholders about their liabilities, they put them into bankruptcy. Those workers had given back billions of dollars in wage concessions, retirement concessions to try to keep that airline afloat. They were not able to because they went into bankruptcy.

Yesterday, we learned that the top executives of that corporation have now petitioned the court to distribute $235 million in stock to those very same executives that ran this corporation into the ground, that they are going to get $235 million in stock. The employees who had all of the concessions, all of the cutbacks, the employees are going to be required to service, maintain, run and staff those airlines, start all over, having fallen and been cast to the floor.

That is what is wrong with this legislation. It treats those in the corporate suites entirely differently than it takes care of the workers on the shop floor or on the airlines or in the repair facilities. That is the problem with it is that we see that this plan simply does not provide the kinds of protections necessary, the kinds of protections that are necessary for those employees who have worked so terribly long for those corporations, who invested their entire lives in these corporations.

Plus the fact that it also makes it, and we are told by a number of the employer groups, this is what makes it more likely that the companies will terminate their plans, that they will freeze their plans. What does that mean? That means a lots of people who may be 50, 55 years old today, just as we found out with the cash balance plans, this makes it easier to do a cash balance, a lot of people who are working today are going to find out that they will not have a retirement nest egg that they have been planning on. They will not be able to carry out the standard of living that they were anticipating to provide for their families.

That is what this legislation does. It makes those kinds of decisions much easier, much easier for the companies to do that.

What does that mean? That means that America is going to end up with a poorer retired population than they had before. That means that these people are going to have less of the kind of retirement that they had anticipated because of the acceleration of the terminations, because of the acceleration of the freezing of the plans and because of the ease which you can now go and apparently the acceptability in the business community of entering bankruptcy.

We changed the personal bankruptcy laws in this Congress because we said people were using it as a convenience. It is interesting now that the corporations have decided they will use it as a convenience to redesign themselves, to reconfigure themselves, to reinvent themselves. If United Airlines is the model, the only losers will be the workers and the retirees in those corporations.

That is what this legislation does not do. It does not really speak to trying to make sure that we could do all that we can to secure the retirement of current workers and of future retirees.

I would urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation when we get to that vote and understand that we should not be making the problems of America's pensioners even worse than they are today.

Madam Speaker, we are facing a serious pension crisis that has already cost employees across the Nation billions of dollars in lost benefits--benefits they were told were ironclad. If you calculate just the losses employees suffered in the Nation's four largest pension terminations it exceeds $6 billion in earned defined benefit promises.

Let's be clear what is happening to our retirement system--this Enron the sequel. This

is Enron 2 with a vengeance. This is a national disgrace.

This bill does absolutely nothing about companies who decide to use the Federal Government to dump and run on their promises to employees. Exploiting loopholes in our pension and bankruptcy laws, clever lawyers have turned a Federal agency that was supposed to be a last resort for companies that were closing shop, into a dumping ground for companies to ditch unwanted promises to reward investors at the expense of employees and taxpayers. So powerful is this gaping hole in our pension protections, companies can now exact major wage and benefit concession by merely threatening to terminate their pension plan.

Folks, if you want help fast forward to the new Wal-Mart economy-- this is your bill. If you want to further weaken employees' hand in the battle for fair wages and benefits, this is your bill. If you want to stand by and watch as companies freeze, downgrade or drop their pension plans, this is your bill.

Last summer thousands of United Airline employees--mechanics, flight attendants, and pilots--lost billions in irreplaceable pension savings that changed their lives forever. These families--denied the courtesy of even a single hearing before the Education and Workforce Committee-- participated in an online hearing Democrats sponsored. Over 1,000 participated in this unique online hearing and their powerful voices were heard.

They wrote to us about the personal and financial devastation resulting from the loss of promised benefits, and the lost opportunity to earn future benefits. Listen to Kenneth Schmidt, a long-time employee of United from Goodyear, AZ, who wrote:

Dear Congressmen,

I had worked for United for 38 years when I retired in

February of 2003. My job as a mechanic was always a source of

pride to me. I worked midnights for many years, with doing so

I missed out on many family gatherings, holidays, etc. This

was what I chose to do in life, and I did it with no

complaints. But, now I am faced with large cuts to my

retirement benefits. My retirement should be a time of taking

it easy, traveling, and enjoying my ``Golden Years''. If this

cut happens both my wife and I will be forced to reenter the

work world, probably full time, if our medical insurance is

also affected. This is a sad time in this country for all the

workers who are relying on a pension to ease their lives, and

make this time relaxing, and enjoyable. The stress that is

being created by this turn in events is not healthy for

anyone. Please try and help all retirees, and future retirees

out of this most unfortunate set of troubles.

Guess what this bill says to Kenneth Schmidt and the millions of future Ken Schmidt's who have suffered from broken pension promises: Too bad, tough luck. You're on your own.

How can it be that tens of thousand of United Airlines employees like Ken Schmidt lose billions of dollars in promise benefits, and we do nothing? For example, we all know that United Airlines was permitted to terminate its flight attendants plans without ever having to show it was necessary to continue operating the company. The plan was terminated despite the testimony of a government hired economist who concluded the United plan was affordable and should be continued. This bill does nothing for them. The Democratic substitute--denied by the Republican leadership--would have restored the United plan until the company showed it couldn't afford it.

This bill does nothing for thousands of pilots whose benefits are cut by half or more by the Federal Government when a plan is terminated. When a plan is taken over by the PBGC after termination by its sponsor, the PBGC is required by law to impose a heavy penalty of those who retire at age 60--even airline pilots who are forced to retire at age 60 under Federal law. Our substitute fixes this injustice and allows pilots to get the same maximum PBGC benefit other workers receive.

H.R. 2830 rejects the Senate bill provisions that provide urgent relief to companies like Delta and Northwest airlines so these companies don't terminate their plans. Our Democratic substitute includes this urgently needed relief.

If you want to let the hard-earned pensions of airline employees across the Nation crumble into a heap of broken promises like United and USAirways, this is your bill.

Mr. Chairman, the sponsors of H.R. 2830 have referred to it as a ``pension reform bill.'' They say it will reform the Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation that's already $23 billion in the red and going up. And they say it will turn around $450 billion in underfunding reported by the Nation's pension plans. In truth, this bill not only fails to tackle pension reform, it actually hastens the unraveling of the PBGC and defined benefit plans. Here is what the Congressional Budget Office says about this bill: ``H.R. 2830 would actually increase the PBGC's 10 year net costs by $9 billion, or by about 14 percent compared to with what it would be under current policy.'' The PBGC found the same--that H.R. 2830 would mean billions more red ink to its agency over current law.

How can a bill be reforming a system if it is increasing the PBGC's red ink over current law? It can't, and that's why this bill is a sham.

This bill also repeals two long-standing, bedrock protections for employees that, if permitted to pass, will haunt employees for years to come.

First, this bill overrides discrimination laws against older, existing workers for cash balance plans without any transition protections. It means that older workers will face up to what the GAO calculated would be up to a 50 percent cut in their benefits. These angry constituents will be calling the offices of Members of Congress in droves--just like thousands of IBM employees who spent years seeking to rectify deep cuts in pension benefits from a cash balance conversion. They will ask why Congress permitted companies to slash their benefits with no transition protections, no option to stay in the traditional plans, with no legal recourse. Tough luck to them, according to H.R. 2830. By contrast, the bipartisan Senate bill has significant protections for older workers, but this bill rejects them all.

This bill is also larded up with lots of special interest perks, but none as pernicious as the repeal of the longstanding prohibition on conflicted investment advice. Federal pension law has always required investment advice to employees to be on the level--free from self- interested, tainted financial advice. No more. This bill gives a sweetheart deal to investment houses by allowing them to offer conflicted investment advice to employees so long as they disclose to them that fix is in. And of course, it ignores years of mutual fund financial scandals involving padded fees and commissions, secret market timing, late trading, and more uncovered by the SEC, Elliot Spitzer, and other State attorneys general.

Here is what Arthur Levitt, former SEC chairman, says about the Boehner/Thomas investment advice provision.

. . . I have reservations when . . . advice comes from the

very same mutual fund company whose products are for sale to

a plans participants. One of my bedrock principles of

investing is that advice should come from mutual parties

with no axe to grind.

Financial journalist Jane Bryant Quinn and NY Attorney General Elliot Spitzer have also expressed strong opposition to this change.

It's amazing that we don't lift a finger for the Ken Schmidts of the world, but we pull out all the stops to reverse a 30-year bedrock protection for employees for mutual funds and investment firms' lobbyists.

By contrast, the Senate bill does not include this repeal and goes further to actually strengthen the independent advice employees receive.

This bill does nothing to ensure fair treatment between workers and executives. Under this bill, if an employer does not fund its pension plan above 80 percent, then the workers get punished by benefit limits. What's the penalty for the executives who ran the plan down between 60 percent and 80 percent? Zero? If an employer does not fund above 60 percent, the bill requires more benefits limits for workers. For executives, only a weak provision for new executive compensation, with loopholes that allow the companies to promise future golden parachutes.

This bill doesn't reform our pensions; it actually hastens the pension crisis according to two independent Federal agencies. Rather than encouraging companies to keep their defined benefit plan in place, it encourages companies to freeze, downgrade or drop their pension plans altogether. It gives the green light to companies who want to dump and run, and opens new loopholes for mutual funds to steer employees into investments that feather their own nests at the expense of employees. It overrules age discrimination laws to slash the pensions of older workers and other existing employees. And it launches new, punishing benefit cuts for employees of underfunded pension plans, while letting the very executives who ran the company and the pension plan into the ground off the hook. And it does nothing to address the urgent crisis of our airline companies and employees--where jobs and the hard-earned retirement benefits of hundreds of thousands of Americans hang in the balance.

I urge you to oppose this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, when United Airlines announced it was going to go into bankruptcy, the Democratic members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce planned an e-hearing so those people who were most affected by the termination of that plan and the bankruptcy of that company would have an opportunity to talk to their representatives in Congress. We were not going to have a hearing on this problem, and these people could not come to Washington and testify. So we opened up the Internet to them, and we received thousands of replies from people telling us their life stories. The amazing thing about it was how many of these people were using their retirement to care for another member of their family. It could be a spouse with an illness, it could be a child, a grandchild, and all of a sudden, half of their pensions were evaporated into the bankruptcy of United Airlines.

Mr. Kenneth Schmidt, a long-time employee of United from Goodyear, Arizona, wrote, ``Dear Congressman, I had worked at United for 38 years when I retired in February of 2003. My job as a mechanic was always a source of pride to me. I worked midnights for many years, and in doing so, I missed many of my family gatherings and holidays. This was what I chose to do in life, and I did it with no complaints. But now I am faced with large cuts in my retirement benefits. My retirement should be a time for taking it easy, traveling and enjoying my `golden years.' If this cut happens, both my wife and I will be forced to reenter the work world, probably full time if our medical insurance is also affected. This is a sad time in this country for all the workers who are relying on a pension to ease their lives and make this time relaxing and enjoyable. The stress that is being created by the turn of events is not healthy for anyone. Please try and help all retirees and future retirees out of this most unfortunate set of troubles.''

What the problem is is that this legislation does nothing for the Kenneth Schmidts of the world, he and his family. It does nothing to keep companies from simply making a business decision that they can throw the company into bankruptcy, get rid of the retirement and health care obligations to retirees and move along. This is not some unusual practice to bring shame upon a company. The steel companies did it. The airlines have done it. There is a question of whether the automobile industry will go this way.

It is really not completely about their pensions. It is about a decision of a business plan. It is about competition and a change in the marketplace. But the fact of the matter is that, at the end of the day, there is no showing. United did not have to show that for these pension plans they would be a solvent company. In fact, the people from the PBGC wrote and said that they thought the flight attendant plan could be salvaged, and in fact, maybe the others could. But the decision was made and they went into bankruptcy without a hearing on that issue.

Companies should have to exhaust all of their attempts to try to save the retirement plans of these Americans, these people who have worked hard. Remember, these pension plans, they traded pay. They traded health care benefits. They traded vacation days for this pension plan. That was the agreement and the guarantee. Now, unilaterally, the company gets up and walks away from it.

And to rub salt into their wounds, there were pilots required by the laws of this Nation to retire earlier. They take an additional hit on their pension because they are early retirees, not because they wanted to stop flying but because the law says they have to retire.

So we have pension plans that could have been salvaged and people who are being punished because of the Federal law in terms of their early retirements, and this bill does nothing to fix that.

We do that in our motion to recommit. We address the concerns of the flight attendants. We address the concerns of the early retirees, and we address the concerns of the airlines, but it does not do that in the majority bill because they want to go off and use those people as trading chips, the retirement nest eggs of these hardworking Americans, in the conference committee. I urge Members to vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for his control in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit on behalf of myself and Congressman Cardin.

Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, we offer this motion to recommit to address a number of issues that are not addressed in the legislation before us and to hopefully not do some of the things that the legislation before us does. We believe that we can do these things without driving employers out of the defined benefit system.

The current bill before us provides a compilation of interest rates and premium fees and costs that we believe will drive employers to accelerate the termination and freezing of these plans. That is not because we say it; that is what the employers have told one another in their associations, the expectation that some 60 percent of the employers will freeze or terminate their plans.

We believe that our motion to recommit does not impose arbitrary benefit cuts and freezes on workers who do not control whether or not the employers fund the pension plans or not.

The motion to recommit would require companies to seek alternatives to the termination and prove that a plan is in fact unaffordable before they can cast it away in bankruptcy, as we saw United Airlines do, that cost the employees billions of dollars in pension benefits.

Importantly, the motion to recommit would actually help the employees of American, Continental, Delta and Northwest Airlines, whose pension plans are in danger of being terminated. The bill before us does not do that. It talks about doing that in the future.

The motion to recommit would also protect 9 million workers who are covered by multi-employer pension plans in the construction, food service and transportation industries. We would ensure that workers and executives would be affected equally in pension plans. Again, the horrible demonstration out of United Airlines, as the executives walked away with $235 million in a new, debt-free company and the employees walked away with wage cuts and benefits cuts and the loss of retirement benefits.

Finally, the motion to recommit would help workers who do not have access to defined benefit plans through the automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans and the expanded savers credit.

This legislation, if it is not corrected, is the greatest assault on the pension benefits and the retirement nest eggs of hardworking, middle class Americans in the history of this Congress. I say that because it is quite clear that this will expedite and will accelerate the freezing and the termination of these plans that so many millions of Americans are relying on.

One thing this legislation will do, if you want to continue to debate Social Security, you will now prove with the passage of this legislation that Social Security is the most secure retirement system in this country, that it is the only one that people can count on, because these other plans are in jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, Mr. Cardin from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 602, I call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2830.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I will put this as bluntly as I can: our Nation's pension laws are outdated and broken and placing at risk the retirement security of millions of American workers. Today, we have an opportunity to change this by voting for the most comprehensive reforms to worker pension laws in more than a generation.

The Pension Protection Act is the outcome of one of the most thorough and remarkable legislative processes I have seen during my years in the House. On June 4, 2003, the Committee on Education and the Workforce held the first of nearly a dozen hearings on traditional pension plans, and from these hearings they have covered a broad set of issues, ranging from what is broken to who it has impacted to how we should go about fixing it. And, today, we stand ready to debate and vote on the product of those 30 months of deliberations.

There are three key strengths of this bill, and I would like to highlight each of those for my colleagues. It is a balanced approach, it is comprehensive in nature, and it is a benefit to American taxpayers.

First, the bill's greatest strength is its balanced approach to the pension crisis that we face. While some are calling for suffocating pension funding rules which would place an incredible burden on employers who voluntarily offer retirement benefits, our bill makes certain not to tighten the rules so much that employers leave the defined benefit system altogether.

While others call for relaxation of pension rules, our bill ensures that employers and unions keep their promises to workers and retirees who are counting on their pension benefits. In short, our bill aims to shore up the traditional defined benefit pension system to which we and our parents have grown accustomed so our children and grandchildren might have a chance to be part of it as well.

The second major strength of the Pension Protection Act is inherently comprehensive in nature. As you can see on the chart that is next to me, the measure would ensure that pensions are fully funded to restore worker and retiree confidence; it has enhanced disclosure requirements so that workers and retirees are no longer kept in the dark about the health of their pensions; it would improve the financial condition of the Federal agency charged with ensuring some 30,000 private pension plans; it would reform outdated laws that deny workers access to professional and secure investment advice while providing even more workers with 401(k)-type plans; and it would end sweetheart deals like those we have seen at some airlines and other corporations that have terminated their plans in which executives enjoy a windfall of cash while workers and retirees are left wondering about their futures.

Incidentally, these five reforms are only the tip of the iceberg. There is much more that this bill offers to workers and retirees, far more than this chart could ever tell us.

Finally, yet another strength of this measure is its benefit to American taxpayers. Each of us remembers all too well the savings & loan bailout of more than a decade ago. By enacting the Pension Protection Act, we can be more confident that history will not repeat itself with regard to our pension system.

As you can see on this second chart, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which ensures nearly 30,000 private worker pensions, is in dire financial condition. With some $450 billion in pension plan underfunding among financially weak companies looming on the horizon, the PBGC's debt could balloon even further than its current $23 billion.

Even though no taxpayer funds fund the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, could American taxpayers be called upon to bail out the agency if its financial condition continues to deteriorate? I think so. That is why the Pension Protection Act includes responsible increases to employer-paid premiums for the first time since 1991, along with substantial reforms to place the defined benefit system on more solid ground. For taxpayers who may be left holding the bag otherwise, I think this is good news.

Madam Speaker, throughout this process I have made every effort to include my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. And even after my Democratic friends voted ``present,'' that is right, they did not vote ``no,'' they voted ``present,'' when our committee approved the bill back in June, I was hopeful that they would join us and the ever- growing coalition of labor and employer groups in support of these reforms.

However, some of my colleagues have offered nothing more than rhetoric based on quirky accounting schemes and purposely skewed modeling in an effort to characterize the Pension Protection Act in a negative manner. I expect these hollow and misleading arguments will continue today as they seek to detract from a debate which they have largely been absent from for the last 30 months. It is my sincere hope, however, that many of my Democrat colleagues will look beyond the rhetoric and support these long-overdue reforms. This bill definitely deserves bipartisan support.

Madam Speaker, the Pension Protection Act would not be before us if it were not for the work of my friend, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Thomas; the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee chair and vice chair, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Kline; my friend from Ohio, Mr. Tiberi, a committee colleague who worked tirelessly to garner support for the bill; and all of the others on my committee and throughout the House who understand how imperative it is to reform our Nation's outdated pension laws for the benefit of workers, retirees, and taxpayers alike. I thank them for their efforts to bring this bill to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the chairman of the Employer-Employee Subcommittee of the Education and Workforce Committee.

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

I will be happy to do so.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me thank my colleague from Georgia for his work on this issue for lo these many months. I know that my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) has similar concerns, and I am happy to yield to him.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, as has been the case all year, the lines of communication between those of us that are interested in this, both on and off the committee, and those on the other side of the aisle as well, the lines of communication are open and will remain open.

As we move into conference, the process, I remain committed to ensuring that the concerns of all stakeholders involved are addressed in a bipartisan fashion as we complete action on comprehensive reforms in an expeditious manner.

I remain committed, as I believe both of my colleagues do, that airlines do, and that we need to find a solution that will allow airlines to maintain their plans and ensure employees of both plans are adequately funded.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a member of our committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to my colleague the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say to my colleague that I agree with his comments regarding the importance of shutdown benefits to workers who may suddenly find that the plant for which they have worked, for 20 years in your father's case, happens to be closed.

I think the gentleman knows that I am troubled by the fact that shutdown benefits are often paid from a company's pension plan, despite the fact that they are not technically retirement benefits in the true sense of the word. These benefits resemble severance-type pay benefits, and more importantly, these benefits are not funded.

But I want to make clear, for the benefit of my colleagues, that our bill does not prohibit shutdown benefits, as some have suggested.

Instead, with further modifications that we have made over the last few days, it merely requires that shutdown benefits be paid from corporate assets and not pension plan assets, if the pension plan is funded at below 80 percent. I think this is an important change, and I believe it will help restore the financial integrity of this important benefit.

My colleague from Ohio correctly notes that we still have work to do on this issue of shutdown benefits, specifically as it relates to the steel industry, and as such, I pledge to him and other Members who may have an interest in this as well that on this issue we will continue to work on this matter throughout this legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I assume so.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

As I listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I have to tell you that I am confused. Some of them say the rules that we are proposing here are too tough and are going to drive employers out of the pension business, while we have some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying the rules are not tight enough and we are going to create more deficits at the Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation. Ladies and gentlemen, I think the bill is just right.

Yes, these are better rules that will require companies to better fund their plans. They certainly are better than current law. But I do not believe they go to the point of driving companies out of the defined benefit system.

My good friend from California believes we are going to drive up the deficit. Now, if the rules were not strong enough, I would not have had virtually every employer in America who has a defined benefit plan beating on my office door complaining about the rules we were proposing. I would not have had every labor organization talking to me about how do we get this right.

The fact is, if you look at the chart that we have here, plans must meet a 100 percent funding target. That is not the law today. If they are in the 80-90 percent range, it is good enough. But then as soon as the market turns down or the industry has a bump in the road, it is not long before they are under 60 and in deep trouble. So requiring plans to be 100 percent funded, I think, is a very good idea.

Having an interest rate that is commensurate with their liabilities is something that we have not done ever. We have had one interest rate used to calculate the plan's liabilities. Under this modified yield curve proposal, they will have three different interest rates to use based on the longevity of their workforce, 0-5 years, 5-20, and those employees who will retire after 20 years. It will give us a more accurate reflection of the true cost of those plans.

Third, it requires funding shortfalls to be erased over 7 years. We want to give companies time to go from the current rules to these more responsible rules; and if we do not have a sufficient transition time, what is going to happen is that we are going to create real havoc in the marketplace.

Fourth, it restricts unlimited use of credit balances. We all know that the current rules about credit balances are, frankly, some of the most irresponsible public policy that I have seen. Beginning to restrict the use of those credit balances will, in fact, strengthen these plans.

Fifth, it curves benefit increases for underfunded plans. We all know there are plans that were underfunded, severely underfunded, and yet increasing benefits at the same time. That is not fair to workers who are being given promises that someone has no intention of keeping.

Last, it shores up the finances of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

All of these will bring more funding to company pension plans, it will bring more funding to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and put our pension system for American workers on a stronger foundation.

Why else do I think we are just right? I have a long list of business organizations that are supporting this bill and a long list of labor organizations that are supporting this bill. It is a balanced bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Let me thank my colleague and my friend and classmate, Mr. Camp, for yielding me time, and thank all of my colleagues for what I think has been a very healthy debate today about how we strengthen America's pension system.

We have heard Members argue that the bill that we are bringing before us is too difficult, that we will force companies out of pension plans and leave their employees hanging; while others

have argued that the rules are not tough enough, and we are keeping the door open to irresponsible practices.

I truly do believe that we have a bill that is balanced, that will not push employers who have these plans out of the system and will protect American workers who have been promised these benefits.

If we do not act, we know exactly what is going to happen: Millions and millions more Americans are going to lose an opportunity for a defined benefit pension plan, and millions of Americans who already have one are going to be at risk that they will not have their plan. So Congress must act.

Not only did we deal with single-employer pension plans, but we have not talked much about multiple-employer pension plans that you find traditionally in the trucking industry, the food industry and others. And while they have not been talked about much today in this debate and the administration did not propose changes, there are serious changes to the multi-employer pension system in this plan that will help strengthen that system.

Those plans, by and large, are healthier than single-employer plans, and we have labor and management on both sides in the multi-employer sector come together to put rules in place so that their plans can never get into a very weakly funded position. I am glad they are in the bill.

Lastly, let me point out that there are large numbers of groups supporting this bill. Every major labor organization, with the exception of several, is supporting this bill. Many in the management sector in every large business organization is supporting this bill. Why would all of the labor organizations and the business organizations all be on board in support of this bill? Because they think it is balanced. They think it is the right thing to do, and they know that Congress needs to act.

Is everything perfect in the bill? No. As the gentleman pointed out, we have got airline relief that we will probably be talking about again soon. Our commitment is to deal with this in conference.

My colleague from Ohio talked about the need to go further on cash balance language. I certainly agree with her. There are 7 million Americans who have cash balance plans or other types of hybrid plans. We need to provide legal certainty for those who have converted to a cash balance plan so that we do not put in jeopardy the 7 million Americans counting on benefits from those plans.

We have a good bill. I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the debate today on the floor is about the massive underfunding in worker pensions and the need to change the status quo. Unfortunately, what we have just been presented is what would actually make pensions less secure by preserving the status quo and putting at risk millions of American pensions.

Let me make five points. First, the motion to recommit preserves the status quo by requiring employers and union leaders to fund their plans at 90 percent or in some cases only 80 percent, instead of the 100 percent funding requirements that we have in the underlying bill. It just does not pass the straight-face test.

Second, they are preserving the status quo by continuing to allow employers to take up to 30 years to erase any funding shortfall in their plan. Pension experts agree that this increases the risk of plan termination, threatening the benefits of workers and retirees.

Third, they are preserving the status quo on unrestricted use of credit balances which mask the massive pension

plan underfunding we see today. We know that the credit balance rules that are in place today are irresponsible public policy. They must be changed if we are going to strengthen the pension system. And to allow those rules to stay in place, again, does not pass the straight-face test.

Fourth, they propose preserving the status quo by failing to incorporate the full package of multi-employer reforms that were agreed to by a broad coalition of organized labor and employer groups.

Last, they preserve the status quo by promoting uncertainty among employers if these pension benefits and workers who are relying on them maintain the current interest rate package for 2 years and then go back to the 30-year rate thereafter.

The modified yield curve in the underlying bill presents a more accurate picture of the liabilities that these plans have and should, in fact, stay in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the underlying bill is far more balanced. It really does strengthen American pensions, and I would urge my colleagues to reject this.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of this resolution. I was happy to offer this resolution honoring a constituent of mine, Tony Stewart, for one of the greatest accomplishments in motor sports, winning the 2005 NASCAR Nextel Cup.

This resolution is co-sponsored by several of my colleagues from Indiana, Mr. Pence, Mr. Burton, Mr. Souder, Mr. Hostettler and Ms. Carson. This achievement is even more amazing considering this is Mr. Stewart's second NASCAR Cup win in only his seventh season competing on the NASCAR circuit. Not only has Mr. Stewart won two NASCAR championships, his resume is more impressive when you consider he has also won eight other auto racing championships, including the Indy Racing League.

This season, NASCAR fans and even the casual spectator watching highlights on ESPN SportsCenter all saw Mr. Stewart's number 20 Home Depot/Joe Gibbs racing car capture the checkered flag in an orange and black blur six times during the season. These victories came at the Gatorade Duel 2, the Dodge Save Mart 350, the Pepsi 400, the New England 300, the Sirius Satellite Radio at the Glen and the Allstate 400 at the Brickyard. It was at the Brickyard, Indiana's crown jewel on the NASCAR circuit, where Mr. Stewart started in the 22nd position and worked his way through the pack to lead the most laps on his way to victory.

Mr. Stewart's path to his second championship started in his hometown of Columbus, Indiana. Just outside of Columbus is a town called Westport where he raced go-carts in 1978.

Mr. Speaker, I will be submitting an article from the December 1, 2005, edition of Sports Illustrated which eloquently highlights the career of Mr. Stewart.

Sports Illustrated writer Lars Anderson writes about Mr. Stewart's hardworking Hoosier roots and his entry into the racing world: ``Tony Stewart was 22 years old and living rent-free in a friend's house in Rushville, Indiana, when he hit a crossroads. For months, he had been working in a machine shop 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, running a drill press for $5 an hour and wondering if he had what it took to become a professional racer. Then, one afternoon early in 1993, he asked his boss if he could borrow money for a ticket to Phoenix. The Copper World Classic, a USAC event for open-wheel cars at Phoenix International Raceway, was going to be held in a few days, and Stewart, who raced on the weekends in the Midwest, wanted to test his talent against West Coast drivers. So he asked his boss for a loan, and neither Stewart's life nor American motor sports have been the same since.''

Indeed, American motor sports have never been the same since.

Mr. Stewart won three carting championships, four USAC titles and the IRL crown before becoming the NASCAR Rookie of the Year in 1999 and winning his first NASCAR Winston Cup title in 2002.

Mr. Stewart recalls to Mr. Andrews how he entered the world of professional auto racing. He said, ``I got the loan and wound up finishing second in the race, and I made $3,500.'' ``When I got home from Phoenix, I looked at the paycheck and calculated how long it would take me to make that much in the machine shop. I said to myself, It's now or never, and that's when I decided to go for it.''

Mr. Speaker, that is the American dream, going for it; taking the risk; taking advantage of the opportunities. Mr. Stewart's rise to the top is indicative of his Hoosier work ethic and pride in a job well done. But Mr. Stewart should also be recognized for his accomplishments outside of motor sports. His commitment to philanthropy led him to start the Tony Stewart Foundation to help terminally ill children and to aid the families of drivers injured in motor sports.

For his contributions to the State of Indiana, a State rich in motor sports history, Mr. Stewart was awarded the Sagamore of the Wabash, the State of Indiana's highest honor. Governor Mitch Daniels presented the award after Mr. Stewart's number 20 car and his crew won Indiana's only NASCAR Nextel Cup race, the Brickyard 400.

This race is held annually at the most storied of racetracks in the world, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway in Speedway, Indiana. Mr. Stewart is not only held in respect by his fellow Hoosiers but by his fellow racers as well. His colleague Mark Martin said, ``Tony Stewart, in my eyes, is the greatest race car driver I have watched drive in this era. A.J. Foyt might have been that when I was a little boy, but Tony Stewart is my driving hero.''

Dale Earnhardt, Jr., said, ``Tony's as talented as they come. He's also one of the most genuine guys in our sport. He was one of the few people who stepped up for me when my dad died. He's a guy who really cares about his friends, and I guarantee you this won't be the last championship he wins.''

Jeff Gordon, a fellow Hoosier and four-time NASCAR Cup champion said, ``Tony is a true American racer. You can put him in any car on any track and he'll be fast. He's good on the short tracks, the intermediate tracks, the restrictor-plate tracks and the road courses.''

I am proud to honor Mr. Stewart, an American driver at the top of the racing world, a Hoosier, and a Ninth District constituent. I ask for my colleagues to support this resolution to congratulate him on his accomplishments.

[From Sports Illustrated, Dec. 2005]

The Champion

(By Lars Anderson)

Tony Stewart was 22 years old and living rent-free in a

friend's house in Rushville, Ind., when he hit a crossroads.

For months he had been working in a machine shop, eight hours

a day, five days a week, running a drill press for $5 an hour

and wondering if he had what it took to become a professional

racer. Then, one afternoon early in 1993, he asked his boss

if he could borrow money for a ticket to Phoenix. The Copper

World Classic, a USAC event for open-wheel cars at Phoenix

International Raceway, was going to be held in a few days,

and Stewart, who raced on weekends in the Midwest, wanted to

test his talent against West Coast drivers. So he asked his

boss for a loan, and neither Stewart's life, nor American

motor sports, has been the same since.

``I got the loan and wound up finishing second in the race,

and I made $3,500,'' Stewart recalled as he sat in the back

of an Agusta helicopter that was carrying him to Homestead-

Miami Speedway on Nov. 17 for the start of what Stewart would

later call the most important racing weekend of his life.

``When I got home from Phoenix, I looked at the paycheck and

calculated how long it would take me to make that much in the

machine shop. I said to myself, It's now or never. And that's

when I decided to go for it.''

In NASCAR's season finale at Homestead, almost 13 years

after he made his decision, Stewart solidified his status as

one of the top drivers of his generation when he wrapped up

his second career Cup championship by coming in 15th in the

Ford 400. Stewart, who finished 35 points ahead of Greg

Biffle and Carl Edwards in the final standings, joined an

exclusive club: He became the 14th driver in NASCAR's 58-year

history to win multiple titles. Among current drivers,

Stewart is only the second to have won more than one Cup

championship. (Jeff Gordon, who has won four, is the other.)

Though Stewart didn't win any of the final 10 races of 2005,

his average finish of 8.7 during the Chase was second only to

Carl Edwards's 8.4. And during the final two thirds of the

season, Stewart was as consistent as any NASCAR driver in

recent memory: Over the final 22 races of '05 he finished in

the top 10 an astonishing 19 times.

``Tony Stewart, in my eyes, is the greatest race car driver

I've watched drive in this era,'' says Mark Martin. ``A.J.

Foyt might have been that when I was a little boy, but Tony

Stewart is my driving hero.''

``Tony is a true American racer,'' says Gordon. ``You can

put him in any car on any track, and he'll be fast. He's good

on the short tracks, the intermediate tracks, the restrictor-

plate tracks and the road courses.''

``Tony's as talented as they come,'' says Dale Earnhardt

Jr. ``He's also one of the most genuine guys in our sport. He

was one of the few people who stepped up for me when my dad

died. He opened his home to me and offered me his car, his

helicopter. He's a guy who really cares about his friends,

and I guarantee you this won't be the last championship he

wins.''

For Stewart, though, it will be a hard one to top in terms

of satisfaction. ``It's been a very special year,'' he says

of a title run that was far less stormy than his previous

one. ``This championship means 10 times more than the one I

won in 2002. I've had more fun this year than at any time in

my life.''

All season long Stewart could be seen smiling when he

talked to his crew and hamming it up with the media. Which

prompts the question: What happened to Tempestuous Tony, the

hothead nicknamed Smoke, who infamously shoved a photographer

in 2002 and used to challenge other drivers to fights in the

garage?

To understand Stewart's dramatic change in demeanor, you

must go back to the final race of 2004. Minutes after Stewart

hopped out of his Home Depot Chevy at Homestead,

he told friends that he was packing his bags and heading

west. For six years he had lived just north of Charlotte, the

hub of NASCAR, but now he had decided to move back to his

childhood home in Columbus, Ind. The move made Stewart happy,

and it transformed his team. ``I can hit the reset button

here--and nobody bothers me,'' he said one day last summer.

``My neighbors think of me as the same punk kid who smacked

baseballs into their aluminum siding.''

Relaxed and upbeat, Stewart improved not just his attitude

but also his listening skills. The communication between

Stewart and his crew in 2005 was as free-flowing as it has

ever been in his six-year Cup career. In October '04, in a

meeting at Joe Gibbs Racing in Charlotte, several crewmen

told Stewart that in the past his heat-of-the-moment tongue-

lashings had bruised egos. As a result, some in the crew were

reluctant to speak to Stewart when problems arose.

``That meeting really opened my eyes,'' says Stewart. ``I'm

only 5'8'' and 185 pounds, but I can intimidate people. That

had to stop because my guys need to be able to talk to me

about anything.''

``Tony moving home has meant everything to our team,'' says

shock specialist Ronny Crooks. ``Instead of looking at

problems, Tony now looks at solutions.''

That positive attitude carried the team all year, from the

ups and downs of spring, through a red-hot summer (sparked by

a test session at Michigan in which Stewart and crew chief

Greg Zipadelli hit on a key suspension setup), to a carefully

controlled Chase, to the final lap at Homestead, ending a

season that will stand out in NASCAR history. ``I've never

really thought about where my place in the history of the

sport will ultimately be,'' says Stewart. ``I've got a lot

more to accomplish, and hopefully I'll win a few more

championships.''

While Stewart is clearly driving toward the pantheon of the

alltime great American racers--a place where Earnhardt, Foyt,

Pearson and Petty all reside--he already shares one trait

with the legends: He likes to give the fans a show. So, late

in the evening of Nov. 20, at the urging of a few hundred

fans still in the Homestead grandstand an hour after the

race, Stewart scaled the catch-fence at the start-finish

line. As he triumphantly raised his arm, flashbulbs popped,

capturing what surely will be the defining image of NASCAR's

2005 season.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the objective of this legislation should be to encourage the retention and expansion of traditional defined benefit plans. Traditional defined benefit plans generally offer a guaranteed benefit to the worker and, they are generally well managed and diversified. The passage of this bill, in my view, will set up a conference report that will come back to us that will accelerate the termination of well-funded and managed traditional defined benefit plans. And I say that for three reasons.

Three parts of this legislation will adversely affect well-funded and managed plans. First, the funding roles are more costly and more restrictive. That in and of itself will act as a disincentive for continuation of these plans.

Second, there is a failure to include relief for the airline industry, clearly putting pressure on well-funded and managed plans to pick up the costs for other industries, questioning whether they should stay and provide these plans.

Third, we continue to allow companies to go into bankruptcy in order to dump their costs onto the PBGC, once again affecting those well- funded plans that are going to be asked to pick up the tab.

For all these reasons this legislation is likely to accelerate the termination of plans that we would want to see continued. The termination of these plans will just adversely affect the funding of the PBGC, the guaranteed fund, complicating the situation and making it worse.

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that there are provisions in this legislation that are very good. The provisions dealing with the defined contribution provisions are needed and, as it was pointed out in the Ways and Means Committee, contain many of the provisions that were worked on through the Portman-Cardin process as

well as legislation presented by Mr. Emanuel and Mr. Pomeroy. It includes automatic enrollment, the split refunds where tax refunds can go partially into retirement savings, the extension of the savers credit, the ability for individuals to roll over funds and keep them in retirement funds longer.

All of those are positive aspects. However, when you look at this bill in balance, we do need to pass legislation; but on balance this legislation will cause more harm than good, and I urge my colleagues to reject the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am curious: Is the majority on the Ways and Means side going to be using their time or not? Does the gentleman know?

Can I inquire as to the amount of time that remains on all sides?

The time for the gentleman from Michigan?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the senior Democrat on the Subcommittee for Social Security and who understands retirement security.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, first let me yield myself 30 seconds to point out that I wish we did have provisions in this bill to deal with the airline industry, because I think we should. The problem is that we do not, and we go to conference with a situation where those who have well-funded plans are now likely to be asked to pay because of the costs of the airline industry. And let me also point out from Mr. Boehner's comment about making the PBGC better funded, if we have a lot of terminated plans, it is not going to be better funded. And the gentleman brags about a permanent yield curve which is unpredictable to business. It would be better to have a corporate bond rate, and I am sorry that is not in the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a senior members of the Ways and Means Committee and one of the leading experts on retirement issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), one of the leaders in the Ways and Means Committee on pension issues, the former insurance commissioner from North Dakota.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), whose provisions are in this bill concerning split refunds and automatic enrollment and other issues that he has brought to the table.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that people who are watching this debate are somewhat confused about some of the technical provisions that we have talked about on the funding of a guaranteed fund. But let me try to simplify it.

The bottom line is that the total changes that are being suggested make it more rigid and less predictable for those companies that have traditional pension plans as to how much money they have to put into the guaranteed fund. Understand that the guaranteed fund is funded by the companies making contributions to the guaranteed fund. It is not funded by the government.

So if you have a plan that is well-funded and you are now being told it is going to cost you more to stay in that plan, there is an incentive for you to freeze your plan or to leave. That is what is going to happen, and that is why we are very concerned about many people losing their traditional pension plans as a result of this legislation.

The second point, let me point out, is that many Members have been talking about the airline industry and to try to help the airline industry. I pointed out that I think we should do that. We should do that because, A, it will allow the guaranteed fund to concentrate on other plans, and companies will not arbitrarily cancel their plans because they are afraid they are going to be stuck with the costs of bailing out the airline industry. That makes sense. But we are told: We are going to do that in conference, trust us.

We are the legislative body. We should do it. How do we know what is going to come out of conference? It is our responsibility to make sure it is done. We made some changes for the auto industry. Why have we not brought in those provisions? It is our responsibility to do it.

And I haven't heard anyone talk about how we are going to correct the problem of an industry going into bankruptcy in order to save their costs. Is there any hope that that will come out of conference? I doubt it.

We can do better. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Let me thank Mr. Miller for offering this substitute. I am pleased to join him.

I listened to a lot of my colleagues talk in favor of this bill, telling me things they do not particularly like about it, things that will be, they hope, corrected in conference, and now we have a motion to recommit that does exactly that.

So if we are sincere in wanting to move the process forward so that we can get to conference, let us speak to what we want to get from the conference report. Let me make it clear that the rule did not permit us to offer this directly as a substitute, so the only way we can do it is by the motion to recommit.

But it does contain the issues that many have talked about. It has the good without the bad. It has the provisions for the defined contributions, so that we can deal with the 401(k)s and the IRAs and the savers credits and automatic enrollments and those provisions that are important. But it also deals with the issue of the airline industry directly, not on a promise that we will deal with it in conference, and it deals with the revolving door of bankruptcy, which, if we do not correct, we are going to have other problems in addition to the airline industry. So it deals with those problems.

But it does one more thing, Mr. Speaker, that is critically important: It takes away the additional deficit that this bill would create. This bill will add an additional $14 billion to the deficit of this country. The substitute pays for the cost of the legislation so that we do not add to the growing problem of the deficit of this Nation.

This is a responsible motion, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2830, the Pension Protection Act of 2005 strengthens retirement security for millions of Americans. Current pension funding laws and structures are outdated and threaten the financial stability of the pension system. In fact, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, the government insurer of pension plans, estimates that single employer plans are underfunded by up to $450 billion.

Furthermore, an increasing number of companies are using the bankruptcy system to dump massively underfunded pension plans on the PBGC. Since traditional pensions are a critical component of retirement security, it is essential to form law that modernizes and strengthens funding rules. H.R. 2830 ensures that companies fulfill their pension promises to working people. It requires employers to fully fund their pension plans and rectify funding shortfalls more quickly. It also ensures that employees receive up-to-date and accurate information about their pensions and prevents companies from making future promises when they cannot even meet current obligations.

The bill strikes the right balance in ensuring the plans will begin to be

more appropriately funded while not being so strict that the companies providing pension plans are in danger of having to terminate them. To that end, H.R. 2830 provides transition relief to employers, giving them time and flexibility to get their pension funding in order.

In addition, the Ways and Means Committee incorporated into this package a number of tax incentives to increase retirement savings for Americans. Included in H.R. 2830 are provisions to make permanent the savers' credit and the increased contribution limits for IRAs and other 401(k) plans. The bill also increases savings opportunities for our men and women in combat and provides increased pension flexibility for public safety officers, including firefighters, policemen and emergency medical service employees.

Furthermore, this bill provides tax benefits to make health care and long-term care more affordable. H.R. 2830 makes permanent bipartisan pension improvements established in 2001. While pension reform is a difficult area to make adjustments, given the unique needs of each employer, this legislation is a fair and balanced package that will provide economic security for millions of Americans. It has broad support for both the employer and labor communities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say that we had several hearings on this pension bill in the Ways and Mean Committee, including the Select Revenue Subcommittee which I chair. Let me just say that the PBGC's analysis shows that funding contributions to this end up being lower only in the short term; but, actually, starting in 2010, contributions to pension plans will increase. And that is because the funding reforms in the bill are phased in over 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just say to the gentleman, as chairman of the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee of Ways and Means, I look forward to working with him on this and other issues as this legislation moves through the process and to conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, pension reform is more than just an accounting issue; it is about protecting the trust between employers and their employees. It is critical for Congress to address this issue and step in and fix rules that no longer work. Many businesses are complying with pension laws. However, the current system is too weak, and many companies have plans that are underfunded. It is time for Congress to step in and reform single-employer pension plans, multi-employer plans, improve disclosure and enhance retirement savings. The bill before us achieves these goals.

The pension bill requires companies to accurately measure how much to contribute to their plans and how much they owe.

This bill also protects shutdown benefits. Those are benefits that are paid to workers who are being laid off because of a plant closing. These benefits are critical to help older workers affected by corporate downsizing. It is imperative that well-funded plans be able to continue to provide their workers with shutdown double benefits, and I am glad this Pension Protection Act preserves this important pension security tool.

The strength of multi-employer pension plans is critical to the retirement security of many Americans. Approximately 1,600 multi- employer plans cover about 9.8 working people in the United States. Multi-employer plans, like single-employer plans, cannot simply be turned over to the PBGC. Therefore, it is even more important to those involved that these plans are properly funded.

This bill strengthens the solvency of multi-employer defined pension benefit plans by providing trustees with the tools to fix the plan's financial situation. The bill requires trustees to adopt rehabilitation plans for critically funded pensions and protects employers from defaulting on their promises.

One important provision of this bill, and perhaps one of the least mentioned, is regarding disclosure requirements. The bill would give retirees and employees better information on the financial condition of their plan. Now workers will be sent information from their plan's sponsor and the plan's ratio of assets to liabilities, the plan's funding and asset allocation policies and other critical information.

While protecting pensions is a focus of this legislation, the bill does much more than that. It includes new opportunities for people to prepare for their retirement and bolster their savings. The bill provides individuals with new insurance products that help Americans better afford long-term health care costs.

I applaud the work of Chairman Thomas and Chairman Boehner and urge support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.

I oppose the motion to recommit. This motion to recommit leaves current pension funding rules in place which ends up weakening the funding rules in the underlying bill. This means that businesses would not be fulfilling their promises to working people.

The motion to recommit also has a $53 billion surtax contained in it on small business. That surtax is bad for workers, bad for small business, bad for America. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit, a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill, which would ensure that pension plans would be appropriately funded, but not so strict as to cause employers to terminate their pension plans. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the underlying bill.