Providing for consideration of 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in a moment I will request unanimous consent that the Senate pass S. 2823, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act.

Just last week, we made a unanimous consent request to pass this bipartisan, bicameral legislation. That means Members from both sides of the aisle and both ends of the building have agreed to the language in this reauthorization. It passed out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce last week. However, Senators from three States are blocking the vote that would speed reauthorization programs that provide life-sparing treatment to individuals suffering from HIV and

I am sorry to hear we have an objection. We need to find a way to work through this objection. I have been working desperately across the aisle with Senator Kennedy, who has been joining me in this effort to help get it out of committee. We have been trying to find a way that the formula would work. One of the ways was to include in the bill 3 years of hold harmless for them to finish updating their system to the point where if they truly have the HIV numbers, they will truly get the money. If they don't have the HIV numbers, yes, they will lose the money.

Now, I don't know if the Senator from Minnesota is aware that our Ryan White reauthorization bill increases the funding for Minneapolis by $2 million and $2.5 million for the whole State. It is a net benefactor. There have been increases in HIV and AIDS cases in Minnesota, and this would move money to where the cases are. That is where the numbers show that his city and State would be significant beneficiaries.

I have a lot of statistics I can go through, but I wonder if the Senator is also aware that these increases are due to the inclusion of HIV/AIDS in the funding formula and that Minnesota has more HIV cases.

Mr. President, I appreciate that clarification.

I will ask the Senator for his help. He said he would vote for the bill. Anything we can do to move this forward. We have put a 3-year hold harmless in there for everyone.

On September 30, the world falls apart for a number of people. California, for one, will lose $18.5 million of their funding. There are a number of big losers. There are no big losers if we pass the bill, provided the numbers back up what they have.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his words. The increase in knowledge that I am sure he has created across the country--and also the

comments of the Senator from Oklahoma--both of them have made an excellent case for why we need to do this. We need to do it immediately. We need to do it for people who have HIV/AIDS. I would note that the person who raised the objection to us adopting the bill is not from one of the three States that have a hold on the bill. I would hope those people would take a look at the situation in their State, and take a look at the fact they are getting more than the average number of funds being expended on patients across the rest of the country, and see that the surpluses their States are running at the end of the year greatly exceed the rather minute loss they would have, and that they would agree for us to move forward on this bill and get it in place before that September 30 deadline that is going to be devastating to 13 States that will lose money for having done the right thing.

Now, having said that, I know there will be people who will say the Republicans cannot get anything done. Well, that particular issue, and many others are not Republican issues. They are issues of the United States. And that is one on which we worked across the aisle and had a great deal of agreement on. And I have to thank Senator Kennedy, the ranking member on my committee, for the extreme work he did to help us find, among the thousands of formulas we looked at, the one that was the most fair so it would follow the patients. I do appreciate the work he has helped us do in the committee during the year.

Accomplishments of the Help Committee

Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes to talk about what the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has done this year. This Ryan White reauthorization is extremely important, but it is not the only bill we have been working on. Because of the way we have done our work, some people may not be aware of what has been done. In fact, I know that to be the case.

This is a committee that has worked across the aisle. When you work across the aisle, a lot of times you can work out many of the difficulties, and when you work out the difficulties, there is not a big floor debate. And when there is not a big floor debate, there is nothing for the media to write up about the blood; consequently, it does not get coverage. So I want to correct that here today, and I would like to discuss the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee's accomplishments for the 109th Congress.

We have heard some claims that this is a do-nothing Congress. Well, I am here to assure American workers, retirees, students, and parents that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has done a great deal to help you live more secure, productive, and healthy lives. Of course, we have more to do, but I am proud that during a time of intense partisanship on Capitol Hill, the HELP Committee has produced a lengthy list of legislative accomplishments.

Looking back over the past 2 years, most of these victories materialized when Senators were willing to work across party lines and across the Capitol to put finding a solution in front of exploiting an issue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of bills and reports filed by the HELP Committee in the 109th Congress be printed in the Record

Mr. President, I joined the HELP Committee when I was first elected to the Senate in 1997. It was natural for me because of my small business background as an owner of family shoe stores. I had firsthand experience with burdensome government regulations, inadequate health care coverage for my workers, and adversarial workplace safety laws. I was energized about finding common sense solutions rather than more Washington bureaucracy.

Now, another reason I joined the HELP Committee is because its broad jurisdiction touches nearly every American.

Now, there were a lot of vacancies on the committee when I signed up. I asked why there were so many vacancies, and I was told, well, that is a contentious committee. I thought I knew what contentious committees were because I served on the labor committee in Wyoming. I found out that there is another level of contentious. I wanted to work with my colleagues to find smart solutions that would address some of the most important challenges faced by my constituents in Wyoming and, of course, other people across the country. I came from Wyoming as a firm believer in my 80-20 rule. The way that rule works is that we can usually find agreement on 80 percent of any issue. We agree across the aisle on about 80 percent the issues that comes up. Now, we are probably never going to reach agreement on the remaining 20 percent.

Unfortunately, for America, what they get to watch on any bill is the debate on the 20 percent we don't agree on, and probably will never compromise on. That is what makes this body seem so contentious--the 20 percent that we don't agree on, even though 80 percent can get done. The committee process will enable us to find that 80 percent, and that has been a principle that has guided my chairmanship.

I was honored and humbled when my colleagues selected me to chair the HELP Committee nearly 2 years ago. Since my chairmanship began, the vision for both the full committee and the subcommittees is to craft legislation that provides lifelong opportunities for people to be healthier, more competitive, and to be more secure at school, work, and in retirement.

Because we have such a broad jurisdiction, the HELP Committee has had an aggressive legislative schedule in the 109th Congress. Over the past 2 years, together with the subcommittees, we have held 57 hearings and reported 36 bills out of committee; 21 of these proposals were approved by the Senate and 12 were signed by the President and became public law. We also reviewed and approved 352 nominations that require Senate confirmation. I thank my colleagues, including their staffs, for doing the work needed to maintain this aggressive pace.

In this Congress, the HELP Committee has been privileged to have in its ranks active subcommittee chairmen and engaged members. This is largely the reason the committee has had legislative success. I thank them for their dedication, and I applaud them for the joint success as a committee. Our ranking member, Senator Kennedy, and I may disagree on a number of issues, but we have worked hard to find common ground and we share a commitment to improving the health, education, work, and retirement security of Americans.

The number of bills acted upon by the HELP Committee is certainly impressive. However, the numbers alone don't begin to tell the story of how the committee's activity will improve the lives of Americans now and in the years to come. One of the committee's most significant accomplishments came on August 17 of this year when President Bush signed into law the Pension Protection Act. That act marks the most comprehensive change to pension law since 1974. The Pension Protection Act is a real victory for working Americans who spend a lifetime working hard and saving for retirement. It dramatically strengthens pension funding rules and helps curb record pension failures. In doing so, the act better protects the retirement dreams of 45 million Americans. Not only were single employer fund rules significantly overhauled, but the rules regarding hybrid pension plans were finally clarified, and multi-employer funding rules were changed as well. The proposal strengthens current law and will better help Americans prepare and plan for retirement. It provides workers the security of knowing that moneys earned for retirement will be there when they are ready to retire.

It also secures the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and secures that corporation without picking the pockets of taxpayers to keep the agency solvent. This legislation was no small undertaking. It took a year and a half of hearings, 5 months of deliberations in conference, and countless hours of negotiations on each provision of the bill.

Fortunately, pension issues are almost always handled in tag team fashion, involving both the HELP Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. While this tag team approach is a great asset and helped us get the bill through the Senate, it meant a complicated and extraordinarily large conference involving four committees in the House and Senate and 27 conferees.

Together with my ranking member, Senator Kennedy, Finance Committee Chairman Grassley, ranking member Senator Baucus, as well as HELP's Retirement Security and Aging Subcommittee Chairman DeWine, and Ranking Member Mikulski, our committees collaborated with House counterparts to make this sweeping reform happen. Because of this teamwork, the law passed the Senate 93 to 5. The result was a policy and a process that was truly bipartisan. Total floor time for the bill--Senate debate and conference report debate--totaled about one hour and fifteen minutes equally divided.

Some may think the conference took a long time to conclude, but history proves that it was ended in record time. The last big pension conference occurred in 1994. The conference was appointed in March of that year, but did not conclude until December. Prior to that, the most recent conference took place in 1987 and operated in the context of budget reconciliation. Again, that conference commenced in March but didn't end until December.

This year, our conference began in March and ended in July--just 5 months compared to a 10-month conference for earlier bills. Comparatively speaking, the Pension Protection Act conference finished quickly, but the impact will be felt for generations.

Another major accomplishment of the HELP Committee was the enactment of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, MINER. From the tragic loss of life in the coal mines of West Virginia and Kentucky came the first reforms of mine safety laws in 28 years. These tragedies brought together leaders from the mining industry, from government, and from the labor unions, and helped to forge a commitment to improve mine safety. I traveled to the Sago mine with Senators Kennedy, Rockefeller, and Isakson. We met with the families of the miners who lost their lives. We met with other miners who worked there, and we met with people in the union. I felt a commitment to those families and miners in this country to try to ensure that this would never happen again.

The committee approved the MINER Act on May 17, and the President signed the bill in June. That has to be one of the fastest, most comprehensive changes to any safety law. I can't emphasize enough the cooperation of unions and company executives, and Republicans and Democrats.

Protecting the health and safety of those who work in the mining industry need not be a partisan issue. Mining, and coal mining in particular, is vital to our national and local economies, and to national energy security. Ensuring the safety of our miners is essential to protecting and preserving the industry and protecting the workers. I especially thank Senators Kennedy, Isakson, Byrd, Rockefeller, and McConnell for the tireless effort they extended. Their efforts contributed in large part to this proposal becoming law.

I should mention that the debate on the Senate floor was 1 hour equally divided with two votes. So nobody saw that. Nobody saw that debate, but it makes a significant difference for all the people in the country--the mining bill. You never saw any debate on the floor. It passed unanimously without debate. It passed in the House under suspension with limited debate--the same bill.

Sometimes the things that get done by unanimous consent that everybody agrees on nobody ever finds out about, except the people it does benefit; they know. That is why it is worth doing it that way. For a bill that has objections around here, there are ways to overcome it if you get 60 votes for it. But that is usually about a 3-week process. A unanimous consent doesn't use up much time, but it gets things done.

The committee has also made tremendous strides related to education and job training. This session the

HELP Committee initiated a comprehensive effort to authorize legislation that enhances knowledge and skills and helps American workers become leaders in the global economy. Some estimates suggest that 60 percent of the jobs created in the next decade will require skills that only 20 percent of the workers today currently possess, and 80 percent of the jobs will require education or training beyond high school. Eighty percent of the jobs will require education or training beyond high school. That is where the world is going. It is changing fast.

One important component of this effort is the reauthorization of the Carl Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. It was signed by the President in August, and it will help close the gap that threatens America's long-term competitiveness. The act addresses the needs of the Nation's changing workforce and prepares Americans for highly technical, higher-paying jobs. The reauthorization also made changes that will increase accountability at the State and local levels and will establish stronger links with businesses to build partnerships with high schools and colleges so they can better meet the needs of the changing workforce.

For many people, participation in these programs can mean the difference between a job with no possibility of advancement and a successful career. Passage of this legislation was a significant accomplishment. Again, limited floor debate, no debate on the conference report; unanimous consent across the aisle.

Another piece of this comprehensive effort is the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. As my colleagues know, the mandatory portions of the higher education law were reauthorized in February under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006. Before I elaborate, I want to stress that it is critical to reauthorize the remaining discretionary programs under the act, which I intend to make a top priority for 2007. We have the bill out of committee but haven't had the floor time to do the debate on it. I am making that a top priority for 2007 because postsecondary education is the key to the future success of our students, our communities, and our economy.

As I stated earlier, we reauthorized the mandatory components of the Higher Education Act through the budget reconciliation process. We found over $20 billion in savings by eliminating corporate subsidies for lenders and reworking the interest rate structure for many borrowers, among other revisions. A portion of the savings was used to pay for over $9 billion in enhanced students benefits. The law makes higher education more affordable for students who finance part of their education through loans by reducing borrow origination fees and increasing loan limits.

Another benefit is a $4 billion grant program for postsecondary students who major in science, math, and certain national-security- related foreign languages. These funds are dubbed ``SMART grants'' and are an important part of making higher education more affordable for low- and middle-income families. We invested resources where we need them the most, which will help ensure we have a workforce that can compete globally.

I was in India earlier this year and saw firsthand what Thomas Friedman discusses in his book, ``The World Is Flat.'' It doesn't take long to figure out that by sheer numbers alone, India has only to educate 25 percent of its population to have more literate and educated people than the total population of the United States.

By using the reconciliation process for these higher education reforms, the HELP Committee was able to produce meaningful deficit reduction. In fact, I am proud the HELP Committee led the entire Congress in deficit reduction and produced $15.5 billion in savings over five years. That is 40 percent of the entire Deficit Reduction Act of 2006. It is not right to overspend now and pass the bill on to our children and grandchildren to pay later.

I thank Chairman Gregg for his leadership on the Budget Committee and for his contribution on the authorizing committee that helped make the meaningful deficit reduction a reality.

Enactment of the Perkins reauthorization and the mandatory revisions of the Higher Education Act were critical components of a comprehensive effort to strengthen knowledge and skills. However, this effort also includes the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. The reauthorization is essential because it will help train American workers to fill the good jobs being created so we can continue to be leaders in the global economy.

The reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act has been a priority of mine since I chaired the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety in the previous Congress. Last Congress, I worked tirelessly to report the legislation from the committee, only to be held up on the Senate floor when it came time to appoint conferees. Now, that means the bill made it out of committee and cleared the Senate floor. The House passed a different version, so we need a conference committee to resolve the differences. However, we weren't allowed to appoint a conference committee. That was 2 years ago. Mr. President, 900,000 new jobs could be trained under that program. This year, once again, I have been procedurally hamstrung in my efforts to move to conference. The bill must be completed. It made it out of the committee unanimously. It made it through the floor of the Senate, again unanimously. That means everybody agreed with what is in the bill. Now the only problem left is we have to reconcile that with what the House passed.

America is facing an economic challenge that threatens our ability as a nation to compete on the world stage. This bill sends a clear message that we are serious about helping our workers and our employers remain competitive and about closing the skills gap that is putting America's long-term competitiveness in jeopardy.

Our commitment to lifelong learning never ends. It begins with giving our children the proper tools for a start down the pathway that leads to their education. The committee approved improvements to Head Start this last year, and the completion of this process is one of my top priorities.

On the health front, eight committee bills were signed into law by President Bush. One of the most significant new health care laws is the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act. The new law is a culmination of 6 years of work in response to the Institute of Medicine's 1999 report that found that nearly 100,000 Americans die needlessly every year due to medical errors.

The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act creates a protected legal environment in which patient safety organizations can analyze why medical errors happen and develop strategies to stop those errors from happening again. The law provides critical legal protection for doctors, nurses, and other health care workers who might fear coming forward with information about mistakes because the information could be used in a lawsuit against them.

This new law is the first important step toward creating a new culture of safety and continuous quality improvement in health care.

This new law is one of just several important pieces of legislation the HELP Committee produced in this Congress. I would mention again that this too took zero debate time on the floor. Another one is the Patient Navigator Outreach and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of 2005, which will help patients with chronic diseases team up with health care experts who can help them find their way through the maze to the best treatment offered in this often complex health care system. Again, no floor debate time.

The Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 supports the creation and maintenance of cord blood stem cells. Stem cells obtained from umbilical cord blood have already shown great promise in treating cancers, leukemia, and other diseases, and this law will accelerate our work in those areas. I have already had people who have reported back to me that their life may have been saved by that particular act already. I think we had 5 minutes of debate time on that bill.

The National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act of 2005 enables physicians and other prescribers to find out whether patients are abusing and diverting narcotics and other dangerous drugs. Instead of enabling these patients and their self-destructive habits, physicians will now be able to identify them and treat them.

The State High Risk Pool Funding Extension Act of 2005 renewed a key law that funds State high-risk health insurance pools. These pools create access to health insurance for otherwise medically uninsurable individuals and are an important part of our strategy to make health insurance available to more Americans. The President also signed a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and strengthen the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Finally, we passed two key laws to preserve access to medical technology. The Medical Device User Fee Stabilization Act of 2005 prevented the FDA's medical device user fee program from expiring. Without this law, patients' access to the latest medical innovations would have been compromised. Congress also acted to protect children from dangerous, unregulated cosmetic lenses, often used as part of costumes, by providing for the regulation of these lenses as medical devices.

The HELP Committee members worked together with our House counterparts in a bipartisan, bicameral way to complete action on these laws. I personally thank all of the committee members on both ends of the building for their active participation in this process.

We also scored a victory on the Senate floor this summer related to health insurance. Together with Senators Nelson and Burns, I introduced legislation that would allow business and trade associations to band their members together in small business health plans and offer group health coverage on a national or statewide basis. It would give small businesses the capability to group together across State lines to effectively negotiate against big insurance companies. It would bring down insurance rate significantly, particularly in the area of administrative costs.

This legislation, the Health Insurance Marketplace and Modernization and Affordability Act, is a direct response to the runaway costs that are driving Americans and businesses away from the health insurance marketplace. In May, this legislation received 55 votes on the Senate floor--a clear majority. Unfortunately, obstructionists used arcane Senate rules requiring 60 votes for passage to defeat consideration of the bill. I count this as a victory for the HELP Committee because the policy is supported by the majority of the Senate. This will not be a victory for Americans until it is signed by the President.

Enacting the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act will be a top priority for the HELP Committee and me personally in the 110th Congress. I intend to act on this legislation early next year and continue to work across party lines to find the solution that produces 60 votes in the Senate. The HELP Committee has a role to play in making employer-sponsored health care more accessible and affordable. Employer-provided health insurance is voluntary, and it is in critical condition. Sixty percent of the country's employers offer insurance today. That is down 9 percent from just 5 years ago. And the cost of health insurance for companies has nearly doubled in that same period, with employers expected to pay an average of $8,167 per employee family versus $4,248 5 years ago. My proposal would provide health care coverage to over 1 million small businesses and their working families.

This fall, I am also hopeful the committee can add two more victories to our list of accomplishments. That would be the Health Information Technology conference agreement and the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act.

Right now, my staff is working aggressively with the House to complete action on the Wired For Health Care Quality Act conference agreement. This legislation will enhance the adoption of a nationwide interoperable health information technology system, improve the quality of health care, and contain costs. Primarily, it will allow each individual to own their own health care record and to carry it around with them easily. They will have the permanent record to carry with them and release, to the degree they want to, to any health care provider. This will contain costs: just between Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans, this is expected to save $160 billion a year. The cost to implement: $40 billion, one time. A good investment anywhere.

The committee has also been working in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion to complete the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act. The measure was approved by the HELP Committee in May, and I am hopeful that we can swiftly clear compromise legislation through both Chambers by December--I was hoping we could pass it today, but I see it has been stopped. It is absolutely essential that this clear by September 30.

The reauthorization of the Older Americans Act will also have a significant impact on the everyday lives of Americans. The HELP Committee approved this legislation in June, and I am hopeful we can complete action on it this year as well. This reauthorization is important because it ensures that our Nation's older Americans, including 78 million aging baby boomers, are healthy, fed, housed, able to get where they need to go, and safe from abuse and scams. We have been in bicameral, bipartisan deliberations for several months. Again, there is a little hangup on the funding formula. Money has to follow the people in all of these programs.

The committee also conducted various investigations and held several oversight hearings that exposed waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal programs and used the findings to craft legislation to increase accountability. Our first oversight hearing last year focused on how an asset management company, Capital Consultants, defrauded workers out of approximately $500 million in retirement assets. The findings from this oversight effort were addressed in the new pension law.

The committee also held the first oversight hearing in almost 70 years on the Randolph Sheppard Act and the Javits Wagner O'Day Act. Both programs are supposed to find employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The committee's investigation and hearing established that some executives were using the programs for their own enrichment--making millions while exploiting people with disabilities. Following the hearing, Federal law enforcement took action against the worst actors, and we have collaborated across party lines to systematically overhaul both programs. My goal is to address these programs with legislation next year.

I thank my ranking member, Senator Kennedy, and his staff for their hard work these past 2 years. His assistance and cooperation are the main reasons we have been able to accomplish many of these priorities. We didn't always agree, but we were able to identify common ground to advance our mutual priorities.

I also thank each of our committee members. As I stated earlier, we have kept a full schedule. Many of the legislative victories were initiatives brought to my attention by our subcommittee chairs or individual committee members. Senators were also especially diligent about attending the committee hearings and particularly patient when we sometimes waited for a quorum during executive session. For the remainder of the year, I will be reaching out to each of our members to seek feedback on the 2007 agenda, which will serve as the blueprint for the year.

Finally, in closing, I would like to recognize two departing members of the committee: Majority Leader Frist and Senator Jeffords. We are fortunate they chose to serve, and we are grateful for their contributions. Senator Jeffords is a past chairman of the committee, and, of course, Majority Leade Frist has been the doctor on the committee and provided a perspective no one else could. I am proud of the work we have done here on the committee these past 2 years. By working together, we have established a track record of success.

I also wish to compliment the subcommittee chairmen for their extremely hard work. We gave them a lot of independence, and they didn't disappoint me. They took hold of programs. The competitiveness program is one of them that has reached a point where it can now be debated and pursued. The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, did a tremendous job of working that bill, along with Senator Ensign, collaborating with three different committees on one piece of farsighted legislation.

Senators DeWine and Mikulski have done a marvelous job with the Elder Fall Act and Older Americans Act and have worked well together for a number of years across the aisle to make sure older Americans are taken care of.

I could go on and mention all of the subcommittees and the work they have done. Senator Burr has done some fantastic work on bioterrorism. He has put together a fantastic bill that contains new concepts which will allow better preparation for any of the possible terrorism acts that could happen on our own soil. Senator Isakson, of course, has been extremely active in handling labor issues. As I mentioned, he was a key player in the miner safety bill.

It has been an interesting year. I look forward to another interesting year. I am looking for suggestions from my colleagues on what needs to be done, and looking for that 80 percent that can be accomplished.

Our record of accomplishment is proof that we are a can-do Congress. Far from being a do-nothing Congress, we have shown our colleagues and our constituents that Congress can and is working hard to improve the lives of Americans.

One of the reasons America doesn't know more about this is because of the cooperation that has taken place. We didn't have to debate the 20 percent we didn't agree on here on the floor of the Senate, and consequently there was not a lot of coverage. But just the pensions bill and the miner safety bill, either of those, would be a major accomplishment for any committee during a 2-year period.

I am proud of the 12 bills the President signed and the 21 bills we got through this body. I think that is a record of accomplishment, and I thank all those who participated.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the chair.

Mental Health Parity Act

Mr. President, in just a few weeks while we are in recess, we will mark the fourth anniversary of the untimely death of our former colleague from Minnesota, Paul Wellstone. Paul Wellstone died at the age of 58 in an airplane crash about 4 years ago. Paul and his wife Sheila and daughter Marcia were on their way to a campaign event in Eveleth, MN on October 25, 2002 when their plane crashed in a wooded field 2 miles short of the airport. We mourn for the surviving children Mark and David and for the families of the campaign staffers, Will McLaughlin, Tom Lapic, and Mary McEvoy, and for the families of the pilots flying that fated aircraft.

Paul's tragic and premature death silenced one of the leading voices in America on the issue of mental illness. Paul Wellstone understood the devastation that mental illness can bring: the stigma, the alienation, the broken families and, sadly, even broken lives.

In 1992, together with Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Paul introduced legislation to require insurance companies to offer the same coverage for treating mental illness as for physical illness. The Mental Health Parity Act was passed and signed into law in 1996. The final version of the bill sadly was watered down and fell short of Paul's earliest goals.

A new bill to eliminate these disparities in insurance coverage was introduced in the last Congress. The Paul Wellstone Treatment Act attracted widespread bipartisan support: 69 Members of this Chamber and 245 Members of the House--a clear majority supporting Paul Wellstone's legacy. But unfortunately, during the past 2 years, this bill was not called for passage and did not pass.

Today I am honored to be joined by Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Tom Harkin, and Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota in submitting a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, first to remember Paul Wellstone and honor his legacy, but also to publicly commit to finishing his work on mental health equity legislation.

Mental health disorders are the leading cause of disability. Without treatment, the consequences of mental illness for the individual and for all of us are staggering: disability, unemployment, substance abuse, homelessness, inappropriate incarceration, suicide, and wasted lives. The economic costs of untreated mental illness is more than $100 billion each year in the United States. In my home State of Illinois, close to 4 million people, or 30 percent of the population, are affected by some form of mental illness each year, including depression. Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people 15 to 24. Seventy-seven percent of adults with severe mental illness are unemployed.

Now, the good news is this: Mental illness is treatable but only for the people who have access to sound diagnosis and care. We have a good start, thanks to the Mental Health Parity law that Senators Wellstone and Domenici led to enactment in 1996. Our next challenge is to build on the work Paul Wellstone left behind.

Current law requires insurers offer mental health care and offer comparable benefit caps for mental health and physical health, but it does not require group health plans and their health insurance issuers to include mental health coverage in their benefits package. It doesn't prevent insurers from setting higher deductibles, higher copays, and fewer services covered for mental health illness. I commend Senators Kennedy and Domenici for their work in this Congress on working toward a consensus for reaching mental health parity for Americans.

I called Senator Domenici last week to tell him I was submitting this resolution and to cheer him on so that during the next session of Congress we can give the right tribute to Paul Wellstone and, more importantly, as Paul would see it and I see it as well, hope to millions of Americans.

This resolution honors Paul Wellstone. It commits us to continuing his work to ensure equity for people with mental illness. Paul fought against discrimination in any form. His life work was dedicated to creating a world in which everyone, regardless of race, religion, economic status, or health or mental health status, would be treated fairly and equally. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and renew our commitment to ensuring mental health parity.

Paul Wellstone was often quoted as saying:

I don't think politics has anything to do with left, right,

or center. It has to do with trying to do right by the

people.

That was what Paul Wellstone said. And now we will have our chance in the next session of Congress to honor that commitment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I at the outset thank my colleague from Minnesota who was quick to join with his colleague Senator Dayton as a cosponsor of this resolution.

Many times politics divides us, but when it comes to an issue such as mental illness, we are all in this together. I know my colleague from Minnesota has probably had the same experience I had, of raising this issue at a town meeting or a public meeting, and then I almost guarantee you that before you leave that hall, someone will come up to you and ask if they can speak to you privately to tell you the story of a child or a spouse who has bipolar disorder or schizophrenia or who has committed suicide. It touches so many of us. What Paul Wellstone was trying to remind us of is that mental illness is not a curse, it is an illness, and an illness that can be treated. Why shouldn't we include it in our health insurance for Americans so that every family can be spared the suffering that comes with mental illness today.

I thank my colleague from Minnesota for joining me on this resolution.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, I would like to say by way of question through the Chair that I thank my colleague from Minnesota. I can recall when he first came to the Senate serving with our mutual friend, Paul Wellstone. It must have been tough to be that close to a dynamo. The man had boundless energy and committed to so many good causes.

The Senator from Minnesota has carried on the fine tradition for your State. I thank the Senator for joining us in this resolution.

Hope springs eternal, and maybe during the lame duck session Senator Kennedy and Senator Domenici will be able to give us some good news that will make us proud on this important issue.

I thank the Senator for his words today.

Mr. President, this morning one of my Republican colleagues came to the floor to talk about what appears to be the favorite topic of most Republican Senators: the estate tax. No matter what we are talking about on the floor, whether it is immigration reform, making America safe from terrorism, dealing with issues involving the funding for our troops, port security, without fail, you can count on one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying to wedge in to this queue with what many of them consider to be at least equally important: the issue of the estate tax.

So my colleague came to the floor and mentioned my name over and over again as if I were his opponent. I would say to my colleague there are many Senators who disagree with his position, but I will be happy to address it for a moment or two.

The simple fact is this: If an American and a spouse have assets valued at less than $2 million at the time of their death, they will never pay one penny in estate taxes--not one. So if you ask who benefits from this repeal of the estate tax, well, sadly it turns out to be some of the wealthiest people in America. If you took 1 percent-- that is 1 out of 100--estates in America, people who die each year, only one-fourth of those will ever pay any estate tax. It is a very small number of people who have done very well in their lives in America who may end up paying estate tax.

I want my position to be clear. There is an exemption under the estate tax, an exempt amount that you can leave to your heirs, that will not be taxed. I think we need to increase that and regularly increase it to reflect reality. It is true, the real estate we own has gone up in value while we have lived there, businesses have increased in value, farms have increased in value, and I think the exemption should be increased as well.

Where I have a problem is where we have people who are very well off--multimillionaires--who end up owing the Government--in fact, owing their country--something for their success, and they will be left in a position with the proposal from the other side of the aisle where they may have no estate tax liability whatsoever.

The majority leader of the Senate, Senator Frist, has said he is for total repeal of the estate tax--total repeal so that Mr. Bill Gates of Microsoft, who has done so well and made so much money, would pay nothing back to America by way of estate tax when he passes away. Well, Mr. Gates is not asking for that. Many people who are well off are not asking for that. They understand this country has been very good to them, and they are also prepared to pay back so that future generations have a chance to succeed as well.

My colleague came to the floor and talked about farmers and is concerned about farmers. I am from downstate Illinois. A few years ago, after hearing all of the debate about estate taxes, I wrote to the Illinois Farm Bureau, the Illinois Farmers Union, and asked them: Tell me of any farm that you know of where the farmer's survivors had to sell the farm because of paying Federal estate tax. There was not one single instance in my State. They couldn't find one. Now, I understand some of those farmers may have to sell off a portion of their land or some of their acreage to pay their taxes at the time that the spouse finally passes away. But as far as losing farms, that is something that is said over and over again, but neither the Illinois Farm Bureau, the Farmers Union and, in fact, the American Farm Bureau could find a single example of a family being forced to sell its farm because of estate tax liability.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, only 123 family-owned farms and 135 family-owned businesses would pay any estate tax at all with a $2 million family exemption level.

So we often have to stop and wonder why are we dwelling on this or why are some Members of the Senate continuing to dwell on this. If their sympathy is for those who are struggling to survive in America, they should focus their spotlight not on the wealthiest among us but those who are struggling at lower levels.

Let's take a look at some of the realities, the economic realities in America today. This chart shows what has happened over the last 6 years. The minimum wage has been frozen under President Bush and this Republican Congress for 9 years. During that 9-year period of time, the President's pay has been increased substantially, pay for Members of Congress increased $31,600, and the $5.15 an hour minimum wage has not gone up.

It is always interesting to me that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to think that it is fine for those making the lowest wages in America, some of them working very hard each day, to have no increase in their pay for 9 straight years, while they are struggling to make ends meet. They come to the floor and talk to us about those who have made millions of dollars in their lives and whether they will have to pay any taxes. I think it is a misplaced priority.

If we take a look at some of the real household income of Americans across the board, you can see what has happened from 2000 to 2005. Real household income has declined by $1,273. It means the average family, working hard, paying off the costs of living--utilities and mortgages, energy costs, education costs--is working harder and falling behind each and every year.

Our economic policies in this country really are not focused where they should be. We should be focusing on this middle-income American family that is struggling to make ends meet in a very difficult time.

The distribution of wealth in America has changed substantially over the last several years. The distribution of earnings has become even more unequal. When you look at this situation, you see the years between 1995 and 2000 with a violet color, 2000 to 2005 with the red. So in the year 1995 to 2000, the last term of President Clinton, you can see there was an increase in earnings, weekly earnings for full- time workers, across the board. All of these violet bars above show, for example, a 9.6-percent increase, a 7.4-percent increase. So in that 4-year period of time, we had the distribution of earnings increasing.

Now look at the period of time under President Bush. During that time period, in each of these categories of income in America, we have seen that earnings have been declining or rising very slowly, as they are at the highest levels of income in America

Take a look at the wealth as well under the tax breaks given under this administration the last several years. This is the Bush economic record: a $38,000 tax break for people who are making $1 million a year, but for middle-income families making $50,000 to $100,000, their tax break under the Bush administration has been $55, and for those in the lowest income categories a tax break of $6.

You can see where the priorities have been when it comes to taxes. But ask the average family making about $100,000 a year--let's take that as an example. Let's take someone who is a teacher and whose spouse may work part time, bringing in some income to the family, and together they make $100,000 a year. They have raised their kids and spent good money sending them to school. Then the kids apply to college. The families are inundated with a stack of forms--most families have seen them--to apply for student loans and students grants. Those making about $100,000 a year will find it difficult to apply for any financial assistance. So the students, their sons and daughters who finally got into the school of their dreams, may face an unconscionable debt.

Some students put off their education. Some give up on the best schools. Some go on to school and graduate with a mountain of debt, a mountain of debt which was made worse this year when, on July 1, a law signed by President Bush increased the interest rates on student loan debts by 2 percent. It doesn't sound like much, except it means the payback for that student loan has now been increased by 20 percent over the life of the loan. It means these students, borrowing money to go to school, deeper in debt, will now be paying off their student loan debt into their 50s. Imagine that student graduating today--23, 24 years

old, maybe--looking ahead to 20 or 30 years of paying off student loan debt. Finally, in their early 50s, they have paid it all off, and now they have a few years to contemplate their retirement.

What is wrong with that picture? What is wrong is students and families in middle-income circumstances are bearing this burden, and this burden is increasing, as I will show, as the cost of college education increases. So instead of talking about a $38,000 tax break for someone who makes $1 million a year, we believe on this side of the aisle that we should allow the deductibility of college education expenses. If you can deduct the amount of interest you pay on your home to encourage home ownership, why shouldn't a family be able to deduct some of the costs of college education from their tax expenses so we can encourage students to go on, further their education, and make this a better country? It is a question of tax priorities: on one side of the aisle, estate tax relief for those in the highest income categories; on this side of the aisle, we are talking about relief when it comes to tax deduction for the real cost of college education expenses.

Most of the families I represent in Illinois were quick to tell me, during the August break, how bad gasoline prices were. We know in the last 5 years they have increased 104 percent. They started coming down in the Midwest, but I think there is a false sense of security here. A lot of people were sacrificing to put more gasoline in the car, but we still don't have a national energy policy, and there is no guarantee that a few weeks from now those gasoline prices will not go back up again because we have no bargaining power.

We are so dependent on foreign oil today that we can't say to those who gouge us and those who want to really charge us the most that there is anything we will do about it. And this administration has not really called the oil company executives in, Exxon and others, to explain the absolutely unprecedented level of profits they took as the gasoline prices went up. That industry made more money more quickly than any industry in America, and they reached higher profit levels than any industry had recorded previously. Yet this administration sat back and said w can do nothing about it as Americans and families and businesses and farmers paid the price. As the cost of gasoline goes up, as prices have in the last several months, families have faced that sacrifice. Now comes the heating oil season for many, and that may again increase the cost of expenses for these families.

Take a look at what has happened as well when it comes to family health insurance premiums under this administration. Family health insurance premiums have increased 71 percent in the last 5 years. That means the average premium for family health insurance went from $6,348 when President Bush took office to $10,880. Is it any wonder families are feeling the squeeze? These premium increases, of course, translate into another $300 or $400 each month that a family has to come up with just to have the same health insurance as last year and maybe less coverage.

Have we discussed expanding health insurance or making it more affordable on the floor of the Senate? Only once and just for a few days. I salute Senator Enzi, Republican from Wyoming, chairman of the HELP Committee, for bringing a health insurance proposal to the floor. We had another proposal here. We tried, if we could, to work out something ahead of time to have a bipartisan approach. We didn't get it done. I hope that in the next Congress, we can find a way to bring real relief on a bipartisan basis to families that are struggling with these health insurance premiums.

I mentioned earlier the cost of education and student loans. This graph shows what has happened under this administration since the President took office with regard to the increased costs of college. They have gone up

$3,688, the average annual cost of a public 4-year college, tuition, fees, room, and board. So there was a 44-percent increase in just this 5-year period of time under this administration, increase in college cost. Again, wouldn't our Tax Code be more sensible if we helped families pay this difference, if we helped them put their kids through college to get a good degree and a good life and contribute to this country? Wouldn't that be a higher priority in terms of our Tax Code than whether Bill Gates is going to end up being excused from paying an estate tax when he passes away?

There is also a concern as well with retirement plans. Take a look at what has happened in the last 5 years. In the last 5 years, 3.7 million fewer Americans have retirement plans. The number of workers with employer-sponsored retirement plans has gone down from 56.2 million to 52.5 million, which means more vulnerability.

A lot of people who had paid into a retirement plan through the course of their work experience believed that they had paid their dues, taken the money out of their check every week, and that the day would come and they would see it, that they would finally get to retire and relax. Then came mergers and consolidations and corporate sleight of hand and legal work, and the next thing you know a lot of these pensions started disappearing. So many families are concerned, concerned about when or if they can retire.

You read the stories in the paper all the time in Illinois and every other State about those who had their future plans wrecked when they lost their pension benefits. It has happened at the airlines. It has happened in so many industries across our country. We know it makes a real difference in life. A lot of people who thought they would be spending their time worrying about where to go fishing now are acting as greeters at stores around America and trying to find part-time jobs just to keep it together.

We need to do something about retirement in this country, and one thing we do not need to do is privatize Social Security. Privatizing Social Security is, of course, supported by the President but not by the American people. They know the math doesn't work. Taking money out of the Social Security trust fund for people to experiment with their investments is going to weaken that fund unfortunately. They will be unable to make the payments our Social Security retirees need. If there is ever a time when we need Social Security to be strong, it is now, as we see fewer and fewer Americans with retirement plans.

The number of Americans without health insurance has gone up dramatically under this administration, from 39.8 million Americans with no health insurance to 46.6 million Americans. Those who are insured will tell you many times that their health insurance is not very good. They come up to me at town meetings in Illinois and talk about frightening scenarios where someone in their family had a serious illness, a diagnosis, and then when they tried to pay off the medical bills, it turns out the health insurance fought them all the way. These health insurance companies are spending a lot less on care and a lot more on battles with the people who have the health insurance, denying coverage whenever they can. So we have to really get back to this issue as part of the priorities of this Congress. I am sorry that this Republican Congress has not really come up with assistance that many of these Americans need with health insurance

Overall, as we go through this litany, you can understand as you go through this litany why this next chart is where it is today. In the last 5 years, under this administration, household debt has gone up over $26,000. Because Americans are struggling to make ends meet, because the cost of college and health care and gasoline and heating your home has gone up dramatically, Americans have had to borrow more and more just to keep up. They are right on the edge, trying to pay off very expensive credit card debt.

There has been a 35-percent increase in household debt in the last 5 years for the reasons I mentioned earlier, from an average inflation- adjusted debt per household of $75,000 to over $101,000. This debt is hanging over the heads of many Americans, and if there is any rock in the road that Americans families trip over--if someone gets sick, loses a job, a divorce, something unforeseen--they are going to find themselves then facing default on their debt and even higher interest rates.

While this has been going on for the average American, employee compensation has gone down some 4.6 percent. So while all the debts have been

piling up, the compensation that is being given to individuals has been going down. Meanwhile, corporate profits are up 8 percentage points. So we can see that the share of corporate income going to profits and employee compensation has gone in opposite directions, and those directions do not benefit those families that are struggling to get by.

Those who run the corporations are doing quite well, thank you. In the last 5 years, the pay for the chief executive officers of major corporations in America has gone up over $1.6 million individually. This average pay here of $5.2 million when the President took office is now up to $6.8 million. So while the pay for employees is going down and expenses are going up, in the boardrooms the median CEO compensation has gone up substantially.

When you take a look at the tax cuts under this administration, their economic record, tax cuts are over 150 times larger for millionaires than they are for most households in America. So we gave the tax cuts of $103,000 for those in the highest income levels and $684 for those making less than $100,000 a year. So the so-called tax cut program has not really helped those families struggling the hardest.

What has happened to employment, creation of jobs in America, is illustrated by this chart. We have seen the average annual growth rate of nonfarm employment in America under every President. You have to go back to Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression to see a decline of 6 percent in employment in America. You will see the lowest number of any President since Herbert Hoover has been registered by this administration, in the creation of jobs. That is the average annual growth rate of nonfarm employment. It is the slowest job growth in America in over 70 years.

The other sad reality is, while all of these things have taken place, this represents the famous wall of debt which Senator Conrad of North Dakota has brought to our attention over and over again. When President Bush took office, our national debt was $5.8 trillion. Today, it is over $8.5 trillion--a dramatic increase in America's debt in a 6-year period of time. With policies which this administration supports and many on the other side have been arguing for, we can see America's debt reaching $11.6 trillion in 2011. So in a 10-year period of time, we will have virtually doubled--not quite but almost doubled--the debt of America, which means we are leaving a burden for our children, a burden with which they will have to deal--a burden with which they will have to deal as we see more and more baby boomers in Social Security and Medicare. As we see fewer people working, those who remain in the workforce will not only have to face their own personal challenges economically, but they will have to deal with the debt that we are leaving behind.

If this is fiscal conservatism, I don't understand the meaning of the term.

Why is it that we have reached this point? Sadly, the economy is not going as planned. We are facing a war which costs between $1.5 billion and $3 billion every week, and the other side continues to come to the floor and ask for something that no administration has ever asked for in the history of the United States--a tax cut in the midst of a war. That is what the Senator from this morning was suggesting. He wants to cut the estate tax. By cutting the estate tax there will be less revenue for our Government, the war will continue, and our debt will grow. These numbers will have to be adjusted upwards for the debt we are going to leave our children.

Yesterday we had a hearing with the Democratic Policy Conference to discuss the war in Iraq. We had two generals and a Marine Corps colonel who spoke to us. They spoke on a lot of things that we need to do to make America safer and make sure we win this war in Iraq. But one thing that MG John Batiste said I really thought was important. He said--and I think we all believe--that America can rise to a challenge. America can meet a challenge. We have done it so many times in our history. We have won wars when we were not expected to. We put a man on the Moon when a lot of people scoffed at that possibility. We developed medical breakthroughs which no one would have dreamed of. We led the world in computer technology development and in so many areas one by one. Whether it was in agricultural production or in industrial development or innovation we have led the world. We have led the world because leaders have stepped forward--a President has stepped forward and challenged us and said we need to stick together, we need to work together to reach the goal.

General Batiste said yesterday--and I paraphrase his actual testimony, but I believe what he said. He said that what we need to be reminded of is we can meet any challenge as a nation. We need to be reminded, as well, if we are challenged and work together, we can win this war on terrorism. And he said it is going to involve sacrifice. It is not the first time Americans have been asked to sacrifice. They have done that many times. I believe that spirit of sacrifice is what is needed to make sure we keep America safe from terrorism and safe from other threats.

I see that Senator Ensign has come to the floor. I don't know whether he wishes to take the floor at this time. But I mentioned his name earlier. I commended him for bringing the health insurance issue to the floor. I hope in the next session that we can work together to try to find some bipartisan compromise to deal with this health insurance challenge. It is still out there and getting more challenging every day. Senator Enzi of Wyoming, as Republican chair of the committee, may have been the first one to bring the health issue to the floor of the Senate in the 10 years I have been here. I commend him for that.

Although we didn't see eye to eye on all of that, I hope we come back together and sit down and try to find some common bipartisan approach no matter who is in charge of the Senate in the next session.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Well, let me thank my colleague from Florida for that eloquent and accurate statement and assessment of where we are here.

And, Madam Speaker, let me thank my friend from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 7 minutes.

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

Madam Speaker, millions of Americans who work in the private sector are relying on having an employer-sponsored pension plan when they retire. An important part of the American dream is to have a nest egg that people can tap into during their golden years so that they are not forced to literally work until they die. American workers have fought for and earned the right to pay into a pension system that will provide an income once they retire. Unfortunately, there are serious problems with America's private pension system.

Madam Speaker, pension security is an important issue, one indeed which should be addressed by this Congress, but pension security must be addressed in the right way and it deserves to be addressed in a democratic way.

Bankruptcies in the airlines, steel, and the auto parts industries, for example, are straining the abilities of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or the PBGC, to guarantee the private pensions of workers in these industries. The PBGC was created as an insurance system for America's private pension plans. It exists to make sure that America's workers will receive a pension when they retire, even if the company they work for cannot pay that pension.

Now, while there are real problems in some industries, like the steel industry, there are also serious cases of pension dumping, where a corporation claims it cannot fulfill its obligations and dumps its pension onto the PBGC. The net effect is a real strain on the PBGC and ultimately a crisis in the pension system.

The PBGC is an insurance policy for America's workers. It is a safety net should a company not be able to pay its pension obligations. But it is not supposed to be a dumping ground for corporations who want to boost their bottom line and just do not feel like paying the pensions they promised their workers. It is this looming crisis in America's pension system that brings us here today.

Now, no one believes we should sit and wait while America's pension system crashes around us, but we need to address this problem in the right way, and regrettably, Madam Speaker, the Pension Protection Act the Republicans have concocted is not the right way.

Mr. Boehner, one of the authors of this bill, told the Rules Committee yesterday that this bill is tough medicine. What he did not say is that it is tough medicine for America's workers. Madam Speaker, this bill will have a real effect on millions of Americans' lives and on the quality of their lives as they grow older.

The fact is that this bill that Chairman Thomas and Chairman Boehner have brought before us will make the problem worse, not better. This is the wrong prescription for what ails America's pension system. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the PBGC estimate that the Pension Protection Act will actually lead to an increase in pension plan terminations and an increase in the PBGC's liabilities by billions of dollars. Clearly, that simply cannot be what anyone in this Chamber really wants.

The goal should be to enact legislation that guarantees workers their full pensions. Instead, passage of this bill will allow corporations to turn their backs on their loyal employees and shirk the responsibilities they face to provide a real pension to their employees.

There exists in this country a culture of corporate corruption, where companies like Enron and WorldCom squander billions of dollars in retirement funds, and this legislation does not do anything, nothing, to fix that.

Congressman George Miller, a strong champion of the American worker and working families, recently released a report entitled: Broken Promises--America's Pension Plans At Risk. This report shows that pension plans are underfunded by $450 billion; that the PBGC is $23 billion in the red, with more obligations coming in every day, and that the current pension and bankruptcy laws allow companies to dump their unwanted pension obligations on to the PBGC. Proving that this bill makes things worse and not better, the report documents that the Boehner-Thomas bill could, and I quote, ``cause as many as half of all large pension plans to freeze benefits.''

Ranking Member Miller, along with Ranking Member on the Ways and Means Committee Rangel, have an answer. They have crafted a substitute that actually protects workers' pensions. The substitute also reforms the bankruptcy laws so that corporations cannot hide behind bankruptcy in order to dump their pension obligations onto the PBGC.

In addition, the Miller-Rangel bill addresses a serious inequity where rank and file pension plans are at risk of being dumped onto the PBGC but somehow the corporate executives continue to receive golden parachutes. A CEO should not receive millions of dollars in bonuses and other incentives if they have terminated the pension plan for their rank-and-file workers.

Now, I am sure my friends on the other side of the aisle will boast about how their legislation they have crafted is fabulous. I disagree, but I respect their right to have their say and to have their views debated. Those of us on this side of the aisle believe we have a better approach, one that is fair to millions of Americans and their families who get up every morning, put in a hard day's work and are the very backbone of America's economy and our communities.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, we will not have an opportunity to present our proposal. The Republicans on the Rules Committee late last night said, no, an alternative viewpoint will not be tolerated, cannot be presented to the Members of this House, and it certainly will not be debated and voted on on this floor.

Apparently, the Republican definition of democracy is my way or the highway. They have decided that the United States House of Representatives is really not a deliberative body, it is a place that does not respect differing viewpoints, and it is unreasonable to have a full and open debate on an issue as important as pension protection.

Last night, Chairman Boehner, to his credit, said he had no problem with Democrats having an ability to offer a substitute. So what happened? I will tell you what happened. The Republican leadership, in yet another display of arrogance and disrespect, decided to close the process, to gag us, to use the Rules Committee as a weapon to stifle debate. Once again the Rules Committee is where democracy comes to die.

Now, let me say, with all due respect to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it is the majority that is responsible for creating a climate in this House that is devoid of bipartisanship and civility. It is beyond my comprehension why the majority would deliberately choose to shut us out of being able to offer an alternative.

This is not the House of only Republicans, this is the people's House, where serious issues should be debated and voted on. This rule is anti-democratic, this rule is closed, and this rule should be defeated.

Broken Promises--America's Pension Plans at Risk: Independent Analysis

Finds That Republican Plan Makes Pension Crisis Worse

Broken Promises Put Millions of Americans' Pensions at Risk

Americans are worried sick about their retirement nest-egg,

and they are demanding decisive action by Congress. They saw

what happened at Enron and WorldCom and at other companies--

where billions of hard earned investments by employees

disappeared forever in only months due to corporate fraud and

mismanagement.

Today employees and retirees are watching as some employers

like United and USAir have rushed to dump their pension

promises onto the taxpayer and other employers, at the

expense of employees and retirees who face billions in

uninsured pension promises. Traditional pension plans, once

the sturdy pillar of retirement security, are very much at

risk unless Congress takes immediate action.

Here are the serious warning signs that threaten our

nation's pension plans:

Pension plans are now underfunded by $450 billion, up over

1,000% since 2000.

The agency that insures traditional pension plans (the

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation) is $23 billion in the

red, and is facing billions more in possible claims from

companies such as Delta Airlines, Delphi, and Northwest

Airlines.

Pension and bankruptcy laws allow companies to dump their

unwanted pension promises onto the PBGC, leaving taxpayers,

employees and retirees to foot the bill.

Like the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s, taxpayers

are at risk of having to pay billions of dollars due to

broken promises, this time by company-sponsored pension

plans.

Many employees and retirees face severe reductions in their

promised pension benefits as their plans are turned over to

the federal government, or frozen by companies when their

sponsor falls behind in their obligation to fund promised

benefits.

Employees are blindsided when their plan is dumped onto the

federal government because they are not provided up-to-date

information on the real financial condition of their pension

plan.

Employees and retirees in such cases are not only cheated

out of promised pension benefits, but sometimes suffer

further injury and insult by company executives who cut their

own sweetheart golden parachute deals.

Now Delta and Northwest are in bankruptcy and very well

could dump their pension plans onto the PBGC. According to

the PBGC, Delta Airlines is underfunded by $10.6 billion. The

PBGC loss would be $8.4 billion, and the employees and

retirees would lose $2.2 billion in promised benefits.

Northwest Airlines is $5.7 billion underfunded. The PBGC loss

would be $2.8 billion, and the employee loss even greater--

$2.9 billion. And now more dominos are falling. Delphi Auto

Parts has filed for bankruptcy--the largest such filing in

the history of the auto industry. According the PBGC, the

Delphi claim on the PBGC would be $4.1 billion. The hit on

employees--estimated over $10 billion in uninsured losses--

would be the largest ever. That tops the $6 billion in worker

losses that PBGC estimates occurred from its 4 previous

largest pension plan terminations.

Republican Proposal Actually Makes Pension Crisis Worse, Not Better

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the

Republican House Bill (H.R. 2830) passed by the Education and

Workforce Committee and Ways and Means Committee would

increase the PBGC's red ink by $9 billion over the next ten

years. The PBGC also analyzed the House bill and found it

would increase the agency's deficit bill billions more than

current law projections. Specifically, it found that

Republican House bill would permit pension sponsors to slash

required contributions by $75 billion over the next ten years

compared to contributions required under current law. The

PBGC's 35 page study released on October 26, 2005 analyzed

detailed information of 400 pension plans, representing 50%

of the liabilities and underfunding in the pension system.

The Republican proposal could cause as many as half of all

large pension plans to freeze benefits. The PBGC estimates

that more than 50% of a sample of large pension plans would

either have to freeze some or all benefits if the Republican

proposal's benefit limitation provisions had been in effect

(based on the Administration's most recent data.) The

limitations would prevent benefit increases and lump sum

payments for all affected plans, and prohibit future benefit

accruals by the most underfunded plans.

H.R. 2830 fails to reform pensions in several other

respects. The bill fails to stop companies from dumping their

obligations on to the federal government, fails to provide

employees with accurate information on the

financial condition of pension plans, fails to stop

executives from cutting and running with their own

sweetheart pension deal while slashing employee pensions,

fails to protect older employees when a company converts

to ``cash balance'' plans, permits conflicted investment

advice, and punishes employees for plan underfunding by

curtailing benefits.

Democrats Fight to Save and Strengthen Traditional Pension Plans

Democrats are fighting to save and strengthen pension plans

by: Stopping companies like United from dumping their

unwanted pension promises onto the taxpayers and employees.

Because the Congress didn't lift a finger to stop United from

unloading its pension plan, we have a new group of companies

ready to dump and run. The government should not be a cookie

jar for companies who failed to keep their fiduciary promise

to set aside funds for their employee pension plans.

Requiring pension plans to follow a clear and fair plan to

restore their pension funds. The pension bills going through

Congress right now actually make underfunding worse according

to the Congressional Budget Office and the PBGC government

pension insurance agency.

Requiring pension plans to give employees accurate, up-to-

date information on their pension plans financial condition.

Employees should never have to wake up one morning and read

in the papers that their pension plan has failed. Today,

sponsors of pension plans are permitted to keep two sets of

books, one set of books make available to the public and one

set of more accurate books that is kept secret by the federal

government.

Prohibiting company executives in charge of underfunded

pension plans from entering into sweetheart retirement deals

while they're moving to dump their employees pension plan on

to the taxpayers.

Conclusion

Millions of Americans have worked hard to earn the

retirement promised by their company. Without urgent,

decisive action by Congress, millions of Americans face the

loss of billions in irreplaceable like savings due to the

broken promises of their plan sponsor. The Republican answer

to this crisis is to hasten the unraveling of pension plans

by allowing companies to skip out on over $75 billion in

contributions over the next 10 years, and increasing PBGC's

red ink by billions of dollars. At the same time, Republicans

are refusing to stop companies from dumping their unwanted

pension promises onto the PBGC at the expense of taxpayers,

employees, and other employers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we will have an opportunity to debate the substance of this bill, I guess not only during the rule but afterwards, but I am still kind of baffled as to why this bill has to be brought to the floor under a closed rule, why the ranking Democrats on the committee of jurisdiction could not even be given the courtesy of being allowed to offer an alternative. This is unbelievable to me, that a bill of this importance would come to the floor and we are entirely shut out.

And speaking of being shut out, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) had four amendments to be brought before the Rules Committee. He waited patiently and testified before the Rules Committee. Four good amendments, and all four of those were dismissed routinely as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia just gave a nice speech, but nobody on that side has explained why on this very important issue that the Democrats and people with alternative views should be entirely locked out from participating in amending this bill. This is an outrage.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

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

Madam Speaker, once again, we heard an interesting speech but no explanation as to why we have to bring this bill to the floor under a closed process and why we are shut out from even offering an alternative.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

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

The gentleman from Indiana tells us we should all be happy because the Education Committee deliberated on this and there were votes in that committee. I should remind the gentleman that there are 49 members of the Education Committee. There are 435 Members of the House of Representatives.

The gentleman gets all upset when Mr. Miller talks about the fact that it is important for us to be an example to Iraq about what democracy is, and that there are elections in Iraq and, you know, here we are engaged in an undemocratic process here today. But I will say this. At least in Iraq everyone has an opportunity to vote. Here we are being denied an opportunity deliberately on this floor on an issue that impacts millions and millions of our fellow citizens. This is an outrage. You know, I am amazed that people on the other side, who only a few years back would decry a closed process like this, have now come to embrace this process. This has become the norm in this House, and it has to stop. This is not democracy. This is not a deliberative process. This is a closed process where legitimate, important debate on important issues is being denied routinely.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Let me just again say to the gentleman from South Carolina who just spoke, what we are asking for here is an opportunity to offer what we think is best. We disagree with you. We disagree with your approach. Not only do we disagree with your approach, the AARP disagrees with your approach.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous problems with this bill. This bill, as Republicans have drafted it, makes the pension crisis worse. This bill would cause many employers to freeze or terminate pensions. This bill does nothing to protect the struggling American Continental, Delta, and Northwest Airline employees and retirees. This bill does not stop companies from dumping pension plans in bankruptcy or protect the United Airline employees and retirees. The bill would freeze and cut worker pension benefits. The bill does not ensure fairness between workers and executives. I mean, I could go on and on and on.

The bottom line is that many of us who have been on the side of workers consistently have deep concerns about this bill and what its impact will be on working families. We think that this bill should not only be much better, but, in fact, this bill, as it stands, will

be harmful to American families. And there will be a debate about that, but absent from the debate will be what we want to propose, what others in this House want to propose, what other ideas may be.

Let me just say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that you are not perfect. You are not always right. In fact, you are usually wrong. And when it comes to workers, you are usually wrong, in protecting workers' rights. To allow a bill this important to come to the floor without a single amendment being made in order, to allow this bill to come to the floor and shut us out and gag us is unconscionable.

For the life of me, I cannot understand what the hesitation is by the leadership on that side of the aisle to allow us to be able to deliberate on this bill, to have a give and take, to be able to offer an amendment, to be able to have an up-or-down vote.

The distinguished chairman of the Education Committee, when he was before the Rules Committee last night, said he had no problem with our offering an alternative. I commend him for that. I mean, that is the way this should be. We disagree. We have honest disagreements. We should be able to work them out in a deliberative way on the House floor. But here we are on a bill that impacts millions and millions of Americans, a bill that we believe adversely impacts millions of Americans, and we are totally shut out of this. It is not because of lack of time. We have plenty of time today. And the immigration bill seems all messed up; so we even have more time than we thought. But the fact of the matter is this important kind of legislation should not come to the floor under a closed process. This is outrageous. This has become the norm in this House.

And I would simply say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, someday the tables are going to turn. You are going to be in the minority again, hopefully sooner rather than later. I hope nobody over there cries and shouts and complains if a bill comes to the floor under a closed rule.

Defeat this rule.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I can say why do you bring most of the bills that you bring to the floor that I think adversely impact American workers, from repealing worker protections and worker benefits.

Mr. 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.