A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish fairness in the treatment of certain pension plans maintained by churches, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to fix an unfortunate application of our current pension rules on church pension beneficiaries.

Church pensions are critically important compensation plans that help support over a million clergy members across the country in their retirement, particularly those who dedicated their careers to serving in economically disadvantaged congregations.

Some of these plans date back to the 18th Century, and they are designed to ensure that our pastors and lay staff who are often paid lower salaries have adequate resources during their retirement years.

Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Code impedes the ability of church pensions to recognize these valuable contributions to society with provisions that negatively impact church plans while exempting other equally important plans.

For example, Section 415(b)(1)(B) of the Code limits benefits for a retired church employee to 100 percent of the participant's average compensation for his or her highest three years.

This limitation penalizes church employees because some church plans allow lower-paid employees to accrue benefits based on median salaries rather than their own, individual, lower compensation.

While the Code allows exceptions to this general limitation for governmental and multiemployer plans, it does not allow one for church plans.

The rationale for allowing an exception for governmental plans but not church plans cannot be reconciled when one acknowledges the situation in which most ministers find themselves when they retire.

For example, ministers often live in parsonages throughout their careers; and they are faced with acquiring housing for the first time when they retire.

Not having a significant asset in retirement, such as a house--an asset which could be used as collateral and security in time of need, leaves ministers vulnerable in their retirement years and justifies the need for including church pension beneficiaries in an exception to the general limitation.

The Code further punishes church pensions by requiring church plans to pay unrelated business income taxes on investments in leveraged real estate, while exempting the vast majority of retirement plans from this very same tax.

This unequal treatment is simply unfair, and it is time we correct it.

The legislation I am introducing today would rectify this unequal treatment by exempting church plans from the 415(b)(1)(B) limit and the unrelated business income tax.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in establishing parity for the beneficiaries of church pensions by supporting this necessary, long over-due fix to the Internal Revenue Code.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to fix an unfortunate application of our current pension rules on church pension beneficiaries.

Church pensions are critically important compensation plans that help support over a million clergy members across the country in their retirement, particularly those who dedicated their careers to serving in economically disadvantaged congregations.

Some of these plans date back to the 18th Century, and they are designed to ensure that our pastors and lay staff who are often paid lower salaries have adequate resources during their retirement years.

Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Code impedes the ability of church pensions to recognize these valuable contributions to society with provisions that negatively impact church plans while exempting other equally important plans.

For example, Section 415(b)(1)(B) of the Code limits benefits for a retired church employee to 100 percent of the participant's average compensation for his or her highest three years.

This limitation penalizes church employees because some church plans allow lower-paid employees to accrue benefits based on median salaries rather than their own, individual, lower compensation.

While the Code allows exceptions to this general limitation for governmental and multiemployer plans, it does not allow one for church plans.

The rationale for allowing an exception for governmental plans but not church plans cannot be reconciled when one acknowledges the situation in which most ministers find themselves when they retire.

For example, ministers often live in parsonages throughout their careers; and they are faced with acquiring housing for the first time when they retire.

Not having a significant asset in retirement, such as a house--an asset which could be used as collateral and security in time of need, leaves ministers vulnerable in their retirement years and justifies the need for including church pension beneficiaries in an exception to the general limitation.

The Code further punishes church pensions by requiring church plans to pay unrelated business income taxes on investments in leveraged real estate, while exempting the vast majority of retirement plans from this very same tax.

This unequal treatment is simply unfair, and it is time we correct it.

The legislation I am introducing today would rectify this unequal treatment by exempting church plans from the 415(b)(1)(B) limit and the unrelated business income tax.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in establishing parity for the beneficiaries of church pensions by supporting this necessary, long over-due fix to the Internal Revenue Code.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I offer today two private relief bills to provide lawful permanent resident status to Nadezda Shestakova and her son, Ilya Shestakov.

The Shestakov family has lived and worked in Anchorage, Alaska for more than ten years. Nadezda has now returned to Russia, and Ilya is attending high school in Canada, in order to avoid further immigration problems, and to demonstrate that they intend to be good citizens who live within the letter of the law.

Nadezda's husband, Michail, is a legal immigrant working for Aleut Enterprise Corporation (AEC), an Alaska native corporation, and their youngest son is a United States citizen. Both remain in Anchorage awaiting the reunion of their family.

During their time in Alaska, Michail has been an exemplary employee of the Aleut Corporation. As a matter of fact, it was the Aleut Corporation who first brought this issue to my attention, as they wish to support the Shestakov family in any way possible.

The children have excelled in school, and Nadezda has remained an at- home mother, pursuant to the terms of her original visa.

The Shestakov family's problems began when they overstayed their visa due to an error by their attorney, who did not file the extension paperwork on their behalf, as requested.

These are upstanding members of the Alaska community, and they should not be punished due to an error by their former attorney. I would like to see this family reunited in Alaska, so that they can continue to contribute positively to our community.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to establish a commission to strengthen confidence in Congress be printed in the Record.