Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Sanders

Amendment No. 1: Insert after section 216 the following new

sections (and conform the table of contents):

Offered By: Mr. Sanders

Amendment No. 2: Insert after section 216 the following new

section (and conform the table of contents):

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to share with you some excerpts from remarks I gave at Middlebury College on May 2, 2003 regarding the international AIDS crisis:

Hello and thank you for inviting me to address this very

important gathering. While I am most certainly not a great

expert on this issue, I am appreciative that I have this

opportunity to exchange a few thoughts with you.

The HIV virus respects no boundaries. In every corner of

the world, it strikes young and old alike. Especially tragic,

those infected include staggering numbers of children. Here

are some numbers which should sober us all:

Last year, over three million people died of AIDS.

That represents nearly 8,500 persons dying each day from

Mr. Speaker, I recently held a town meeting at St. Michael's College in Vermont to discuss an issue that for obvious reasons does not get much media coverage, and we had over 600 people, Vermonters, coming out to this meeting to discuss the issue of corporate control over the media and the impact that further media deregulation will have on the quality of our democracy.

At that meeting we had a gentleman named Michael Copps, one of the commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission, who laid out what is happening at the FCC and told us what most Americans do not know, that on June 2 the FCC is likely to hold a vote which will further deregulate media in the United States and create a situation in which a handful, a tiny handful of huge media conglomerates will largely control what the American people see, hear and read. What we have today is already a very dangerous situation. What is likely to happen after June 2 will be even worse.

What do we have today? If we turn on the television and watch NBC, how many people know who owns NBC? It is owned by General Electric, one of the largest corporations in the world, a corporation with enormous conflicts of interests in a dozen different areas. Turn on CBS. Who owns CBS? It is owned by Viacom, another huge company. Turn on ABC, owned by Disney. Turn on Fox, owned by the right wing Australian billionaire Rupert Murdock. Turn on CNN, owned by AOL-Time Warner, another huge corporation.

What happens when we end up with a few large companies determining the flow of information in America? Two things happen. Number one, if we listen to radio, we know that on talk radio, the only differences that we hear are between right wing radio talk show hosts and extreme right wing talk show hosts. There is virtually nobody on national talk radio who is expressing the needs of working Americans, of the middle class, of low income people.

If we watch television, huge sections, huge areas of great concern to the American people are virtually never discussed. How many Americans know that we as a Nation have the most unfair distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth? The richest 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 95 percent, and the Bush tax proposal will only make that situation worse.

Have my colleagues heard discussion on that issue? Is it appropriate to give tax breaks to billionaires when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world? When we turn on the television we can see a lot of advertising come from the large drug companies. How many Americans know that we are the only major country on earth that does not have a national health care program that guarantees health care to all people as a right of citizenship? Yet we end up spending twice as much per capita on health care as any other country.

Mr. Speaker, turn on television, you hear a lot of discussion about a lot of things; but you may not know in the United States, our people, especially seniors, are forced to pay by far, not even close, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Turn on TV, read the editorial papers of your newspapers. You will hear how great our trade policy is doing. How many people know that NAFTA, most-favored nation status with China, was pushed upon Congress by the big-money interests who also own the media but have resulted in huge job losses for working people in this country.

If deregulation of media goes forward, this is what will happen. For the first time, we will have television stations and newspapers in a given town or city owned by the same person. You are going to turn on TV and get the same point of view as you do from the local newspaper owner. Also as a result of further media deregulation, we will see large television companies able to own more and more TV stations all over the country. The trend is very clear. Fewer and fewer large corporations own more and more of the media. This is dangerous for democracy. It must be opposed.

Mr. Speaker, today, all across this country, American workers and the middle class are under severe attack. Unemployment is rising, our manufacturing base is collapsing, health care costs for workers are soaring, the minimum wage has not been raised for years and the decline of the stock market has devastated the retirement plans for millions of workers. And now, on top of all of that, the Bush administration and corporate America and the CEOs who receive compensation packages are attempting to destroy the pensions that have been promised to millions of American workers.

In response, I am introducing the Pension Benefits Protection Act to protect the pensions of American workers with 117 original co-sponsors. This legislation has been endorsed by the AARP representing more than 35 million Americans, the AFL-CIO representing more than 13 million American workers, the Pension Rights Center and the Communication Workers of America. I have attached the statements of David Certner, AARP Director of Federal Affairs, and Richard Trumka, Secretary Treasurer at the AFL-CIO, in support of this legislation for inclusion in the Congressional Record.

Those of us in Congress who care about this issue, along with the grass roots organizations, will do everything we can to see that workers in America do not see their pensions slashed by up to 50 percent as a result of cash balance conversions.

The Pension Benefits Protection Act requires the Department of Treasury to withdraw proposed cash balance conversion regulations that would give companies the green light to violate the pension age discrimination laws that are on the books. The legislation would also require companies that convert to cash balance plans to allow older workers and those with at least 10 years on the job the choice to remain in their traditional pensions.

Specifically, this legislation does 2 things:

First, it requires companies that convert to cash balance plans to allow workers who are at least 40 years old or have at least 10 years of service the choice to remain in the traditional defined benefit pension plan that was promised to them when they started working for the company. In other words, they cannot be forced into an inferior plan.

When a company makes a promise to its employees regarding their pension benefits, it must not be able to pull the rug out from under its employees by cutting their pension benefits in mid-stream. Companies receive some $100 billion in tax incentives to set up these pension plans. Given that reality, Congress must allow older workers or those with at least 10 years of service the option to remain in their traditional defined benefit pension plan.

Secondly, this legislation requires the Bush administration to immediately withdraw all of their proposed cash balance pension regulations that, if finalized, would give companies the green light to commit age discrimination against older workers by converting to cash balance schemes. Just yesterday, the Treasury Department withdrew a portion of the proposed regulations dealing with highly compensated employees. While, in my view, this is a step in the right direction, the Administration must go further and withdraw all of these proposed regulations, and require all companies that convert to cash balance plans to protect older workers. We do not tolerate discrimination against workers based on race, based on gender and based on other criteria, and we will not tolerate discrimination based on age. Last January, in a letter to the President, 217 Members from both the House and the Senate made that very clear.

Through my involvement with the IBM cash balance conversion, I have heard from thousands of workers throughout the country who have expressed their anger, their disappointment, and feelings of betrayal by cash balance conversions. These are employees who had often stuck with their companies when times were tough. These were employees who had often stayed at their jobs precisely because of the pension program that the company offered. And, these are the same employees who woke up one day to discover that all of the promises that their companies made to them were not worth the paper they were written on.

Instead of providing protections for these workers, President Bush has proposed regulations on cash balance plans that would devastate the traditional pension benefits of millions of employees in large companies throughout the United States.

The White House policy on cash balance pension plans is a direct assault on the retirement plans of millions of American workers. Hundreds of companies all across America have already reneged on the retirement promises they made to their employees by switching to cash balance pension plans. If the White House proposal is aloud to stand, it will give the green light to hundreds more--resulting in financial disaster for workers all across the country who will not be receiving the pensions they were promised.

Of the 44 million Americans with traditional defined benefit plans, some 8 million employees with $334 billion in pension fund assets have been impacted by cash balance pension conversions. According to the General Accounting Office, older employees can have their pensions slashed by up to 50 percent by a cash balance scheme.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has received over 1,000 age discrimination complaints from workers in over 30 different companies who have been negatively impacted by these schemes.

According to the Labor Department's Inspector General, companies that have converted to a cash balance scheme are illegally slashing the pension benefits of their employees by as much as $199 million each and every year. Even worse, the Inspector General found that the Federal Government was not enforcing the pension laws and regulations that are on the books when companies shift to cash balance.

The courts have ruled that Xerox, Georgia Pacific and the Bank of Boston illegally slashed over $300 million in pension benefits of more than 20,000 employees by converting to a cash balance plan.

Last July, 308 Members of Congress voted in favor of an amendment that I offered to prohibit the IRS from using any funds that are in violation of the pension age discrimination laws that are on the books when companies shift to cash balance schemes.

According to the President's spokesman Arl Fleischer, criticisms that cash balance plans hurt older workers are ``not valid.''

Well, tell that to Larry Cutrone, a 54-year-old employee from New Jersey, who worked for AT&T for 28 years, who woke up one day to find that his pension had been slashed by over 50 percent as a result of a cash balance conversion.

Tell that to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Speaker of the House Dennis

Hastert, or Rep. Rob Portman. According to the Congressional Research Service, they would have their pensions slashed by as much as 69 percent under cash balance plans.

During the next debate on pension legislation, I will be asking my colleagues in the House, if cash balance plans are good enough for workers, why aren't they good enough for Members of Congress?

The answer to that question, of course, is that cash balance pension conversions are not good for older workers. They need to be given a choice.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting for this resolution because, like every American, I want to see all of our troops come home safely and want to show my support for them and their families. I also want to see this war ended as quickly as possible, with a minimum of Iraqi casualties.

I am disturbed, however, about the partisan nature of this resolution. Instead of simply indicating our support for the troops, this resolution has language in it which some might suggest indicates support for the policies of the President which have led us to where we are today. Let me be very clear. I do not support those policies. I do not support the concept of ``preemptive war.'' I do not support a foreign policy which undermines the United Nations,

and which alienates us from virtually all of our allies. I believe that all of these actions create a horrendous precedent which makes our country and our planet less safe, which could well result in more terrorism, not less terrorism. I voted against giving the President the authority to go to war in Iraq and I believe that history will determine that was the right vote.

Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator but I believe that, with the support of the international community and the United Nations, he could be contained and his weapons of mass destruction could be removed from him--without war and without killing and at a fraction of the cost that this war and occupation will cost. I also believe that with enforced and prolonged inspections, and with a strong commitment to human rights, the international community could bring democracy to Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, let us not forget the phenomenon of ``blow-back,'' or unintended consequences. The U.S., the most powerful military force on earth, will surely win this war in short order, but I'm not so sure that this victory will seem quite so clean and positive five years from now. I'm not so sure that the American occupation of Iraq will have all of the positive results that some think.

Let me conclude by expressing my outrage about how, at a time when young men and women are in the line of fire in Iraq, the Republican leadership, on this very night, is voting to cut the benefits of our veterans. On one hand we vote to ``support the troops,'' while on the other hand we vote to deny health care and other promised benefits to those veterans who fought in the first Persian Gulf War, or Vietnam, or Korea or World War II. What hypocrisy! Yes. We apparently have billions available for tax breaks for the rich, but not enough to keep the promises we made to our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I am enclosing a letter that I recently wrote to Michael Powell, Chairman of the FCC, regarding the growing consolidation of media ownership in America. This letter is especially relevant today as the FCC is now in the process of eliminating the few remaining regulations which would stop further consolidation of the industry.

February 27, 2003

Dear Chairman Powell, let's be clear. One of the great

crises facing this country is that a handful of huge

corporations control the flow of information. Whether it is

television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books or the

Internet, fewer and fewer giant conglomerates are determining

what we see, hear and read. Unless we stop this trend and

create a media with much broader ownership and diversity of

opinion, it is not certain that democracy will survive in

this country. This is a major, major concern that must be

dealt with immediately. I fear very much that if we continue

down the path we're on, we will end up like the former Soviet

Union--a nation where there were many different news outlets,

but all were controlled by the same entity. The difference is

that in this country it will be multi-national corporations

who control the media, and not the government.

Let me express my outrage that the FCC has chosen to have

only one public hearing on what is one of the most important

issues facing Americans today. Before any decisions are made

regarding deregulation and increased corporate control over

the media, the FCC must hear from the American people. In my

view, the FCC should hold at least twenty meetings across the

country to hear directly what ordinary the people have to

say. Having held two town meetings in the state of Vermont on

the issue of media consolidation, I can tell you first hand

that the people of this country want to be heard on this

issue. In Vermont, at the two public meetings that we held,

over 600 people came out. I guarantee that you will have huge

audiences all over the country and, let me take this

opportunity to invite you to Vermont. Please do not make a

decision without input from the people. Given what goes on in

Washington it may be hard to believe, but there are opinions

in this country which do not necessarily agree with Rupert

Murdoch, General Electric, the Disney Corporation.and other

large campaign contributors.

Why do we want more de-regulation and more concentration of

ownership in the media. We should be moving in the other

direction--less concentration, more diverse ownership and

more points of view. Television is the means by which most

Americans get their ``news.'' Without exception, every major

network is owned by a huge conglomerate that has

enormous conflicts of interest. Fox News Channel is owned

by Rupert Murdoch, a right-wing billionaire who already

owns a significant portion of the world's media. His

network has close ties to the Republican Party, and among

his ``fair and balanced'' commentators is Newt Gingrich.

NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the largest

corporations in the world and a company with enormous

conflicts of interest. GE has a long history of anti-union

activity. It has substantial interests in weapons

manufacturing, finance, nuclear power and many other

industries. It has vital concerns about our trade policy as

they have been one of the leaders in shutting down American

plants and moving them to low-wage countries like China and

Mexico. GE is also an important contributor to the Republican

Party.

ABC is owned by the Disney Corp., which produces toys and

products in developing countries where they provide their

workers atrocious wages and working conditions. CBS is owned

by Viacom, another huge media conglomerate that owns, among

other entities, MTV, Showtime, Nickelodeon, VHI, TNN, CMT, 39

broadcast television stations, 184 radio stations, Paramount

Pictures and Blockbuster Inc.

The essential problem with television is not just a right-

wing corporate bias in news and programming, or the

transformation of politics and government into entertainment

and sensationalism. Nor is it just the constant bombardment

of advertising, much of it directed at children. It's that

the most important issues facing the middle-class and working

people of our country are rarely discussed. The average

American watches dozens of hours a week of television, but to

a very significant degree does not see his or her reality

reflected on the screen.

In my strong opinion what the people of this country see,

hear and read should not be controlled by a handful of multi-

national conglomerates. More concentration of ownership in

the media industry would be a disaster for this country. Stop

the deregulation, and begin hearings on how we can have more

diverse ownership and more divergent viewpoints on the public

airwaves. Democracy is too precious to be given over to

corporations interested only in growing bigger and more

profitable. The airwaves and cable-ways belong to the people,

and the interests of the people should be served.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Bernard Sanders,

U.S. Congressman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you some remarks that I made on March 3 when I introduced the Freedom to Read Protection Act. This legislation now has 28 co-sponsors and has been endorsed by the American Library Association, the American Booksellers Association and newspapers throughout the country. Yes, we must do all that we can to U-1 protect the American people from terrorism, but we can do it in a way that protects the basic constitutional rights of our citizens.

Statement of Representative Bernie Sanders on the Introduction of the

Freedom To Read Protection Act

Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us here today to

announce the introduction of the Freedom to Read Protection

Act--legislation which will protect libraries, bookstores and

their patrons from unjustified government surveillance into

what books Americans are reading and buying, and what

websites they may be visiting when using a library computer.

Let me begin by thanking the Members of Congress who have

joined me here today. I also want to thank Chris Finan of the

American Booksellers Association and Emily Sheketoff--

Executive Director of the American Library Association's

Washington Office--for joining us. I am also delighted that

Trina Magi--a librarian from the University of Vermont--and

Linda Ramsdell, a bookstore owner from Hardwick, Vermont, who

is the President of the New England Booksellers Association,

are here with us today.

Let me also congratulate the 62 cities and towns all across

this country who have passed resolutions on this issue--and

that number is growing rapidly. That effort is being

coordinated by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee which

understands that civil liberties and constitutional rights

are not only a national issue, but a local issue. I also want

to thank the editorial boards of the many newspapers all over

this country who have spoken out on this freedom to read

issue--including the Los Angeles Times, the Detroit Free

Press, the Honolulu Observer, the Providence Journal-

Bulletin, the Caledonia Record, and the Valley News.

The tri-partisan legislation we are introducing today--

called the Freedom to Read Protection Act--would protect the

privacy and First Amendment rights of American citizens

against unnecessary government intrusion. Specifically, this

legislation will exempt libraries and bookstores from Section

215 of the so-called ``Patriot Act.'' The Freedom to Read

Protection Act is being introduced by 24 members of Congress

including Republican Ron Paul of Texas, and Congressman John

Conyers, the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee.

They are both unable to join us today but I do want to

recognize their support and leadership in protecting civil

liberties. I am confident that in the days and weeks to come

we will add many more cosponsors.

One of the cornerstones of our democracy is our right of

Americans to criticize their government, and to read printed

materials without fear of government monitoring and

intrusion.

Yes, all of us concerned about terrorism and all of us are

determined to do all that we can to protect the American

people from another terrorist attack. But, the threat of

terrorism must not be used as an excuse by the government to

intrude on our basic constitutional rights. We can fight

terrorism, but we can do it at the same time as we protect

the civil liberties that have made our country great.

Unfortunately, the Patriot Act has changed all that.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act greatly expanded the FBI's

ability to get records from all businesses, including

libraries and booksellers, without meeting the traditional

standard needed to get a search warrant in the United States.

This is a very dangerous situation. Today, all the FBI has

to claim is that the information they want is somehow

relevant to an investigation to protect against international

terrorism. This is an extremely low threshold for government

intrusion and average Americans should be extremely

concerned.

The reason they should care is that Section 215 does not

just apply to terrorists or even foreigners or agents of

foreign powers. Under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the

person whose records are being searched by the FBI can be

anyone. The FBI doesn't even have to say that it believes the

person is involved in criminal activity or that the person is

connected to a foreign power.

Even more frightening, the FBI can investigate American

citizens based in part on an American's exercise of his or

her First Amendment Rights, such as writing a letter to the

editor of a newspaper or reading books the government may not

approve of.

And the traditional legal protections, that have been

embodied in our Constitution for hundreds of years, no longer

apply. The government can gain access to our reading records

through the secret FISA court which was created by the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 and which is

off limits to the public. There's no way to know how many

times the FBI has spied on library or bookseller records or

whose records they have reviewed.

In fact, Section 215 prevents librarians and booksellers

from telling their customers that their privacy has been

violated. Who would have thought that in 21st Century

America, the government could gain access to library

circulation records and bookseller customer records with no

evidence that the person whose records they are getting is

involved in any wrongdoing, that all of this would be handled

through a secret government court, and that the librarians

and booksellers would be compelled by the law not to let

anyone know that the government had swooped in to get their

records?

Now some may ask how the federal government is using this

new power. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are

also interested in that question and have pressured the

Justice Department to show how

they are using these new powers. The information they have

received after months of badgering the Department is

inadequate. The Justice Department claimed most of the

information regarding libraries and bookstores was

``confidential,'' and could not be provided. This past

October, several national organizations, including the

American Booksellers Association, filed a Freedom of

Information Act request to get statistical information, such

as how many times the government has used its expanded

surveillance authority under the Patriot Act. In January, a

very limited amount of information was released to these

groups and they are continuing to push for a more complete

disclosure.

Importantly, an anonymous survey done by the University of

Illinois found that over 175 libraries across the country

have been visited by federal authorities since the September

11th attacks. How is the Congress and the public supposed to

make sure that these new powers are not being abused when we

do not even know how often they are being invoked and the

types of institutions that are being investigated?

For many people who can not afford to buy books or have the

Internet at home the library is critical to their ability to

access to information. Many librarians and booksellers now

fear that patrons have begun to self-censor their library use

and book purchases due to fears of government surveillance.

We need to remove libraries and booksellers from Section 215

so that Americans know their freedom to access information

won't be improperly scrutinized by federal agents.

Let us be clear. The FBI would still be able to gain access

to library or bookseller records as part of an investigation

into illegal activity. All our bill does is restore the

traditional protections that Americans expect and deserve. If

the FBI has probable cause to believe that information in a

library or bookseller's records or computers is connected to

an ongoing criminal investigation or terrorism investigation,

they can go to court and get a search warrant.

In addition, the bill requires that the Justice Department

provide more detailed information about its activities under

Section 215 so we can determine how the FBI is using its new

powers under Section 215.

Let me conclude by saying that all of us support protecting

Americans from terrorism. But we do not win against

terrorists by abandoning our most basic civil liberties. We

cannot be an example of freedom for the world when our own

government is spying on what Americans are reading.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you an article which appeared in the March 9th New York Times. It is not acceptable to me that millions of older American workers could lose the pensions they were promised by their companies because of a conversion to a cash balance pension. My experience in working with IBM employees in Vermont has shown me that these cash balance schemes are extremely unfair and could cut the expected retirement benefits of older workers by up to 50 percent.

Every member of Congress enjoys a defined benefit pension plan. We can figure out exactly how much we will receive when we retire by computing the years we have served, our salaries and the age at which we retire. A study I recently requested from the Congressional Research Service, CRS, shows very clearly that if members in Congress were in cash balance plan they would receive substantially less in pensions than in the defined benefit plan we currently enjoy.

President Bush has proposed regulations that would legalize age discrimination in cash balance pension conversion. These proposed regulations would give the green light to Fortune 500 companies to raid the pension benefits of millions of older workers. It seems to me

that if Congress allows this extremely unfair proposal to go into effect, and jeopardizes the pensions of American workers, it should be prepared to do the same thing for itself.

Mr. Speaker, if cash balance plans are good enough for American workers, they should be good enough for members of the U.S. Congress. My understanding is that the Pension Security Act is supposed to go on the floor for debate sometime this month. During that time it is my intention to offer an amendment which would give all vested employees the right to choose which pension plan works best for them under a cash balance conversion. If that amendment does not succeed, I intend to offer another amendment that would convert the traditional pensions of members of Congress into cash balance plans if the President's proposal goes into effect. What's good for the American worker should be good for members of Congress.

[From the New York Times, March 9, 2003]

What if a Pension Shift Hit Lawmakers, Too?

(By Mary Williams Walsh)

As members of Congress prepare to reform the pension

system, they might want to think hard about the proposals on

the table. A new study has examined what would happen to

their own retirement benefits if the changes that some favor

for other workers were applied to them. The answer might give

them pause.

Virtually every senator and representative would lose out,

the study found--in some cases by hundreds of thousands of

dollars--if their current Congressional pensions were

switched to a controversial variant called a cash-balance

pension.

One big loser, for example, would be Representative Rob

Portman, a major sponsor of the House Republicans' pension

legislation. He had built up a pension benefit worth $337,857

by the end of 2002, if taken as a single payment, the study

found. But if Mr. Portman had instead earned his benefits

under a cash-balance plan, he would get $239,185, based on an

age of 48 and 10 years of service.

Mr. Portman will turn 48 this year. (The study used

approximate ages in calculating the hypothetical totals.)

The study, done by the Congressional Research Service,

shows that other members of Congress would suffer losses of

varying amounts, depending on their ages and years of

service.

Congress will be deliberating on significant pension

legislation in the coming months, including proposals that

would affect benefit levels and the strength of the pension

system itself. An especially contentious debate is looming

over regulations proposed by the Bush administration on how

companies could convert their traditional pension plans to

the cash-balance variety.

The existing Congressional pension plan is generous, and no

one is really planning to trade it in for a new, stripped-

down version. For years, however, private-sector employers

nationwide have been replacing traditional pension plans with

newer ones that are generally meant to be less costly for the

companies to offer, but that in many cases yield smaller

benefits, or transfer all the risk to workers.

Seen in that context, the Congressional Research Service

study shows how well members of Congress are insulated from

some trends in the private sector.

Since the 1980's, hundreds of large companies have switched

from traditional to cash-balance plans. These plans combine

features of the traditional pension with yet another type of

retirement plan, the 401(k), in which employees manage their

own retirement money and sometimes receive matching

contributions from employers. They are called cash-balance

plans because employees periodically receive notice of a

hypothetical cash balance that they can track as it grows.

In theory, the cash-balance pension has virtues that make

it superior to the 401(k): it is paid for and managed by the

employer, and it is guaranteed by the federal government; a

401(k) has no such guarantee. But in the real world,

companies that have converted traditional pension plans to

the cash-balance variety have reduced some employees'

retirement benefits sharply. The worst losses have generally

befallen older workers.

Statistics on the trend are sketchy. But a 2002 audit of 60

corporate pension conversions by the Labor Department's

Office of Inspector General found that in 13 cases--about 20

percent--workers were deprived of retirement benefits. They

were losing about $17 million a year because companies used

improper calculations in making the conversions.

Extrapolating these lost benefits to the hundreds of

pension conversions across the country, the office said, the

affected workers ``may be underpaid between $85 million and

$199 million annually.'' The office called for heightened

regulatory vigilance.

Even assuming proper calculations, cash-balance pensions

can mean lower payments than in the traditional approach.

Cash-balance plans differ from traditional plans, which are

set up to let workers build the biggest part of their benefit

in the years just before they retire. The idea was to promote

worker loyalty by giving workers an incentive to stay with

one company.

Many graying baby boomers in traditional plans may not know

it, but now that they are passing 50 and amassing the bulk of

their pensions--they are becoming very expensive to their

employers. Companies that have converted to cash-balance

pensions have been able to reduce labor costs by ending their

traditional plans before many workers enter this high-accrual

stage.

Cash-balance pensions build benefits more evenly over the

course of a worker's career. For some people, they can yield

larger benefits than traditional plans, particularly for

younger workers who often jump from job to job.

In switching to cash-balance pensions, some companies have

notified employees in technical jargon or euphemisms that

have left workers clueless about what is really happening.

But as older employees started to realize that the

conversions could mean individual losses in the tens of

thousands of dollars, they began to pepper the Equal

Opportunity Employment Commission with age-discrimination

complaints. Some have filed class-action lawsuits against

their companies. The most prominent case, still pending,

affects more than 140,000 employees at I.B.M.

In 1999, the Internal Revenue Service, which regulates

pensions, placed a moratorium on conversions, to give

specialists a chance to sort out their legality.

Now the Bush administration has proposed regulations that

would settle the issue, laying out basic rules for making

cash-balance conversions legal. Public comment will be

accepted until Thursday, and hearings are scheduled for April

9. If the proposed regulations take effect, the moratorium

will be lifted.

Critics of cash-balance plans fear that an end to the

moratorium would prompt a flood of pension conversions. They

and their advocates in Congress doubt that the regulations

would adequately protect older workers.

``There are millions and millions of workers today who are

scared to death that the pensions they have been promised,

that they have worked their whole life for, will not come

through,'' said Representative Bernard Sanders, a Vermont

independent who has long opposed cash-balance pension

conversions.

Proponents of cash-balance pensions have argued that

conversions are usually harmless. They note that some

companies have voluntarily sweetened their cash-balance plans

after older workers complained.

In general, members of Congress who have served the longest

would face the greatest losses if they were given a cash-

balance payout.

Patrick J. Purcell, the Congressional Research Service

economist who conducted the study, said he worked with each

lawmaker's age and years of service without knowing whom the

numbers applied to, ``so there would be less reason for

people to question the results.''

He then used standard actuarial methods to compress each

pension--normally taken as a lifelong stream of monthly

checks--into a lump-sum payment.

Calculating the lump-sum value made comparison possible

with cash-balance benefits, which are normally given in a

single payment.

Mr. Purcell then calculated what the lawmakers'

hypothetical cash-balance benefit would be if they had had

such a pension from the day they entered Congress. That

approach made for a more straightforward comparison and

possibly gave an advantage to the cash-balance plan. In

practice, some of the most harmful effects of pension

conversions occur because employees undergo the change at

midcareer.

Mr. Portman, the Ohio Republican, was unavailable for

comment on the study. But a spokesman, Jim Morrell, noted

that in 2001, Mr. Portman sponsored legislation requiring

companies to notify employees of the way their benefits would

be affected in cash-balance conversions. That bill is now

law.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican from Iowa and

chairman of the Finance Committee, earned a pension worth

$508,266 under the existing plan, based on an age of 70 and

18 years of service. Under a cash-balance plan, he would have

received only $161,623, according to the study.

Mr. Grassley is also the former chairman of the Senate

Special Committee on Aging and is active on pension issues. A

spokeswoman, Jill Gerber, said Mr. Grassley could not comment

on the new findings without seeing the study.

The study also found that Representative Tom DeLay, the

House majority leader, had earned a benefit worth $608,143 at

the end of 2002 under the current plan. In a cash-balance

plan, Mr. DeLay, a Texas Republican, would receive $251,086

or 59 percent less, based on an age of 56 and 18 years of

service.

Mr. DeLay did not respond to a request for comment.

Representative J. Dennis Hastert, the House speaker,

qualified for a Congressional pension worth $540,572 at the

end of 2002. He would qualify for $164,455 in a typical cash-

balance plan, the study found, based on an age of 61 and 16

years of service.

Mr. Hastert's press secretary, John Feehery, questioned

whether it was fair to single out members of Congress for

scrutiny when the entire federal compensation system is

skewed toward smaller paychecks and larger pensions compared

with the private sector.

``The Treasury Department and Congress are looking at ways

to make sure that any conversion is fair,'' he added. ``But

on the other hand, many companies, given the economic

downturn, are faced with the possibility of not being able to

offer any plan at

all. And that also would be bad for employees.''

Ms. Gerber noted that pension conversions in Iowa, Senator

Grassley's state, generally make it clear that companies are

backing away from traditional pensions. In the mid-1970's

there were about 1,100 pension plans in Iowa, she said, but

now there are fewer than 400. With some companies deciding

not to offer any pensions at all, she said, Mr. Grassley sees

a need to find some balance between protecting workers'

benefits and offering employers incentives to stay in the

pension system.

``The anti-cash-balance people are just anti-cash-

balance,'' she said. ``But if you just make cash-balance

plans illegal, what are the plan sponsors going to do?''

The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan branch of

the Library of Congress, did the study at the request of Mr.

Sanders, who has introduced legislation opposing cash-balance

conversions in the past--none of it successful. He said he

hoped the new findings would ``show the hypocrisy'' of

colleagues who would let other people undergo pension

conversions but would not have to suffer ill effects

themselves.

``If they think a cash-balance plan is good enough for

American workers, why don't they convert their own

pensions?'' he asked in an interview.

He said he intended to introduce legislation this week that

would force Congress to put its money where its mouth is: it

would require the conversion of all Congressional pensions to

the cash-balance type if the legislators allow the

administration's proposed regulations to go forward.

Mr. Sanders himself would lose 72 percent of his pension if

that happened. Based on an age of 61, with 12 years of

service, he qualified for a $416,159 lump-sum payment at the

end of 2002. In a cash-balance model, he would have received

$115,850.

He would not comment on the prospects for his cash-balance

legislation. Perhaps more pragmatically, he said he would

also introduce legislation to require companies converting

their pensions to let each worker choose whether to keep the

old plan or go with the cash-balance plan.

Some companies have done this voluntarily, he noted.

``Kodak has done that,'' he said. ``Motorola has done that.

CSX, which is the new secretary of the Treasury's company,''

had done that, he said, referring to John W. Snow, who was

chief executive of CSX, the railway company, before Mr. Bush

appointed him in December to replace Paul H. O'Neill. As

Treasury secretary, Mr. Snow has authority over the proposed

regulations.

All of those companies converted, Mr. Sanders said, ``but

they gave workers the choice.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, today we live in an age of exploding technological advances. Many of these new technologies offer the potential to improve the lives of people in the United States and around the world.

But, Mr. Chairman, some of this new technology also has the potential to do great harm to our people and to our environment. All too often, these dangers are magnified because the owners of technology are primarily interested in how much money they can make, rather than the betterment of society.

We have seen this in the area of genetically modified organisms that are finding their way into our food supply in the U.S. The legislation we are considering today concerns an even more important issue; namely, the cloning of human life itself. While I support stem cell research, the cloning of a human being for any purpose raises the deepest and most profound ethical and moral questions: questions about the sanctity or the uniqueness of each human person; questions about the evil of eugenics and genetic engineering in humans; and, equally important, questions about the ownership and use of cloned humans by an unregulated corporate biotechnology industry motivated almost exclusively by their quest for venture capital, short-term profits, and higher stock prices.

The speed with which human cloning technology has developed thus far has far outpaced our abilities as a society to wrestle with these questions.

Mr. Chairman, technology should not drive ethics and morality in this country and on this planet; ethics and morality should frame the acceptable limits of our use of technology. That is why I strongly support H.R. 534, which would ban all human cloning.