Motion to Instruct Conferees on H. R. 2830, Pension Protection Act of 2005
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2830, PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - July 20, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Miller motion to instruct, and I commend the gentleman from California for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, the middle class in America today is under assault. Over the past 5 years, 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty, 6 million have lost their health insurance, and nearly 3 million manufacturing workers have lost their jobs. The Republican leadership has refused to increase the minimum wage, $5.15 an hour, which hasn't been raised in nearly a decade, and is now at a 50-year low in terms of purchasing power.
And adding insult to injury, it is expected that next week we will be voting on a conference report that will allow large corporations to discriminate against their older employees by slashing their pensions up to half through cash balance pension schemes.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is our only attempt to say no. Age discriminatory cash balance pension schemes are wrong. We must protect millions of employees who have seen their pensions slashed by as much as 50 percent through age-discriminatory cash balance pension schemes. That is what this motion is all about.
Mr. Speaker, pension anxiety is sweeping the country. Millions of American workers who have worked at a company for 20 or 30 years, where promises have been made to them in terms of what their retirement would be, are now waking up to the fact that those promises are being reneged upon.
Unfortunately, over the past two decades, large corporation after large corporation have been breaking the retirement promises they made to their employees, and that is wrong. Some companies are declaring bankruptcy so that they can break their retirement commitments. Other companies are freezing pension plans in order to slash the retirement benefits of older workers.
And over 300 companies throughout this country have slashed the pensions of their employees through cash balance pension schemes, sometimes up to 50 percent.
Congress must tell corporate America in no uncertain terms that when they make a promise to workers about their pensions, they must keep that promise.
Mr. Speaker, last December, the House passed a so-called pension reform bill that was hundreds of pages long. Included in that bill was an obscure provision to legalize age discrimination in cash balance plans prospectively. No floor amendments were allowed to strike this provision or offer any alternatives to it. Members were forced to vote up or down on the entire bill.
But the Senate did the right thing. In its bill, they provided important protections for older workers who would be negatively impacted by cash balance schemes.
The Senate language is supported by the AARP, the AFL-CIO, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the National Legislative Retirees Network, and the Pension Rights Center.
Today, just like we did in April, we have an opportunity to do the right thing for American workers. We can and should instruct the conference committee to adopt the Senate language on cash balance plans.
Mr. Speaker, there are some who support cash balance schemes. They argue that these plans benefit employees.
Well, a couple of years ago I asked the Congressional Research Service a simple question: What would happen to Members of Congress if their pensions were converted to a cash balance scheme? If it is so good for millions of American workers, clearly it must be good for the Members of Congress.
Well, shock of all shocks. Our Republican friends decided not to debate that issue on the floor of the House. And unless I am mistaken, they still do not want to convert Members' pensions to cash balance schemes, for good reason. Because if they did it, every Member would see a huge reduction in the pensions that they are looking forward to.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I think that is an important point. When the Federal Government made the decision to change to the TSP system, which is turning out to be a very successful system, we provided this kind of transition. What the conference committee is about to impose on the American working public no Member of Congress would impose on themselves. They would be asking for some kind of transition, some kind of hold-harmless so that people would be protected who are older, who have more years into the system, because they don't have the ability to gather other income.
And I think the gentleman makes a very important point that, once again, life is different inside of the Beltway than it is outside of the Beltway. And the people outside of the Beltway have a lot less ability to try to make up for that lost savings to manage their retirement.
I thank the gentleman for making the point. I continue to yield.
Mr. SANDERS. Let me just pick up and agree with the gentleman.
The CRS did a study on this issue: What would happen to congressional pensions if we went the direction of cash balance? Well, among other things, the Speaker of the House would not be too happy about this. His pension went down by 70 percent.
So, today, I would ask the opponents of the Miller motion this question: If cash balance plans are so good for American workers, why don't we go first and adopt them here?
Well, obviously, that is not going to happen. If it is not good for Members of Congress, it is not a good idea for millions of American workers. Let's support the Miller motion and stand for the rights of millions of American workers today.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I would yield.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I just want to again thank him for the point that this pension bill cannot be considered in a vacuum. The very same people who are going to be punished as a result of companies that convert to cash balance that will not provide this kind of protection, they can do it voluntarily, but they will not, and many of them won't, and the gentleman has struggled with companies who thought that they didn't have to.
These are the same people that are getting their retirement health care benefits cut back, that are having trouble with or are going to have trouble with paying for prescription drugs. Today, people are continuing to work and people say to people, you know, just save more money.
Well, as we know, most people, the average American working person has a great deal of difficulty saving. And to now tell them to save, if you are 50 years old, according to the GAO, you will lose about $238 a month. If you are 40 years old, you will lose about $188 a month. If you are 50 years old, this has to be net savings that you are going to have to try to save. You'd have to save, before your retirement, a net $40,000, outside of your rent, outside of your house payment, outside of your kids, outside of everything else, if you could get 5 percent return on your money.
Where does the American family go to get that kind of money that Congress is about to take away from them? Where do they go?
Most families, both people are working. And if you are 50 years old, it is highly unlikely that you are going to go out and find a job that is going to replace this loss of savings.
So when people say, well, we can't guarantee the expectations of these workers. No, what we are guaranteeing is a contract that this worker made with the company and the company made with the worker. We understand the benefits and the changes for younger workers, and this isn't about being against cash balance plans. It is about fairness.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SANDERS. Let me reiterate the point Ms. Woolsey made a few moments ago. We have people who have worked for a company for 20 or 30 years. During their careers, in many instances, they had offers to move elsewhere, but they said, no, I am going to stay here because I have a good retirement plan. And suddenly, for no fault of their own, that retirement plan is being pulled out from underneath them. They had dreamed of what their retirement would be. It is no longer. And they are 50 years of age. They are 52 years of age. Where do they go?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The idea, again, the suggestion is somehow, when the Senate passed this, 97-3, and when we voted overwhelmingly in a motion to instruct to do this, that somehow you are trying to reserve the status quo. The fact is that CSX, a very successful railroad company, Verizon Telecom, the Federal Government, Motorola, Dow Chemical, Federal Express, Wells Fargo, these are not slacking companies. These are leaders in their industry. They all realized billions of dollars in savings. They also took care of their older workers. And that is what we are asking that this conference committee do.
You do not have to throw these older workers onto the wood pile. They can be protected. The company can realize billions of dollars over the life of the pension plans in savings that they can reinvest in their company, and they can change their pension plans. We just ask that you don't decimate older workers.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SANDERS. What was the vote in the Senate on this issue?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The vote was 97-3.
Mr. SANDERS. So overwhelmingly a bipartisan vote. Let's stand with the Senate. Let's protect American workers.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. It was 97-2.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
http://thomas.loc.gov/