PENSION FUNDING EQUITY ACT OF 2003
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Grassley-Baucus-Gregg-Kennedy amendment. I commend the Finance and HELP Committees for working together in a bipartisan effort to secure the pensions of almost 45 million workers.
This legislation is vital to preserving defined benefit pension plans, which provide retirees with a monthly benefit that is secured by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Nearly 35 million workers and retirees are covered by single employer plans, and an additional 9.7 million are covered by multiemployer plans. In all, one in five workers participates in a defined benefit plan.
Unfortunately, these defined benefit pension plans are facing several challenges due to the following "perfect storm" of economic conditions: the downturn in the stock market was the longest since the Great Depression; the 30-year Treasury bond interest rates have been at historically low levels; and the weak economy has made it even more difficult for companies to make payments and pay the excise taxes as currently required by law.
As a result of these circumstances, many pension plans are under-funded, and this legislation would help companies weather this storm. There are three main components of this legislation. The first is a 2-year replacement of the 30-year Treasury bond rate used to calculate employers' contributions to pension plans with a corporate bond rate. The second is partial, temporary relief from deficit reduction contributions. The third is relief for multiemployer plans, which often aid low-wage workers, as well as workers in short-term or seasonal employment.
I support all three of these provisions and would like to speak in particular about the need for deficit reduction contribution relief. This relief would aid companies that had well-funded pension plans as recently as 2000, but, due to the current economic storm, need assistance now. The assistance we are providing is temporary-only for 2 years-and partial. It would allow troubled industries, such as airlines and steel, to regain their financial footing by providing relief of up to 80 percent in 2004 and up to 60 percent in 2005.
I understand that there are concerns regarding liability to the PBGC. If a company we are providing relief to now is forced to terminate its pension later, PBGC would takeover the pension, and the liability would be increased by the amount of DRC relief that the company had received. However, this does not take into consideration that if we do not provide companies with DRC relief now, they may be unable to pay their DRC surcharges and therefore will be more likely to have their pensions involuntarily terminated in the first place.
Furthermore, the DRC provision in the Pension Funding Equity Act would ensure that no plan will lose ground. Companies that receive DRC relief would be required to contribute at least the amount necessary to fund the expected increase in current liability that results from benefits that have accrued during the year.
Finally, I know that several Cabinet Secretaries have expressed their opposition to DRC relief. However, the White House, in its Statement of Administration Policy, also has acknowledged that "The DRC is part of a flawed system of funding rules that should be reviewed and reformed." Although the White House would prefer to address DRC changes in the context of broader pension reform, we must provide aid to these companies and their workers now. For example, United Airlines, based in my home State of Illinois, would benefit from the DRC relief in this legislation, and as a result, the pensions of the almost 130,000 participants in United's pension plans, including over 22,000 participants in Illinois, would be more secure.
Overall, the Grassley-Baucus-Gregg-Kennedy amendment will provide necessary relief for the 45 million workers who participate in our single and multi-employer pension plans. I urge my colleagues to join me in preserving the future of these defined benefit pension plans and supporting this important legislation.