Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005

TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - September 21, 2004)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 770 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 5025.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 5 OFFERED BY MR. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Sanders:

At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section:

SEC. __X. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to assist in overturning the judicial ruling contained in the Memorandum and Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois entered on July 31, 2003, in the action entitled Kathi Cooper, Beth Harrington, and Matthew Hillesheim, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated vs. IBM Personal Pension Plan and IBM Corporation (Civil No. 99-829-GPM).

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, September 14, 2004, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel). This amendment also has the strong support of the AARP, the largest senior citizen group in this country, representing over 35 million Americans; the AFL-CIO, representing all of organized labor; and the Pension Rights Center.

Mr. Chairman, last year, this amendment passed the House by a vote of 258 to 160. Two years ago, a similar amendment passed by a vote of 308 to 121. By voting for this amendment today, we will be protecting the retirement benefits of some 8 million American workers who have seen their pensions slashed by as much as 50 percent through age discriminatory cash balance pension schemes and the 14 million more American workers who still have traditional, defined benefit plans that could be converted to cash balance schemes. That is the issue today: standing up for those workers and protecting the pensions that they have been promised.

The reason that this amendment is coming up again today is, despite the very strong, tripartisan support that we have seen in the House, this bill has yet to be implemented into law, and it is imperative that we keep fighting and keep standing with American workers who want us to do that.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple and straightforward. In July of 2003, a Federal court ruled that IBM's cash balance pension plan violates Federal anti-age discrimination law. The judge in this case is expected to award damages to IBM employees any day now, after which the company will appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Our amendment today would simply prohibit the Federal Government from assisting in overturning this pro-worker court decision. IBM deserves its day in court, like every other litigant, but taxpayer money should not be used to support an age-discriminatory cash balance plan. And this amendment gives Congress the opportunity to make that very clear.

Mr. Chairman, let us be very clear. While this particular lawsuit involves IBM's conversion to a cash balance plan, there are hundreds of other companies that have done exactly the same thing. This is not just IBM; it is hundreds of companies, companies like AT&T, Duke Energy, CBS, Bank of America, Enron, WorldCom and many others. It is not only IBM employees who are hurting but millions of workers from one end of this country to the other who have also been affected, people whose retirement dreams have been shattered when companies change the rules of the game and slash the retirement benefits that were promised to their employees.

This precedent-setting court ruling against cash balance plans confirms what American workers have been saying for years: Cash balance pension conversions discriminate against workers based on age, are illegal and, without adequate protections for older workers, must be stopped. And that is what we are here to do today.

Mr. Chairman, let me just read a brief excerpt from the ruling of Judge Murphy: "In 1999, IBM opted for a cash balance formula. The plan's actuaries projected that this would produce annual savings of almost $500 million by 2009. These savings would result from reductions of up to 47 percent in future benefits that would be earned by older IBM employees. The 1999 cash balance formula violates the literal terms of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. IBM's own age discrimination analysis illustrates the problem." That was Judge Murphy.

Mr. Chairman, I became involved in this issue several years ago when hundreds of IBM employees in Vermont contacted my office and told me that the pensions that they had been promised by the company had been cut by 20 to 50 percent. In fact, the largest town meeting that I have ever held in Vermont, and I have held many, was for some 700 IBM workers who came out to demand that the company rescind the changes that had been made in their pension plan.

Mr. Chairman, think about it. Think about workers staying at a company through good times and bad times, providing loyalty to their employers because, among other reasons, they expect to receive certain agreed-upon pensions when they retire. And then, Mr. Chairman, one day, out of nowhere, the company sends a document, maybe it is an e-mail, which says, in so many words: Thank you, employees, for your dedicated service to the company, but forget about the promises that we made to you regarding the retirement that you and your family were anticipating. Forget about it. That is gone.

And, in many instances, while pulling the rug out from under their employees, we are seeing older workers, years of service to a company, suddenly find that the pensions that they had been planning on, the retirement dreams that they had been expecting, slashed by up to 50 percent.

Mr. Chairman, for those Members who will tell us that cash balance conversions are good things and should be supported, and there will be some today, I would remind them of a report from the Congressional Research Service that I requested. And very simply, what I asked the CRS to tell me is, what impact would a conversion to cash balance mean for Members of Congress, because I hear over and over again, Members of Congress, they want the American people to have what they have.

Well, surprise, surprise. What the CRS reported was that, if Congress converted to cash balance payment plans, our retirement benefits would go down, down, down. So, if any Member today thinks that it is a great idea to force cash balance payment plans on the workers of America, I hope that they will do the same thing for the Members of Congress and cut their pensions by up to 50 percent.

Mr. Chairman, all over this country today, there is enormous pension anxiety. People who have worked for decades are wondering whether the promises made to them will be kept. That is the issue today. Let us vote for this tripartisan amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a gentleman who has been very active in supporting workers on pension issues.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have additional speakers?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I have another speaker that may be arriving, but they are not here at this time; and other than that, I know of no other Members seeking time.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman's status remain the same?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I just received a note that there is a Member that is on his way.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, how much time is left on both sides?

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has 3 minutes remaining.

The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has 16 minutes remaining.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire as to the amount of time left both on sides.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has 2 minutes remaining.

The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has 11 minutes remaining, and he has the right to close.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I intend to reserve the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT