May 22, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 97 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session
HEALTH AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY OMNIBUS EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS ACT; Congressional Record Vol. 166, No. 97
(Extensions of Remarks - May 22, 2020)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Extensions of Remarks] [Pages E473-E474] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] HEALTH AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY OMNIBUS EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS ACT ______ speech of HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO of california in the house of representatives Friday, May 15, 2020 Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Heroes Act and the important programs in the bill that will help our first responders, health care workers, small businesses, and cities address this pandemic. Although the bill includes critical provisions to address the pension crisis by providing additional funding and resources to multi-employer pensions, I am very concerned that it includes language regarding composite pension plans that is controversial within the labor and pension community. There are many who believe composite plans would provide workers with less benefits and more risk, and they contend that if these new composite plans existed during this COVID crisis, the value of their plans would have dramatically eroded. The Obama Administration in 2016 strongly opposed composite plan legislation that was nearly identical to the GROW Act. The then National Economic Council, PBGC, and Departments of Treasury and Labor sent to the Hill a position paper that explained that composite legislation would put existing pension benefits at greater risk, result in less dependable and transparent retirement benefits, and deepen the insolvency crisis at the PBGC. The position paper urged Congress not to include composite plan legislation in a package because ``such complex legislation deserves, at minimum, appropriate bicameral hearings and time for analysis and debate.'' I hope that the Senate will look at this issue closely as there should be more debate and review of this proposal. I include in the Record statements regarding composite pension plans from a coalition of labor unions and the Pension Rights Center. Statement by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM), Directors Guild of America (DGA), International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), International Assoc. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT), Musicians for Pension Security Pension Rights Center, SEIU, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), United Steelworkers (USW), Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Our organizations, representing tens of millions of workers and retirees, strongly support passage this year of critical legislation to assist severely underfunded multiemployer pension plans to ensure that retirees and their families receive their hard-earned pensions. More than ten million Americans depend on multiemployer pension plans for a secure retirement for themselves and their families. Throughout their careers, these workers gave up a portion of wages to earn their pension benefits. In retirement, they deserve to receive the pensions they earned and retire with dignity. The Emergency Pension Plan Relief Act proposal advanced by senators meets this standard by using a special partition program funded by the federal government to support troubled plans and their participants. We urge that this proposal be passed as soon as possible. At the same time, we strongly oppose composite plan legislation. Composite legislation, including the GROW Act, hurts workers, retirees, employers, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and should not become law. Composite legislation is deeply flawed because it allows multiemployer plan trustees to ``refinance'' their obligations to workers and retirees in the existing plan over 25 years instead of 15 years, so they can divert money to start a new composite plan. This weakens the existing plan and leaves neither plan--the existing plan nor the composite plan--with enough money to pay promised benefits. The current public health and economic crisis illustrates the harm composite plan legislation would inflict on Americans. If Congress had already passed the GROW Act and it was law now, workers in a previously healthy multiemployer pension plan that converted to a composite plan would face draconian benefit cuts. The benefits composite plan participants expected they would earn would be cut 70%, and the vested benefits they already earned would be cut 25%. At the same time, the vested benefits of workers in the existing plan would be cut 21%. To avoid benefit cuts, employers would be required to increase contributions by approximately 82%-- above and beyond what they already committed. The GROW Act also starves the PBGC of needed funds and would compound the insolvency problems faced by the agency. Composite plans are not required to pay PBGC premiums, even though their creation will increase the PBGC's liabilities by driving plans out of the multiemployer system and increasing risks on participants who continue to rely on the PBGC to insure their benefits. We applaud your efforts to address multiemployer pensions as a part of legislation this year. We support legislation to preserve healthy multiemployer plans and to help retirees in deeply troubled plans, but we strongly oppose the GROW Act. Statement of the Pension Rights Coalition With the House of Representatives poised to vote on the next COVID-19 relief package, known as the HEROES Act, the Pension Rights Center applauds the congressional leaders who have included within the massive bill the important provisions of the Emergency Pension Plan Relief Act (EPPRA) which will strengthen the nation's multiemployer pension system. PRC, however, urges Congress to strip from the package the misguided Giving Retirement Options to Workers Act (GROW Act), which would undermine this all-important system. By including EPPRA in the HEROES Act, Congress will not only help save workers' and retirees' pensions, but also stabilize for decades to come the federal agency that insures our nation's private pension plans, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). ``More than 1 million workers and retirees have been closely watching Congress and waiting for policymakers to finally pass legislation that ensures full payment of their promised pensions, which they earned through years of toil,'' said Karen Friedman, the PRC's executive vice president. ``First, their hopes were buoyed in 2019 when the House passed a bill designed to protect their benefits, known as the Butch Lewis Act. But that legislation failed to advance in the Senate. Now, both the retirees and the PRC are excited that Congress has included the well-crafted EPPRA within the latest COVID-19 bill. By doing so, Congress recognizes that those workers and retirees who helped build this country and who will benefit from the legislation should be permitted to receive the retirement income they earned through hard work and playing by the rules. We urge all members of the House and Senate to make these pension rescue provisions a reality for these workers and retirees and for their families.'' PRC strongly supports EPPRA because it shores up underfunded plans by providing the PBGC with the funding to take on certain liabilities of ailing plans. This ``partitioning'' process will ensure that the plans survive for the long-term and are able to pay in full the earned benefits owed to workers and retirees. The bill also increases the guarantees paid by the PBGC when plans fail and would restore benefits to retirees who have already had their benefits cut because of the unfair provisions of the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014. EPP RA shares a structure similar to a proposal advanced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN). ``We believe that it's appropriate for EPPRA to be part of the HEROES Act since those most at risk of losing benefits in these multiemployer plans are the very same workers who are risking their lives to protect us in this time of crisis. They are the truck drivers who are transporting food and supplies, the nurses and health care workers at the front lines, the grocery store workers who are keeping us fed, the laborers who are building our hospitals, and the musicians who, despite social distancing, keep on playing for us on line to soothe our anxiety'' Friedman said. ``These are America's unsung heroes who do--and did--the essential jobs that we all are depending on in this time of lockdown.'' Unlike EPPRA, which will strengthen failing multiemployer plans and protect workers and retirees and the PBGC, passage of the GROW Act would undermine the multiemployer plan system by weakening currently well-funded plans and creating new inferior plans that do not provide guaranteed benefits. It would also lead to the underfunding of the PBGC. PRC urges the leaders of the House of Representatives to drop the GROW Act from the HEROES Act. The GROW Act is also vigorously opposed by AARP, the Western Conference of Teamsters, the SEIU, IBEW, Steelworkers, Machinists, Boilermakers and other unions and organizations. [[Page E474]] The Center also cheers inclusion in the HEROES Act of a provision that would provide grants to community-based organizations to help low-income divorced women and survivors of domestic abuse receive their court-awarded retirement benefits. This provision was originally introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) and House Members Jan Schakowksy (D-IL) and Lauren Underwood (D-IL) as part of the Women's Retirement Protection Act (S. 975, H.R. 2005). ____________________