mr. speaker , i must reluctantly oppose this legislation . 
i support changing the current rules related to pensions , and had hoped that this bill would be considered under procedures that would allow it to be improved . 
however , the republican leadership has made it impossible for even a single amendment to be considered -- and the bill 's flaws so outweigh its good features that it should not be passed in its current form . 
among the most troubling aspects of the bill is its potential effect on defined-benefit pension plans . 
some 34 million americans are now covered by defined-benefit plans , but their retirement security is threatened by the failure of some companies to adequately fund the plans , by corporate bankruptcies such as that of united airlines , and consideration by even profitable companies of freezing benefits and ending their plans . 
and many of the people who manage large pension plans tell us the result of enacting this bill 's provisions that would make significant changes to the rules for these plans and increase the premiums companies pay the pension benefit guaranty corporation , pbgc , could be benefit cuts or , worse , termination of even well-funded plans . 
at the same time , the bill 's requirements for increased payments to pbgc threatens the financial health of many manufacturing companies and fail even to adequately improve pbgc 's financial condition -- its own analysis found that the bill would increase the agency 's financial shortfall by $ 2.5 billion . 
and both the congressional budget office and pbgc have concluded that the bill would increase claims on the federal government by billions of dollars , which would increase the likelihood of a massive taxpayer bailout as well as the loss of billions of dollars in employee and retiree benefits . 
i am not prepared to support legislation that would increase the chances of such outcomes , especially when its tax provisions would substantially increase future budget deficits and would primarily benefit taxpayers in the highest income groups . 
according to the joint committee on taxation , the revenue effects of the tax provisions primarily benefiting higher-income households would grow from $ 3.6 billion in 2012 , the first full year affected , to $ 5.6 billion a year by 2015 . 
but the effect of extending the saver 's credit , which is most important to lower-income honseholds , would fall from $ 1.4 billion in 2008 , the first full year affected by that provision , to $ 943 million by 2015 . 
that means that while in 2012 , the saver 's credit would account for one-fourth of the total benefits of all of these provisions , by 2015 it would account for only 14 percent of the total benefits . 
and after that the saver 's credit would dwindle further , eventually fading away , while the upper-income pension tax changes would become still more robust . 
as the center on budget and policy priorities says , `` to allow the severe erosion over time of the principal tax incentive for modest-income families to save for retirement does not make sense as retirement policy . 
to do so while protecting very generous retirement tax-cut benefits that go overwhelmingly to higher-income taxpayers who generally are able to save adequately for retirement anyway , without these tax subsidies , is even less defensible . 
and incorporating regressive tax policy of this nature into a bill that swells budget deficits , and opens the door to still more deficit-increasing tax cuts in the future , stands sound policy on its head. '' i think they are right . 
and , in addition to badly framed provisions , the bill 's flaws also include some serious omissions . 
i am particularly disappointed there is nothing in the bill like the bipartisan senate-passed provisions to protect the pensions of employees and retirees of airline companies . 
as coloradans know all too well , the employees and retirees of united airlines already have lost $ 3 billion in earned pension benefits . 
we should be working to help them , and we also should be working to make it less likely that their experience will be repeated . 
in summary , mr. speaker , while i recognize that there are good aspects to this bill , and while i think congress does need to act on this subject , i think that on balance the bill as it stands should be rejected so that a better-balanced measure can be brought forward . 
