madam speaker , i rise today in strong opposition to the restrictive rule for h.r. 2830 , the pension protection act , and i ask my colleagues to join me in opposition . 
last night not only were my four amendments disallowed , but a substitute measure offered by mr. rangel xz4003330 and mr. miller xz4002781 was also disallowed . 
from my perspective , given the importance of the underlying legislation , we ought to have an open debate . 
we ought to have votes , and we ought to have decisions made by the full membership . 
in terms of the amendments i offered last night to the rules committee , the first set essentially said that the funds in retirement accounts are the workers ' money , and employees ought to have a voice in single employer pension plans regarding the management of those moneys . 
given the number of pensions that have been thrown overboard , and given the tens of thousands of americans who have been hurt , i also think , as a bare minimum , companies ought to once , every 3 years , be required to inform their employees of the health of their pension funds . 
the third amendment i offered essentially said that every last option , whether it be from the perspective of the pbgc or the company be exhausted before that pension is assumed by the pension benefit guaranty corporation , given the fact that , on average , at least 15 percent of the retirees who have their pensions assumed by the corporation are going to receive less than their full promised pension . 
a case in point was in united airlines negotiations , the unions of the company were still bargaining and the pbgc came in and unilaterally assumed that pension . 
the final goes to the heart of the matter , and that is to close that gap . 
for those pensioners that do not receive their full pension under the pbgc , they are out that pension money . 
i am disgusted by the fact that they do not have standing under the procedures . 
and i would use adelphi corporation , which recently declared bankruptcy as an example of the abuse of the system and the disadvantage that the employees are put under . 
adelphi , headed by mr. smith , who also was at bethlehem steel when they went bankrupt and they dumped their pensions over , really has no interest in going out of business . 
they want to dump their liabilities . 
under the bankruptcy code , mr. miller xz4002781 and up to 500 executives at adelphi are entitled to 30 to 250 percent bonuses for running their company into the ground , going through bankruptcy , dumping their liabilities and hurting people . 
what happens to the workers who do not get their full pension after mr. miller xz4002781 and his gang dump those pensions overboard , they have no standing under the bankruptcy code . 
all i asked the rules committee last night was that we ought to talk about that here on the house floor and we ought to have a debate . 
those people who gave their lives to that company who are now short money for the rest of their lives when they need it the most should have some standing . 
i ask members to oppose the rule . 
mr. speaker , i rise today in strong opposition to this restrictive rule for h.r. 2830 , the pension protection act and i ask that my colleagues join me in opposition . 
last night in the rules committee , i offered four amendments that i believe would have made this a better bill , none of which were found to be in order . 
furthermore , this restrictive closed rule does not even make in order a substitute measure authored by ranking members miller and ran gel . 
in a time when delphi will be awarding 500 executives , bonuses of 30 percent to 250 perce nt of their base salaries , workers are seeing their pensions frozen , i find it very troubling that the majority refuses to have a full and open debate on an issue so critical to our nation 's retirement security . 
my first amendment would have put employee representatives on the trustee board of single employer pension plans , which would ensure that employees have a voice in how their investments are managed . 
the growing significance of pension plans in the u.s. economy has sparked a continued public debate over the control of pension fund investments . 
a generation ago , congress took action to safeguard pensions in response to an enron-like debacle at studebaker . 
these protections for defined benefit plans included diversification requirements as well as government insurance . 
pension funds represent deferred compensation and there is no reason why single-employer pension plans still lack employee representation on their boards . 
my second amendment would have required that plan sponsors furnish pension participants with the most current benefit statement at least once every 3 years . 
fiscally unhealthy pensions have caused severe hardship on employees who have depended on their pensions as part of their retirement security . 
in order for pensioners to have a more complete understanding of the health of their pension fund , it is necessary to provide full and accurate information on a timely basis . 
both the underlying bill as well as mr. miller 's substitute address this issue , but i do not believe that they go far enough . 
my third amendment would make it more difficult for companies to abuse the bankruptcy process in order to dump their pension obligations . 
specifically , this provision requires that alternatives to pension-dumping be identified , which would essentially make pension-dumping a last resort for companies rather than a financial-planning tool . 
the amendment would require both employer-initiated and pbgc-initiated terminations to identify and disclose alternatives to dumping their pension obligations . 
there is a disturbing trend of companies dumping their pension obligations not because the company is going out of business , but because the company does not want to follow through on the financial commitment made to its employees . 
this legislation would make it more difficult for financially-viable companies to engage in pension dumping to increase their long-term profits . 
current law does not sufficiently protect against the termination of plans . 
by implementing this provision , pension participants would have greater opportunity to work with companies to find alternatives to eliminating existing pension plans . 
after a company successfully terminates its pension plan , the pension benefit guarantee corporation , pbgc , takes over the financial obligations to make payments to pensioners . 
in certain instances , the maximum amount the pbgc will pay is less than the original amount promised by the pension . 
my final amendment would have made the cost of the pension payment `` gap '' an administrative expense for the company , which would make it easier for pensioners to collect the missing funds in bankruptcy court . 
pensioners deserve the full pension amount they were promised . 
in cases where the company goes bankrupt , and the pbgc payment is less than the original amount promised , pensioners deserve to be near the front of the line when it comes to collecting debts from the company in bankruptcy court . 
i believe that a promise is a promise , and if a company emerges from bankruptcy with the finances to pay the difference of a lower pension , they should do so . 
once again , i urge my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule . 
