mr. speaker , i yield myself the balance of my time .  as i listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle , i have to tell you that i am confused .  some of them say the rules that we are proposing here are too tough and are going to drive employers out of the pension business , while we have some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying the rules are not tight enough and we are going to create more deficits at the pension benefit guaranty corporation .  ladies and gentlemen , i think the bill is just right .  yes , these are better rules that will require companies to better fund their plans .  they certainly are better than current law .  but i do not believe they go to the point of driving companies out of the defined benefit system .  my good friend from california believes we are going to drive up the deficit .  now , if the rules were not strong enough , i would not have had virtually every employer in america who has a defined benefit plan beating on my office door complaining about the rules we were proposing .  i would not have had every labor organization talking to me about how do we get this right .  the fact is , if you look at the chart that we have here , plans must meet a 100 percent funding target .  that is not the law today .  if they are in the 80-90 percent range , it is good enough .  but then as soon as the market turns down or the industry has a bump in the road , it is not long before they are under 60 and in deep trouble .  so requiring plans to be 100 percent funded , i think , is a very good idea .  having an interest rate that is commensurate with their liabilities is something that we have not done ever .  we have had one interest rate used to calculate the plan 's liabilities .  under this modified yield curve proposal , they will have three different interest rates to use based on the longevity of their workforce , 0-5 years , 5-20 , and those employees who will retire after 20 years .  it will give us a more accurate reflection of the true cost of those plans .  third , it requires funding shortfalls to be erased over 7 years .  we want to give companies time to go from the current rules to these more responsible rules ; and if we do not have a sufficient transition time , what is going to happen is that we are going to create real havoc in the marketplace .  fourth , it restricts unlimited use of credit balances .  we all know that the current rules about credit balances are , frankly , some of the most irresponsible public policy that i have seen .  beginning to restrict the use of those credit balances will , in fact , strengthen these plans .  fifth , it curves benefit increases for underfunded plans .  we all know there are plans that were underfunded , severely underfunded , and yet increasing benefits at the same time .  that is not fair to workers who are being given promises that someone has no intention of keeping .  last , it shores up the finances of the pension benefit guaranty corporation .  all of these will bring more funding to company pension plans , it will bring more funding to the pension benefit guaranty corporation , and put our pension system for american workers on a stronger foundation .  why else do i think we are just right ?  i have a long list of business organizations that are supporting this bill and a long list of labor organizations that are supporting this bill .  it is a balanced bill .  i urge my colleagues to support it .  