mr. speaker , the debate today on the floor is about the massive underfunding in worker pensions and the need to change the status quo .  unfortunately , what we have just been presented is what would actually make pensions less secure by preserving the status quo and putting at risk millions of american pensions .  let me make five points .  first , the motion to recommit preserves the status quo by requiring employers and union leaders to fund their plans at 90 percent or in some cases only 80 percent , instead of the 100 percent funding requirements that we have in the underlying bill .  it just does not pass the straight-face test .  second , they are preserving the status quo by continuing to allow employers to take up to 30 years to erase any funding shortfall in their plan .  pension experts agree that this increases the risk of plan termination , threatening the benefits of workers and retirees .  third , they are preserving the status quo on unrestricted use of credit balances which mask the massive pension plan underfunding we see today .  we know that the credit balance rules that are in place today are irresponsible public policy .  they must be changed if we are going to strengthen the pension system .  and to allow those rules to stay in place , again , does not pass the straight-face test .  fourth , they propose preserving the status quo by failing to incorporate the full package of multi-employer reforms that were agreed to by a broad coalition of organized labor and employer groups .  last , they preserve the status quo by promoting uncertainty among employers if these pension benefits and workers who are relying on them maintain the current interest rate package for 2 years and then go back to the 30-year rate thereafter .  the modified yield curve in the underlying bill presents a more accurate picture of the liabilities that these plans have and should , in fact , stay in the bill .  mr. speaker , i believe that the underlying bill is far more balanced .  it really does strengthen american pensions , and i would urge my colleagues to reject this .  