David Thomas: “the authors of the underlying bill said that they addressed the issue, not that they had dealt with it. This motion to…”

“the authors of the underlying bill said that they addressed the issue, not that they had dealt with it. This motion to recommit is 22 pages of very specific directed information that I will address in a moment. We have had an excellent discussion about needful changes in the area of pensions and IRAs. I would hope it is enough for my colleagues to know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) are in opposition to this motion to recommit. This is not the way to deal with pension legislation. Twenty-two specific pages. For example, in the materials explaining the bill it says, ``The fact that cash balance plan conversions violate current pension age discrimination laws is clear.'' If it is clear, why on page 12, beginning on line 6, does it say, ``Directive. The Secretary of the Treasury shall apply section 411 without regard to the portion of the preamble. Such preamble is and has been since its adoption without the force of law.'' If it is clear, why do my colleagues direct the Treasury to a particular conclusion about that section? It also involves the ERISA area, which is the jurisdiction of the committee of the gentleman from Ohio.”