Rob Portman: “Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said that there is a New York Times article that has not been responded to. We have spent a…”

“Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said that there is a New York Times article that has not been responded to. We have spent a good part of today responding to it and its inaccuracies. Just to do it once more, because the gentleman said we had not responded, the provision we are talking about is to be able to use a facts-and-circumstances test at the Department of Treasury when a plan is fair on its face. It is entirely within the discretion of the Department of Treasury to determine the procedures for that. It is entirely within their discretion to say even though your plan is fair, even though it treats everybody the same, even though you have a uniform benefit all the way through, still you do not meet the test. There are circumstances where a plan is perfectly fair. In fact, you could have a uniform benefit for every level of paid worker in the plan, but because one of the workers at the middle or higher level came on to the plan at an earlier age, it might not meet the specific mathematical tests that the Treasury Department uses. There needs to be some kind of test, but tests are just that; they are mathematical, they are specific. Sometimes they do not work to determine whether something is fair or not. Should there not be some safety valve? The junior senator from New York thinks there should. It is in the Grassley bill that she has cosponsored.”