Chamber Event on the Pension Protection Act
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The Pension Protection Act: 10 Years Later
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Key Topics & Takeaways
- Accomplishments: The panel amicably stressed that retirement security in America is still a work in progress. Greg Dean mentioned that the 2008 recession burdened some of the effectiveness of the PPA, while Diane Oakley, former staff of House Ways and Means Committee Member Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), referenced how pre-recession projections on retirement security resulted in inaccuracy, as the recession added additional burden.
Next Steps: Kreps asked the panelists about the common ground in the future of retirement plans. Creighton mentioned three main aspects that are common ground for the industry: 1) the need to increase coverage; 2) decreasing leakage; and 3) increasing plan adequacy.
Moderators
- Hazel Bradford, Pensions and Investment Magazine
- Michael Kreps, Groom Law Group
Panelists
- Stacey Dion, Former Republican Staff of the House Education and the Workforce Committee
- John O’Neill, Former Republican Staff of the Senate Finance Committee
- Holly Fechner, Former Democratic Staff of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
- Greg Dean, Former Republican Staff of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
- Mildeen Worrell, Former Democratic Staff of the House Ways and Means Committee
- Diane Oakley, Former Staff to House Ways and Means Committee Member Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.)
- Janet Boyd, Director of Government Relations and Legislative Counsel, The Dow Chemical Company
- Karen Friedman, Executive Vice President and Policy Director, Pension Rights Center
- Lori Lucas, Defined Contribution Institutional Investment Association
- Francis Creighton, Executive Vice President of Government Affairs, Financial Services Roundtable
- Pamela Perun, Women’s Institute for A Secure Retirement
Panel I: How Did PPA Happen? A View from the Inside
Introduction
Moderator Hazel Bradford retrospectively questioned the Chamber’s first panel. First, Bradford asked the panelists what aspects of retirement security drove the introduction and passing of the Pension Protection Act (PPA). Many of the panelists noted that the era of bankruptcy in the airline industry provided the impetus to get the PPA underway. Additionally, some noted the tech bubble and others, like Holly Fechner, credited the Bush Administration for driving the passage of the PPA.
Bradford then inquired about the easiest and most difficult parts of passing the PPA. Overwhelmingly, the panelists’ responses focused on how members of Congress on both sides of the aisle had a shared goal of introducing pension reform and strengthening retirement security in America. John O’Neill, former Republican Senate Finance Committee staff, highlighted the bicameral nature of the bill by noting the hard work it took to pass the bill through different conferences and committees in both chambers. Greg Dean, former Republican staff of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, added that the funding rules created the most difficulty. Mildeen Worrell, former Democratic Ways and Means Committee staff, commented on the heavy engagement by the members of Congress on the creation of the PPA. She stated there was a “the sky is falling approach,” in trying to modernize the retirement system in an incremental way.
Lastly, Bradford asked about the expectations the panelists had going into the PPA and what they would have done differently. The panel amicably stressed that retirement security in America is still a work in progress. Stacey Dion, former Republican staff of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, highlighted that the PPA provided a framework for America to build on and improve retirement security. Also, Dean mentioned that the 2008 recession burdened some of the effectiveness of the PPA, while Diane Oakley, former staff of House Ways and Means Committee Member Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), referenced how pre-recession projections on retirement security resulted in inaccuracy, as the recession added additional burden. Fechner and O’Neill both referenced the need to further address struggling multiemployer plans. Finally, many of the panelists, notably Oakley and O’Neill, said the PPA lacked “bold thinking,” but offered that some of the more daring legislation at the state level could be applied at the federal level.
Panel II: Building from PPA: The Future of Private Retirement Plans
Benefits
Michael Kreps, Groom Law Group, asked about what each panelists’ organization cared about in the PPA and aspects of the PPA that did and did not work. Panelists Karen Friedman of the Pension Rights Center, Lori Lucas of Defined Contribution Institutional Investment Association (DCIIA), Francis Creighton of Financial Services Roundtable, and Pamela Perun at the Women’s Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER), all noted that automatic enrollment in retirement plans was a beneficial part of the PPA, and a major factor in increasing participation in plans. Creighton added that auto-enrollment was the most important development in Defined Contribution (DC) plans. Friedman and Perun both offered that the PPA’s provisions for women were beneficial. Perun continued to highlight that the PPA did not help all women and that women are at a higher risk of lacking an adequate retirement plan. Lucas concluded that, “plan sponsors wanted to do the right thing for DC plans and the PPA accomplished it.”
Next Steps
Kreps then asked about the future for retirement security, added a question about the PPA’s “unfinished business.” Many of the panelists responded by highlighting the coverage issues that still exist today, many of which are created by leakage. Lucas noted that the non-discrimination testing safe harbor needs to be “tweaked” for its impact on plan sponsors who implement auto-enrollment.
Finally, Kreps asked the panelists about the common ground in the future of retirement plans. Creighton mentioned three main aspects that are common ground for the industry: 1) the need to increase coverage; 2) decreasing leakage; and 3) increasing plan adequacy. He also noted that moving forward, the industry should use tools that Congress has already provided for them before going to Congress and asking for new retirement tools.
For more information on this event, please click here.
,Blog Tags:,Blog Categories:,Blog TrackBack:,Blog Pingback:No,Hearing Summaries Issues:Retirement/Pensions,Hearing Summaries Agency:Special Event,Publish Year:2016
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The Pension Protection Act: 10 Years Later
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Key Topics & Takeaways
- Accomplishments: The panel amicably stressed that retirement security in America is still a work in progress. Greg Dean mentioned that the 2008 recession burdened some of the effectiveness of the PPA, while Diane Oakley, former staff of House Ways and Means Committee Member Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), referenced how pre-recession projections on retirement security resulted in inaccuracy, as the recession added additional burden.
Next Steps: Kreps asked the panelists about the common ground in the future of retirement plans. Creighton mentioned three main aspects that are common ground for the industry: 1) the need to increase coverage; 2) decreasing leakage; and 3) increasing plan adequacy.
Moderators
- Hazel Bradford, Pensions and Investment Magazine
- Michael Kreps, Groom Law Group
Panelists
- Stacey Dion, Former Republican Staff of the House Education and the Workforce Committee
- John O’Neill, Former Republican Staff of the Senate Finance Committee
- Holly Fechner, Former Democratic Staff of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
- Greg Dean, Former Republican Staff of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
- Mildeen Worrell, Former Democratic Staff of the House Ways and Means Committee
- Diane Oakley, Former Staff to House Ways and Means Committee Member Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.)
- Janet Boyd, Director of Government Relations and Legislative Counsel, The Dow Chemical Company
- Karen Friedman, Executive Vice President and Policy Director, Pension Rights Center
- Lori Lucas, Defined Contribution Institutional Investment Association
- Francis Creighton, Executive Vice President of Government Affairs, Financial Services Roundtable
- Pamela Perun, Women’s Institute for A Secure Retirement
Panel I: How Did PPA Happen? A View from the Inside
Introduction
Moderator Hazel Bradford retrospectively questioned the Chamber’s first panel. First, Bradford asked the panelists what aspects of retirement security drove the introduction and passing of the Pension Protection Act (PPA). Many of the panelists noted that the era of bankruptcy in the airline industry provided the impetus to get the PPA underway. Additionally, some noted the tech bubble and others, like Holly Fechner, credited the Bush Administration for driving the passage of the PPA.
Bradford then inquired about the easiest and most difficult parts of passing the PPA. Overwhelmingly, the panelists’ responses focused on how members of Congress on both sides of the aisle had a shared goal of introducing pension reform and strengthening retirement security in America. John O’Neill, former Republican Senate Finance Committee staff, highlighted the bicameral nature of the bill by noting the hard work it took to pass the bill through different conferences and committees in both chambers. Greg Dean, former Republican staff of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, added that the funding rules created the most difficulty. Mildeen Worrell, former Democratic Ways and Means Committee staff, commented on the heavy engagement by the members of Congress on the creation of the PPA. She stated there was a “the sky is falling approach,” in trying to modernize the retirement system in an incremental way.
Lastly, Bradford asked about the expectations the panelists had going into the PPA and what they would have done differently. The panel amicably stressed that retirement security in America is still a work in progress. Stacey Dion, former Republican staff of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, highlighted that the PPA provided a framework for America to build on and improve retirement security. Also, Dean mentioned that the 2008 recession burdened some of the effectiveness of the PPA, while Diane Oakley, former staff of House Ways and Means Committee Member Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), referenced how pre-recession projections on retirement security resulted in inaccuracy, as the recession added additional burden. Fechner and O’Neill both referenced the need to further address struggling multiemployer plans. Finally, many of the panelists, notably Oakley and O’Neill, said the PPA lacked “bold thinking,” but offered that some of the more daring legislation at the state level could be applied at the federal level.
Panel II: Building from PPA: The Future of Private Retirement Plans
Benefits
Michael Kreps, Groom Law Group, asked about what each panelists’ organization cared about in the PPA and aspects of the PPA that did and did not work. Panelists Karen Friedman of the Pension Rights Center, Lori Lucas of Defined Contribution Institutional Investment Association (DCIIA), Francis Creighton of Financial Services Roundtable, and Pamela Perun at the Women’s Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER), all noted that automatic enrollment in retirement plans was a beneficial part of the PPA, and a major factor in increasing participation in plans. Creighton added that auto-enrollment was the most important development in Defined Contribution (DC) plans. Friedman and Perun both offered that the PPA’s provisions for women were beneficial. Perun continued to highlight that the PPA did not help all women and that women are at a higher risk of lacking an adequate retirement plan. Lucas concluded that, “plan sponsors wanted to do the right thing for DC plans and the PPA accomplished it.”
Next Steps
Kreps then asked about the future for retirement security, added a question about the PPA’s “unfinished business.” Many of the panelists responded by highlighting the coverage issues that still exist today, many of which are created by leakage. Lucas noted that the non-discrimination testing safe harbor needs to be “tweaked” for its impact on plan sponsors who implement auto-enrollment.
Finally, Kreps asked the panelists about the common ground in the future of retirement plans. Creighton mentioned three main aspects that are common ground for the industry: 1) the need to increase coverage; 2) decreasing leakage; and 3) increasing plan adequacy. He also noted that moving forward, the industry should use tools that Congress has already provided for them before going to Congress and asking for new retirement tools.
For more information on this event, please click here.