<DOC> [109 Senate Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:23280.wais] S. Hrg. 109-129 THE ROLE OF EMPLOYER-SPONSORED RETIREMENT PLANS IN INCREASING NATIONAL SAVINGS ======================================================================= HEARING before the SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ WASHINGTON, DC __________ APRIL 12, 2005 __________ Serial No. 109-5 Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 23-280 WASHINGTON : 2005 _________________________________________________________________ For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING GORDON SMITH, Oregon, Chairman RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin SUSAN COLLINS, Maine JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina RON WYDEN, Oregon MEL MARTINEZ, Florida BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho EVAN BAYH, Indiana RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware CONRAD BURNS, Montana BILL NELSON, Florida LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JIM DEMINT, South Carolina Catherine Finley, Staff Director Julie Cohen, Ranking Member Staff Director (ii) C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Opening Statement of Senator Gordon Smith........................ 1 Opening Statement of Senator Herb Kohl........................... 3 Opening Statement of Senator James DeMint........................ 8 Opening Statement of Senator Thomas Carper....................... 9 Panel I Mark J. Warshawsky, assistant secretary for Economic Policy, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC..................... 4 J. Mark Iwry, nonresident senior fellow, Economic Studies, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.......................... 25 Eugene Steuerle, senior fellow, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC............................................................. 80 James A. Klein, president, American Benefits Council, Washington, DC............................................................. 98 John M. Kimpel, senior vice president and deputy general counsel, Fidelity Investments, Boston, MA............................... 139 APPENDIX Testimony submitted by Patricia Cox, chief operating officer, Schwab Retirement Plan Services, Inc........................... 159 Statement of The Principal Financial Group....................... 168 Information submitted by The Retirement Security Project......... 174 A Report on Corporate Defined Contribution Plans submitted by Fidelity Investments........................................... 214 (iii) THE ROLE OF EMPLOYER-SPONSORED RETIREMENT PLANS IN INCREASING NATIONAL SAVINGS ---------- -- TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2005 U.S. Senate, Special Committee on Aging, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Gordon H. Smith (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Senators Smith, DeMint, Kohl, and Carper. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GORDON H. SMITH, CHAIRMAN The Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, if we can come to order, we will commence this hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Today's hearing will focus on a very important topic: the role of employer-sponsored retirement plans in increasing national savings. We are going to hear from two distinguished panels of witnesses who will provide us with their insights on whether the current employer-sponsored retirement plan system effectively increases national savings and how we can improve that system. The average life expectancy of Americans has steadily increased. For example, the average life expectancy of Americans born in 1960 was about 70 years. Yet in 2003, life expectancy was about 77 years. Although Americans are living longer than ever before, most Americans continue to retire before age 65. At the same time, the personal savings rate in the United States has declined dramatically over the last two decades, reaching about one percent of personal income in 2004. The decline in our savings rate is a disturbing trend because, as the length of retirement grows, Americans must save more, not less, to ensure a financially secure retirement. The need to increase our savings was also emphasized by Chairman Alan Greenspan of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System during his testimony before this committee last month on the economics of retirement. Many refer to retirement income as a three-legged stool: Social Security, employer-sponsored retirement plans, and personal savings. Although there has been a tremendous amount of focus on Social Security lately, we all know that it takes all three legs of the stool to keep the whole thing balanced. Therefore, as pensions are the second largest sources of income among the elderly, the goal of this hearing is to focus on ways to increase savings in employer-sponsored retirement plans and thus improve the stability of America's retirement system. Currently, savings and participation rates in employer- sponsored retirement plans are low. In 2001, only about 58 percent of households with an employed head of the household under the age of 64 included at least one worker who participated in an employer-sponsored plan. In addition, about 37 percent, or 28 million, of such households did not own a retirement savings account of any kind. With respect to the amount of retirement savings Americans have accumulated among the 47.8 million households that owned a retirement savings account of any kind in 2001, the median value of such accounts was only $27,000. Besides low savings and participation rates, another important trend with respect to employer-sponsored retirement plans is the shift from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans, including 401(k) plans. Over the last several years, the number of defined benefit plans has dropped dramatically, while at the same time the number of defined contribution plans has increased. In the context of savings, this shift is significant because coverage under a defined contribution plan generally requires employers to take a more active role in preparing for retirement. For example, in general, employees must decide whether to participate in the retirement plan, how much to contribute to the plan, and how their contributions should be invested. In response to these trends, I plan to introduce legislation shortly that is aimed at increasing savings and participation rates in employer-sponsored retirement plans. For example, the bill will include a provision intended to encourage sponsors of 401(k) plans to adopt automatic enrollment in which a percentage of each employee's salary is placed in an individual account without requiring the employee to take any action. Therefore, instead of requiring employees to actively enroll in a 401(k) plan in order to participate, under automatic enrollment employees will be automatically enrolled unless they elect to opt out, as is generally done under defined benefit plans. Automatic enrollment has been shown to increase participation rates in 401(k) plans significantly, especially among low- and middle-income individuals. In addition, with increased life expectancies, it is also important for individuals to preserve their income throughout their retirement years and not outlive their savings. Therefore, my bill also will provide incentives to ensure income preservation throughout one's retirement by encouraging employers to offer and employees to select distributions from defined contribution plans and IRAs in the form of lifetime annuities. I want to thank all of our witnesses for coming today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. I would note that there is a 3:30 vote scheduled. Perhaps we can hear from everyone and get all the questions asked in that amount of time. I now turn to my colleague, Senator Kohl, for his comments. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB H. KOHL Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we have all seen the statistics and the studies on the amount of money Americans are saving for retirement, and it is striking that so few are prepared for their nonworking years. Retirement income has often been compared to a three-legged stool--as you pointed out--which includes Social Security, employer-sponsored pensions, and personal savings. Increasingly, a fourth leg will be wages, as many older Americans work past traditional retirement age. Financial planners recommend a retirement income that replaces 70 percent of pre-retirement earnings. With Social Security's overall replacement rate of about 45 percent, clearly other sources of retirement income are critical. As we continue the Social Security debate, we cannot ignore the other legs of the stool. Clearly, the pension system needs improvement. Most workers are not covered by a plan, and only about half participate in a pension at all. Participation rates are poor for lower-income workers and small businesses. Contributions are also low across the board, and too many workers withdraw money before retirement. The typical balance for a 401(k) for workers near retirement is only $43,000, and for workers earning less than $25,000 a year, the typical balance is only $2,200. So it is clear that more needs to be done to encourage saving, but we need to do it right. As we will hear today, the government now spends more on tax incentives for retirement saving than Americans actually save. Almost all of these incentives are worth the most to higher-income workers, who probably would have saved even without the extra inducement from the government. Some proposals by the administration, such as Retirement Savings Accounts and Lifetime Savings Accounts, instead of reversing this backwards incentive structure, would go even further in the wrong direction. Obviously, we need to reorient government policy to encourage saving and improve retirement security among the population that most needs to save; our lowest-income workers. Several policies have the potential to do just that: encouraging automatic enrollment in 401(k)s; extending and expanding the saver's credit, which is a matching tax credit for contributions targeted toward lower-income workers; improving financial education and investment choice; and allowing taxpayers to split off a portion of their tax refund and put it directly into a savings account. These are promising ideas with the potential to receive bipartisan support. The time to act is now; the retirement security of millions of Americans depends on it. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we welcome you all to the panel. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kohl. Our only witness on our first panel is Mark J. Warshawsky, and, Mr. Secretary, we welcome you. He is the assistant secretary for Economic Policy, Department of the Treasury, and the microphone is yours. STATEMENT OF MARK J. WARSHAWSKY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Warshawsky. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Kohl, and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the administration's proposal to reform and strengthen the single-employer defined benefit pension system against the backdrop of the larger issue of promoting national saving. As far back as 1776, Adam Smith identified capital accumulation as the key force in promoting growth in the wealth of nations. Smith also identified the key force in capital accumulation: increasing national savings. Since Smith's time, almost all economists have come to understand the vital nature of national saving, and increasing saving has become a standard policy prescription for enhancing economic growth and raising living standards. We know the U.S. faces a challenge as the economy works through the implications of the retirement of the baby-boom generation. With the growth in the workforce set to slow and the average age of the population rising, maintaining steady growth in the standard of living will become more difficult. The Smith prescription shows the way out. Increase our savings, which will increase our accumulated capital, which will give each worker more and better tools to work with, which will raise productivity and secure a growing standard of living. Despite the fact that this prescription is well known, the evidence suggests it is exceptionally hard to follow. Net private saving--which we define as gross private saving less depreciation on plant, equipment, and housing stock--as a share of national income averaged about 11 percent from 1955 through 1985, but since then has trended steadily down. Over the past 10 years, it has averaged about 5.5 percent of GDP, or about 5 percentage points below where it was during the decades of the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, and most of the 1980's. One reason the saving prescription is difficult to follow is that incentives work against it. Our tax system, for example, has for a long time encouraged Americans to spend first and save second. To reverse this, the Administration has worked hard to set in place the incentives that encourage saving. EGTRRA cut the top tax rates which raised the after-tax rate of return on capital income--encouraging savings. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 cut taxes specifically on capital income. But even with these positive changes, the Federal income tax code still discourages saving. To combat this, the President has proposed retirement savings accounts, which would replace the complex array of retirement saving incentives currently in the tax code, such as IRAs, Roth IRAs, and similar saving vehicles. The President has also proposed employer retirement savings accounts, ERSAs, to simplify the saving opportunities individuals have through their employers. The President's lifetime savings accounts would, for the first time, allow individuals to save on a tax-preferred basis for any purpose. This can be especially important to low-income individuals and families who need to save but cannot afford to lock up funds for retirement that may be needed for an emergency in the near term. The President has also proposed individual development accounts which would give extra financial incentive to certain low-income families to set aside funds for major purchases, such as a first home. Pensions, of course, play a critical role in savings as well. Accumulating financial assets for future retirement is indeed one of the main reasons households save any way. If individuals and households believe they will receive a pension in retirement, that clearly influences their saving and asset accumulation behavior. But if, in fact, those promised benefits are not available because of pension underfunding, then the household's savings and, when you add up households, the aggregate national savings is less than it otherwise would have been had their pension been adequately funded. Unfortunately, the single-employer pension system's current serious financial trouble is likely to lead to just such undersaving and participant benefit losses. Many plans are badly underfunded, jeopardizing the pensions of millions of American workers, and the insurance system which protects those workers in the event that their own plans fail has a substantial deficit. The primary goal of any pension reform effort should be to ensure that retirees and workers receive the pension benefits they have earned. Clearly, the current funding rules have failed to meet this goal. As part of its reform proposal, the administration has designed a new set of funding rules that we think will ensure that participants receive the benefits they have earned from their pension plans. Today I will briefly discuss a few critical issues pertaining to the funding elements of the proposal and their likely effects on the economy and national savings. My written testimony provides a more comprehensive discussion of the entirety of the proposal. For any set of funding rules to function well, assets and liabilities must be measured accurately. The system of smoothing embodied in current law serves only to mask the true financial condition of pension plans. Under our proposal, assets will be marked to market. Liabilities will be measured using a current spot yield curve that takes into account the timing of future benefit payments summed across all plan participants. Discounting future benefit cash-flows using the rates from the spot yield curve is the most accurate way to measure a plan's liability. Liabilities computed using the yield curve match the timing of obligations with discount rates of appropriate maturities. Proper matching of discount rates and obligations is, in fact, the most accurate way to measure today's cost of meeting pension obligations. The Administration recognizes that the current minimum funding rules have added to contribution volatility. Particular problem areas are the so-called deficit reduction contribution mechanism and the limits on tax deductibility of contributions. Our proposal is designed to remedy those issues by giving plans the tools needed to smooth contributions over the business cycle. These tools include increasing the deductible contribution limit, and this will give plan contributions an additional ability to fund up during good times. We also increase the amortization period for funding deficits to 7 years compared to a period as short as 4 years under current law. Finally, there is the continued freedom that plan sponsors already have to choose prudent pension fund investments. Using all these tools, plan sponsors can limit volatility and maintain a conservative funding level so that financial market changes will not result in large increases in minimum contributions. We believe these are the appropriate methods for dealing with risk. We believe it is inappropriate to limit contribution volatility by permitting plan underfunding that transfers risk to plan participants and the PBGC. Under our proposal, plan funding targets for healthy plan sponsors will be established at a level that reflects the full value of benefits earned to date under the assumption that plan participant behavior remains largely consistent with the past history of an ongoing concern. Plans sponsored by firms with below investment grade credit will be required to fund to a higher standard that reflects the increased risk that these plans will terminate. Pension plans sponsored by firms with poor credit ratings pose the greatest risk of default. It is only natural that pension plans with sponsors that fall into this readily observable, high-risk category should have more stringent funding standards. Credit ratings are used throughout the economy and, in fact, in many Government regulations to measure the risk that a firm will default on its financial obligations. A prudent system of pension regulation in insurance would be lacking if we did not use this information. Credit balances under current law are created when a plan makes a contribution that is greater than the required minimum. Under current law, this credit balance plus an assumed rate of return can be used to offset future contributions. We see two significant problems with this system. First, the assets that underlie the credit balances may lose rather than gain value. Second, and far more important, credit balances allow plans that are seriously underfunded to take funding holidays. In our view, every underfunded plan should make minimum annual contributions. So under our proposal, credit balances, as defined under current law, will be eliminated. Contributions in excess of the minimum, however, still reduce future minimum contributions. The value of these contributions is added to the plan's assets and, all other things equal, reduces the amount of time that the sponsor must make minimum contributions to the plan. In combination with the other elements of our proposal, there is more than adequate incentive for plan sponsors to fund above the minimum. In fact, we believe there are four other reasons that employers might choose to contribute more than the minimum: (1) there is the increased deductibility provisions that allow sponsors to accumulate on a tax-free basis; (2) disclosure of funded status to workers will encourage better funding; (3) a better funded status results in lower PBGC premiums under our proposal; and, (4) a better funded status makes benefit restrictions less likely. Now, as I have described, the current rules often fail to ensure adequate plan funding, and recent history has made this very obvious. Formally, and speaking as an economist, we might say that the current set of rules has created a partially pay- as-you-go private pension system by allowing some accrued liabilities to be unfunded. That is, in general, when plans are not funded fully, the system basically operates by transferring contributions associated with younger workers to current retired workers. The funding rules proposed by the administration, whereby sponsors that fall below the accurately measured minimum funding levels are required to fund up toward their contribution in a timely manner, and this moved the system in the direction of being fully funded. In a fully funded system, the contributions associated with each generation of workers are invested and fund their own retirements. A basic result in macroeconomics is that a pay-as-you-go system results in less savings, a slower rate of capital accumulation, and a lower steady state capital stock. Therefore, the Administration's proposal, through the move toward more fully funded private defined benefit pensions, is consistent and in support of the administration goal of increases saving and greater capital accumulation. Now, let me comment that some analysts recently have expressed concern that the administration's proposal could have negative macroeconomic effects. They suggest these effects will come through depressed business investment by underfunded plan sponsors, some of whom will, in fact, face higher contributions under the administration's proposal. In my opinion, sound economic analysis strong suggests that there are no short- or long-term macroeconomic risks associated with reforming pension funding rules. Quite the contrary, the proposal's long-term economic effects will be positive and in the direction that we have just described. Well-functioning capital markets allow companies to finance attractive investments even if they face short-term demands on their current cash-flows. For that reason, many economists believe that there is little link between a company's cash- flows--including its pension funding requirements--and its investment decisions. This suggests that as a general matter, pension contributions are unlikely to cause a reduction in the plan sponsor's investment pattern. But even more importantly, it is critical to recognize that pension contributions finance investment throughout the economy. They do not just disappear. The monies directed into pension accounts are invested in stocks and bonds, thereby deploying these resources throughout the economy. Failure to recognize this may have led some analysts to mistakenly attribute negative macroeconomic effects to the Administration's proposal. In conclusion, let me say that defined benefit plans are a vital source of retirement income for millions of Americans. The Administration is committed to ensuring that these plans remain a viable retirement option for those firms that wish to offer them to their employees. The long-run viability of the system, however, depends on ensuring that it is financially sound. The Administration's proposal is designed to put the system on secure financial footing in order to safeguard the benefits that plan participants have earned and will earn in the future. We are committed to working with the Members of Congress to ensure that effective defined benefit pension reforms that protect workers' pensions are enacted into law. It has been my pleasure to discuss the proposal, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. The Chairman. Thank you. We have been joined by two colleagues, Senator DeMint of South Carolina and Senator Carper of Delaware. If either of you have an opening statement, we would be happy to take those now. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES DeMINT Senator DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just make a couple of comments and maybe ask a question, if we could just get that started. Thank you very much for your testimony today. It is a subject near and dear to my heart. As an employer for many years, trying to get folks to save was a real challenge. I have found over the years even matching or putting savings into some form of pension is very difficult for a small employer with unpredictable profits. The regulations that require consistent contributions make it very difficult for a small employer to participate since year to year we are not sure if we can make a contribution. The other frustrating aspect of it was we may have actually contributed 100 percent of some form of pension or savings, and only to find that an employee might pull it out with a large penalty to spend on immediate need. I think what it comes down to pragmatically is the average- income American is going to find it very difficult to find any additional discretionary money to save. That is why I appreciate the President's recognition that when you take over 12.5 percent of what the average American makes, it is going to be very difficult for them to find additional money to save. That is why I believe it is so important that we as a Government figure out how we can start saving part of that 12.5 percent that people are already putting into their Social Security plan. The average American family now contributes over $5,000 a year in Social Security taxes, if you include the employer's side of that. That makes it very difficult for an employee to add to. So as we look at total savings, we do see that is a key problem in America because, as you know, when there is not savings from a large percent of the population, the wealth gap continues to grow. We have half of Americans who own something and the other half who don't, half who benefit from the growth in the economy and nearly another half that don't. So I appreciate the President's proposal. I would be very supportive of expanding particularly the idea of IDAs, which at least somewhat control how the money could be spent, expanding those in some ways. But I think I would just like your comments on realistically can we expect the Americans who need to save the most to actually come up with additional funds as well as the employers who have the most difficult time of creating these plans coming up with plans under new regulations that might make it more difficult for them to be consistent with them, if you could just make a few comments, I would appreciate it. Mr. Warshawsky. One reason to particularly focus on defined benefit plans is that under current law the rules have become extraordinarily complex. I am sure that is a strong disincentive, particularly for small employers, for sponsoring defined benefit plans. Defined benefit plans do have certain advantages for employees and employers, and in particular they are, if you will, a forced saving vehicle. Everyone participates and the money is put in by the employer, and sometimes by employees as well. Under our proposal, we basically have a significant simplification of the rules; this is hard to appreciate without knowing how complicated the current rules are. But I think it is fair to say that we have a much simpler system, and that perhaps could have the impact down the road of encouraging smaller plan sponsors to enter the system. Another aspect of our proposal is that by allowing companies to fund during good times, that enables them to manage their cash-flow better than under current law, which is very restrictive of additional contributions because of the full funding limitations. Senator DeMint. Thank you. The Chairman. Senator Carper. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMAS CARPER Senator Carper. I have got a couple of questions I want to ask our witness. I am going to wait until just a little bit later. But this is certainly a timely hearing and a timely issue, and we appreciate your input, and I look forward to asking a couple of questions. Thank you. The Chairman. Did I detect in your statement an expression that defined contribution or defined benefit plans do more to add to national saving, one versus the other? Mr. Warshawsky. Not necessarily. I think the import of my statement is that underfunded defined benefit plans do detract from national savings because employees think they are going to get the benefits that are promised to them and, therefore, they save less. But in point of fact, the realization may be other than what they are promised because the plan is poorly funded. So, therefore, one way of increasing national savings in the context of defined benefit pensions is to be sure that these plans are adequately funded. That is really what I was getting at in my testimony. The Chairman. Many defined contribution plans occurs essentially through a payroll deduction, and then it is there and they own it and they watch it grow, they participate, their knowledge increases, I assume, in what they have. Mr. Warshawsky. I think that is an aspect of a defined contribution plan. That is right. The Chairman. How much simpler are 401(k) plans versus defined benefit plans in terms of--you spoke to Senator DeMint about the complexity being a significant deterrent to small companies offering defined benefit plans. How much simpler are defined contribution? Mr. Warshawsky. There have been studies in the past that actually try to quantify the administrative costs of defined benefit versus defined contribution plans, and depending on the size of the plan sponsor, because there are economies of scale, defined contribution plans are easier and less costly to administer. Therefore, because defined benefit plans have had layer upon layer upon layer of regulation and rules that have been established for them, particularly in the funding area, one point of our proposal is to simplify that system. The Chairman. How about the administrative cost? Is one more costly to administer versus another? Mr. Warshawsky. I believe for many employers, defined benefit plans are more costly to administer. The Chairman. How often is it that there is malfeasance on the part of the corporation or the pension fund manager where workers are utterly cheated out of their retirement? I ask that because of a terrible case that occurred in my State whereby not only were some pensions underfunded, but then they were appropriated to the extent of over $100 million. You have people who have worked all of their lives now with no recourse and only a few people in jail. How common is that? Mr. Warshawsky. My impression is that it is fortunately not very common. That is something that is subject to Department of Labor and Internal Revenue Service oversight. Perhaps I could share my own research on this point. In a prior position, many years ago, I used to work at the Internal Revenue Service in the Employee Plans area. We conducted an examination of about 400 large underfunded defined benefit plans. We were looking to see whether there was compliance with the current law of funding requirements, to see whether that was a reason for why the plans were underfunded. While we discovered some small problems, by and large plan sponsors followed the rules. The reason why they were underfunded was not because they were not following the rules. They were following the rules. The problem was the rules themselves. The Chairman. Senator Kohl. Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Warshawsky, in their submitted statements three of the next panel's witnesses advocate not only extending the saver's credit, but also expanding it. One study estimated that about 75 percent of the benefits of all the 2001 pension provisions go to the top 20 percent of taxpayers. In contrast, over 45 percent of the benefits of the saver's credit go to taxpayers with income below $30,000, who most need to save. While the administration proposes to extend a variety of pension provisions, the saver's credit is on the chopping block. A New York Times article reports that the Treasury Department's explanation is that the administration is waiting for the recommendations of its tax reform panel. Why must the saver's credit wait, but not the other pension provisions? Mr. Warshawsky. Senator, it is my understanding that one significant problem is that provisions in the code are designed for particular groups, and they therefore become very difficult for financial companies to market, because generally marketing campaigns have to be done on a mass basis. They are also very confusing because people do not know whether they are eligible or whether they are not eligible, whether they are phased out, and it introduces an enormous amount of complexity in the system and precisely for individuals, lower-income individuals, who are ill-equipped to deal with tax code complexity. Therefore, the administration, for example, has put forward the LSA proposal, the lifetime savings account proposal, which is intended to be particularly appealing to low-income folks because of the removal of various special requirements and so on and so forth, and also to enable them to be effectively marketed. Senator Kohl. So you are saying the saver's credit is too complicated? Mr. Warshawsky. Well, I am saying that I think we need to be very mindful of the complexity in the code, and, therefore, that sometimes works at cross-purposes with the intent of very specifically, carefully targeted incentives. Senator Kohl. Here is a tax incentive which, as I pointed out, provides benefits that lower-income families generally take advantage of; 45 percent of the saver's credit goes to taxpayers with incomes below $30,000. So it would seem that it would be something that would deserve all kinds of attention because it does exactly what we want. Yet the administration has apparently decided that it should expire completely. While 75 percent of the benefits of all the 2001 provisions go to the top 20 percent of taxpayers, 45 percent of the benefits of this credit go to people with incomes less than $30,000. So why wouldn't you say, maybe we have to simplify it or make it a little bit easier to understand, but we should really promote it because it does what we want it to do? Mr. Warshawsky. Senator, I am sure that it will be something that will be carefully studied by the tax panel, among many of the other features of the tax code in the saving incentive area. Senator Kohl. Well, I hope so. The administration has proposed split tax refunds in its last two budgets. A recent letter from the IRS Commissioner to Members of Congress said that split refunds cannot be implemented until 2007 because a committee needs time to do things like program computers and add a new schedule to the tax forms. It is unclear why it should take two years to resolve such minor administrative issues. Can you assure us that everything that can be done is being done with maximum speed? Would congressional action such as providing more funding help speed things up? Mr. Warshawsky. Senator, I regret to say I am not familiar with that issue. It is more a matter of tax administration. But we would be glad to get back to you on that question. Senator Kohl. OK. Finally, I was struck by the fact that you have devoted the bulk of your testimony to the administration's proposed PBGC funding reforms. You make almost no mention of whether current tax incentives for retirement saving actually increase private and national saving. As I mentioned in my statement, the government now spends more on these incentives than Americans save. So how can you explain this? Mr. Warshawsky. We feel it is very important that the benefits that are promised to workers be assured that they get them. It is really a matter of simple fairness and equity, Senator. Senator Kohl. Alright. Mr. Chairman, thank you. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kohl. Senator Carper, your questions. Senator Carper. Do you pronounce your name ``Warshawsky''? Mr. Warshawsky. That is correct. Senator Carper. OK. Secretary Warshawsky, just for my purposes would you--I came in about halfway through your testimony. Just distill for me just into a couple of small nuggets the problem we are trying to address here. Mr. Warshawsky. The main problem we have, Senator, in the defined benefit system is that many plans--in fact, currently most plans--are significantly underfunded. Therefore, this poses a risk both to the Government through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and even more importantly to the plan participants of not getting the benefits that they are promised. That is the problem in a nutshell from the perspective of individuals and the Government, but there is also a macroeconomic problem, and that is, underfunded pension plans tend to decrease national savings, which is one of the points that we were talking here about as well. So it is actually a broader issue as well. Senator Carper. If we go back a decade or so, did we face the same problem? Were we facing the same problem in the 1990's with underfunding of these pension funds? Mr. Warshawsky. Yes. In fact, as I described my own job at the Internal Revenue Service, I was hired actually to lead a research program on underfunded defined benefit plans because there were so many and the underfunding was so significant. In fact, it seems as if each business cycle we have a cycle of underfunding and then adequate funding, and then each cycle it seems to get worse and worse. So back then in the early 1990's, there were significant problems with underfunded plans as well. Senator Carper. I seem to recall in the 1990's there was a time when a number of employees thought their funds were overfunded, and they sought to take money out of their fund. Mr. Warshawsky. In the late 1990's, as interest rates went up and stock prices went up, there was an apparent overfunding. But, of course, that was also related to how the liabilities were defined. If liabilities are correctly measured, we seem to find more underfunding than current law measurement of pension liabilities. Senator Carper. So what you are saying is this is a recurring problem. Mr. Warshawsky. Correct. Senator Carper. As we go through each business cycle, a cycle of the stock market going up and down, the problem gets worse over time. Again, just lay out for me again just briefly the cure, as prescribed by the administration. Mr. Warshawsky. The cure is several-fold. One aspect, which I emphasized in my testimony, is a simple but stronger set of funding rules whereby, No. 1, assets and liabilities are marked to market, measured accurately, and the difference between assets and liabilities, if the plan is underfunded, has to be made up within seven years. Senator Carper. Say that last part again? Mr. Warshawsky. In other words, if the plan is underfunded, if liabilities exceed assets, that difference has to be made up within seven years, which we feel is prudent--in other words, not too fast, not too slow, it is key that it be done off of an accurate measurement of the liability. In addition, we also propose a new method of calculating PBGC premiums for that insurance program that will also reflect the risk that plans represent, so that if plans are underfunded but are sponsored by poor credit risks, they will have to pay a higher premium, and also they have to pay more in funding for the plan because they represent a larger risk to the PBGC as well as to the plan participants. We also have a proposal to increase disclosure. We feel it is very important that plan participants know how well funded their plans are, those are the main elements of the proposal. Senator Carper. What would you have us do? Mr. Warshawsky. We have the proposal, and as I understand it, it is being considered by the various committees--the Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, and the other relevant committees. We feel very strongly that this proposal would, in fact, cure the ills of the defined benefit system. Senator Carper. Are hearings taking place in the House and the Senate for the legislative committees? Mr. Warshawsky. We had hearings at the beginning of March, yes. Senator Carper. What is the prognosis? Mr. Warshawsky. I believe there is a good recognition of the problem, and I think there is an appreciation that the administration has come forward with a comprehensive package, and I think there is great interest in it. Senator Carper. All right. Thanks very much. Senator Kohl [presiding.] Thank you very much, Senator Carper, and, Mr. Warshawsky, we appreciate your being here today. [The prepared statement of Mr. Warshawsky follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Kohl. On the second panel, if you would like to step up, we have J. Mark Iwry, who is a nonresident senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC; Eugene Steuerle, senior fellow, the Urban Institute, here in DC; James Klein, president, American Benefits Council, Washington, DC; and John Kimpel, Fidelity Investments, senior vice president and deputy general counsel, here in Washington, DC. So maybe we will start on my left with Mr. Iwry and give you each brief opportunity to make your opening statements so we will have some time to ask a question or two. Mr. Iwry. STATEMENT OF J. MARK IWRY, NONRESIDENT SENIOR FELLOW, ECONOMIC STUDIES, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Iwry. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am Mark Iwry. I am happy to be here with you. I commend you for holding this hearing. I would like to start out by noting that our private pension system has put together what is probably the largest pool of investment capital in the world, over $5 trillion in defined benefit, defined contribution plans, and IRAs, most of it rolled over from employer plans. It covers about two-thirds of the workforce at some point in people's lives, and at any given moment about half the workforce is in an employer plan of one kind or another. It has done a great job of delivering meaningful benefits to millions of working families. At the same time, we can do much more to make the system effective in encouraging saving. We spend about $175 billion-- that is Treasury's estimate--on tax incentives for employer plans and IRAs. Much of it is skewed, as, Senator Kohl, you said, toward the people at the top, more skewed than it ought to be. One reason is that the tax preference is based on tax deductions. In other words, its value is proportional to your tax bracket. If you are in the 35-percent bracket and you have $1 that you contribute to a tax-preferred plan, you get 35 cents' worth of tax savings. So the dollar costs you a dollar minus 35, or 65 cents to save. If you are in the 10-percent bracket, you get a dime's worth of tax savings so that it costs you 90 cents to save. This is essentially an upside down system. We are giving the most incentive to the people who need it the least, who have the most wherewithal already. We are giving the least incentive to the people who need it the most for whom retirement savings actually would represent security and not just increased affluence. It follows that we need to target our efforts more toward the three out of four Americans who are in the 15-percent bracket, the 10-percent bracket, or, in fact, the 0-percent income tax bracket, people who pay their payroll taxes but do not owe any income tax, and to level the playing field. As you said, Senator Kohl, the saver's credit does that. It is the most significant and probably the only major Federal legislation that is directly targeted toward promoting retirement saving for the majority of the working population. Contrary to what Mr. Warshawsky said, who I very much respect personally, it is not complex. It could hardly be simpler. You contribute to a 401(k) or an IRA and you get a 50- percent tax credit, or a tax credit at a lower percentage. Instead of the amount you get for saving being dependent on how well off you are, it is dependent on how much you save. It makes a lot more sense than the deduction-based tax incentives. Even though many people have not heard of the saver's credit, 5.3 million people took advantage of it in its first year, 2002, and again in 2003. Mr. Warshawsky, I respectfully suggest, is dead wrong when he says it is hard to market. It is not even a product. People do not market the saver's credit by itself. You market 401(k)s. You market IRAs. You market savings. The saver's credit is one of the tools that helps you market those because it is an additional benefit that people get when they do contribute to a 401(k) or another employer plan or an IRA, and something that H&R Block can attest is actually very easy to get. They helped a million people last year get a saver's credit in connection with their contributions. It costs less than 1 percent of the entire tax incentive package that we give employer plans and IRAs. Less than one percent of that tax expenditure is the cost of the saver's credit, but, unfortunately, it is about to expire at the end of next year. It is not refundable so over 50 million people intended to get it do not get it. It does not reach high enough into the lower-middle-income and middle- middle-income groups. We need to make those three changes to further improve it. The other thing I would like to talk about very briefly is something that, Mr. Chairman, you described at the beginning of your remarks--automatic enrollment. The impact and the power of telling people that they are in a 401(k) unless they want to opt out, giving them advance notice and giving them a chance to opt out at any time, is huge. One study showed that in a particular company the 401(k) participation by low-income people was 13 percent when they had the traditional method of enrollment, you have to sign up. They switched to automatic enrollment, so you are automatically in unless you sign out of the plan. It went from 13 to 80 percent. These are people earning less than $20,000 a year. Similarly, for Hispanic Americans, a similarly dramatic increase in participation, from less than half to way more than half. The other things I would suggest that you consider, Mr. Chairman and the other members of the committee, in thinking about promoting automatic enrollment are the related escalation of contributions, making it easier for employers to say, you know, we will not only put everybody in the plan at three percent of pay at the beginning or four percent of pay, whatever the employer is comfortable with, but over time we will make it easier for you to step up. Maybe next year it will be five percent, and a couple years later it will be six percent. But you can always step off the escalator. Anyone can opt out or say, ``I want to stay at three percent. That is all I want to do.'' The Chairman [presiding.] Can you speak to Senator DeMint's comment earlier that low-income people do not really have a lot of discretionary money, but where it is automatic and they do not opt out, is there any study in terms of satisfaction level with such a thing? Mr. Iwry. There are studies that suggest that lower-income people, contrary to what we might think, actually want to save and do respond to saving incentives. When you give them a chance to save, especially if you give them a match, offer them a matching contribution, whether it is a tax credit or money deposited in an account, they do tend to step up and save. I was at a focus group a few days ago, apropos of your question, Senator, where we had nine moderate- to lower-income people around the table who are eligible for a (k) plan and none of them were in it. They were asked why. You know, what is keeping you out? Why aren't you saving? Then they were introduced to this automatic enrollment concept and asked: What do you think of this? Does this bother you? Is it a good thing? One woman there, about 39 years old, says, ``I have been working since I was 16. I haven't saved a penny.'' Once she understood what automatic enrollment was about, she said, ``You know, my company has a 401(k). I didn't even know it existed. I found out about it by accident the other day after several years of being with the company. If I had been put in automatic enrollment back when I was 16, it would have been''--in her words--``a beautiful thing. I would have just gone ahead, I would have seen the money accumulate, and I would have a real nest egg now.'' My suggestion is that these techniques that are focused on lower-income people not only work in the sense that people really respond--I mean, 5.3 million people are doing this right now, and they are all folks--most of them are--they are all below $50,000 in income, and it is something people have barely even heard of. My suggestion would be also that when you do focus on lower-income people with savings incentives, it increases saving. That, after all, is the topic, the focus of your hearing today. What is the impact on saving? Give savings incentives to people of moderate income, they tend to actually save more. Give savings incentives to people who are very affluent, it is a mixed bag. There is a lot of shifting. A lot of us will take money that has been in a different account that is not tax-favored, and we will just move it over to the tax- favored account. No net increase in personal saving, no net increase in national saving. Net decrease in national saving because we just spent some tax expenditure, the Government just gave a tax break to an individual who did not actually increase his or her saving, but just shifted it around. So I think it makes eminent good sense to focus on the moderate- and lower- income. [The prepared statement of Mr. Iwry follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] The Chairman. Thank you very much. Just for your notice, we probably have a vote coming up fairly soon. We do not have timing lights apparently operating in this room right now, so one of our assistants is going to notify you as to a reasonable amount of time so we can make sure we hear all of you. I am sorry. Pronounce your name for me. Mr. Steuerle. ``Steuerle.'' The Chairman. Steuerle, OK. STATEMENT OF EUGENE STEUERLE, SENIOR FELLOW, THE URBAN INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Steuerle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Kohl. As I mentioned to Senator Smith before the formal hearing began it is a privilege to testify before this committee, in part because I think it is one of the true bipartisan committees on either side of the Congress. I always enjoy working with the committee because it really does try to seek answers to questions. As Mark has mentioned, on the positive side the United States is in a select group of developed countries with a very significant share of assets in pension and retirement accounts, and they are largely employer-sponsored. I would like to add that the involvement of employers appears to be very crucial in increasing retirement assets, whether the employer directly funds these accounts or merely makes them available to employees. Nonetheless, the evidence that retirement and pension incentives have done much recently for national saving is very weak. As you mentioned, Senator Kohl, citing some statistics, I believe, that a colleague and I came out with a few weeks ago, total personal saving in the United States is now below just the revenue spent on supporting retirement and pension plans. That does not even count the revenue spent on other so-called saving incentives that Congress has adopted. Even that comparison further does not count other accounts in areas like health that have a saving component. Even if net saving were not an issue, the distribution of retirement saving is very highly skewed, and the current system fails to provide much in the way of retirement saving--but not just for low-income taxpayers, whom we have been talking about, but for middle-income taxpayers, as well. Most middle-income taxpayers, not just low-income taxpayers, go into retirement with very little in the way of saving. I make that comment very strongly because among the issues we discussed, such as automatic enrollment, it is not just an issue for low-income people. It is even for the middle-income people who are not saving. I will give you one quick statistic. For two-thirds of the population in the United States, the value of their Social Security and Medicare benefits alone is in excess of all their saving from every other source--their own homes, their retirement assets, their savings accounts, every other source. So two-thirds of the population have more in Government benefits coming to them than from their entire saving when they go into retirement. So it is far more than a low-income issue. Now, one major reason is that all of these Government subsidies that we have are not for saving. They are for deposits. There is a big difference. A taxpayer can borrow, for instance, and put money in a saving account or a subsidized saving account, and he would be taking interest deductions on the other side without saving a dime. A second reason--and it has been mentioned by Secretary Warshawsky--is that the extraordinary complexity of the laws discourages saving. It discourages saving both by employees and it discourages the offering of saving accounts or pension plans by employers. I would like to also add that some pension designs and laws also present an assortment of problems that probably discourage saving, such as easy withdrawals of deposits before old age and design of traditional defined benefit plans that often discriminate against older-age employees. In fact, I can show you a number of cases where older employees accrue negative pension benefits by working longer. Yet another negative influence on saving is that most people retire in middle age. We have a system of retirement now, both public and private, that basically has people retiring for about one-third of their adult lives. That is, they are retiring in years when traditionally they have been savers. It would be as if about 50 or 60 years ago we had people retiring in their early 50's and then not saving for years beyond that early retirement age. Finally, the incentives, as has been mentioned several times, for low- and moderate-income, even middle-income taxpayers, are often small and sometimes nonexistent. Let me quickly mention some ways of dealing with these issues. One is to limit the tax breaks for those who are arbitraging the tax system by applying limitations on their interest deductions when, on the one hand, they are getting preferences for so-called savings but really deposits and, on the other hand, taking deductions--it might be mortgage interest deductions, it might be investment interest deductions--without actually saving at all. They are not counting their interest receipts when taking these interest deductions. Tightening up on withdrawals from retirement plans before old age could enhance saving. Yet another approach is to simplify, even though one has to admit simplification means that some people somewhere in the system are going to lose. Mind you that simplification is not just offering of a new simple plan. It is reducing the extraordinary array of plans that people have to choose from. If you look in the back of my testimony, I show a scheme for the plans that Congress now offers that makes the Clinton health plan, if you may remember the design of that, look simple by comparison. The pension laws are extraordinary complex and expensive. Strong consideration also needs to be given to providing safe harbors for employers in designing new retirement plans for older workers so these older workers can save, at the same time making it easier for them to have bridge jobs, while removing the threat of suits that employers face from tax laws, labor laws, and old-age discrimination laws. Another promising approach is to provide defaults for deposits which employers can opt out rather than opt in, as we have talked about. Another strong possibility is to increase the subsidy for lower- and moderate-income taxpayers. Both of you, Senators Smith and Kohl, have asked about the saver's credit. I would like to offer my support for expanding the saver's credit, but also to mention three major limitations. It does not apply to most low- and moderate-income taxpayers. It does not cover employer deposits. The subsidy itself does not go directly into retirement accounts. So I think we need to work with the saver's credit, not merely just continue or increase it. Another promising approach is to provide a clearinghouse to handle rollovers out of employer plans and a simplified saving system, especially when small amounts are involved. Finally, mandates that employees save for retirement, including in employer-sponsored plans, should be considered as one leg of a broader retirement stool. That issue of mandates for employee deposits is on the table right now, but very indirectly, as part of the Social Security debate. I think it needs to be brought into the broader private retirement system debate as well. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Steuerle follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Kohl [presiding.] Thank you very much, Mr. Steuerle. Mr. Klein. STATEMENT OF JAMES A. KLEIN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN BENEFITS COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Klein. Thank you, Senator Kohl. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I am the president of the American Benefits Council. Our organization represents companies that either directly sponsor or provide services to retirement and health plans that cover more than 100 million Americans. My written testimony, which is being submitted for the record, provides a lot of data and statistics as well as a number of specific recommendations for improvements to the private employer-sponsored retirement system, and I would be delighted to chat about that if there is a question-and-answer period. But I thought that I would use my few moments during the oral remarks to just make some observations that are not fully developed in the written statement. To start out, I would like to just call your attention to three charts that I have brought with me. The first chart here shows the growth in private pension fund assets from 1945 until 2004, and that is both defined benefit and defined contribution assets. As you can see--or it may be a little bit hard to see from where you are sitting--the growth in the assets really took off in the late 1970's, early 1980's, corresponding roughly with the advent of the 401(k) plan that provided opportunities for both employers as well as individuals to make additional retirement savings. We have talked a lot about the abysmally low savings rate in this country, and it is absolutely appropriate to do so. You pointed out, in fact, in your introductory remarks that the actual average amount in individuals' accounts is nowhere near what is needed. I would point out, though, that at least retirement savings is the one bright light in an otherwise very dismal picture on overall savings rates, and we have commissioned research in the past that showed that but for retirement savings, we would have had net negative savings in this country. So it at least contributes to the fact that we have some modest savings. The other notable thing I think about this chart is the substantial dip that you see in the line from the year 2000 to 2002, and obviously that corresponds with the downturn in the economy. But I think that that really underscores a separate point that relates back to Secretary Warshawsky's earlier testimony, and that it underscores, in our view, the importance of preserving the defined benefit system, because unlike defined contribution plans, in the defined benefit system, of course, the employer bears the risk of ensuring that a payment will be made. So notwithstanding the downturn in the assets, defined benefit plans help provide some very important protections there. The next chart shows employer contributions to plans, and as you can see, those have steadily risen. I think what is significant about this chart is that it does not show the same dip that the prior one did. Notwithstanding periods of market downturn, employers continue to make contributions to plans, and, in fact, notably, with respect to defined benefit plans, the employer is on the hook to make up additional contributions to those plans during periods of time when the plan becomes less well funded. If the first two charts were in large part the good news, then this final chart is the bad news because this is a chart showing the decline of defined benefit plans insured by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The height of defined benefit plan existence, if you will, was in 1985 when there were about 112,000 plans. Following the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there started a decline in the number of those plans, in large part, not entirely but in large part due to a number of changes that were made in that law. Very substantially, and I think what should be very worrisome to all of us, is that in the last decade alone, from 1994 to 2004, we lost half--half--of the defined benefit pension plans in this country, from about 57,000 plans down to about 29,000 plans. So while it is good news that through defined contribution plans we are absolutely increasing a tremendous amount of wealth accumulation--and I am sure Mr. Kimpel will discuss that in greater detail--there are challenges here, both with respect to defined contribution plans and certainly on the defined benefit side. The sum total, I think, of these charts says, to me at least, two messages. First, that is really imperative for Congress to deal this year with the issue of funding reforms. While we at the American Benefits Council embrace a lot of the goals that the administration has laid out, we have tremendous concerns that the specifics of many of the proposals that they have put forward will, in fact, very much unintentionally, undermine the defined benefit system and will cause a lot of companies to exit the system. At the end of the day, what should probably keep us awake at night is not the notion that a few more seriously underfunded plans will terminate and impose those liabilities on the PBGC. That is a concern that we have, and, in fact, we have a very extensive report which enumerates many proposals that we have for how to shore up the pension system. Obviously, as premium payers, the sponsors of well- funded plans are very much concerned when poorly funded plans dump their liabilities on the PBGC. But really the bigger issue and the bigger backdrop against which all of this needs to be considered is not that a handful of underfunded plans will terminate, but that tens of thousands of very well-funded plans are exiting the system and their exit from the system may be exacerbated if we--that is, Congress--make the wrong decisions with respect to funding reforms. The second related issue to defined benefit plans concerns the one bright light in the defined benefit system, and that is the creation over the past several years of so-called hybrid plans, cash balance plans, and other types of varieties. The legal status of these plans is very much in doubt, both in Congress and certainly in the courts, and we urge the Congress to act sooner rather than later, very quickly to try to establish that these are legal, legitimate plans. Arriving at that conclusion is inextricably linked with the fiscal health of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation because there are roughly 1,200 so-called cash balance or hybrid pension plans in this country. They cover over 7 million Americans, and they are predominantly very well-funded plans, by the way, and they represent fully 20 percent of the premium revenue that goes to the PBGC. So not dealing with the issue of the legal status of hybrid plans can have a very deleterious impact on the health of the overall defined benefit system and the health of the PBGC. In conclusion, I just want to hit four very quick points for your attention, and then if I may, either at the end or as part of the question-and-answer period, address this whole question about whether or not we are getting adequate value for the tax expenditure, which has come up a number of times. The first point that I would make is that clearly this is not a hearing about Social Security, but I think that there can be and should be bipartisan agreement that the private retirement system needs to be strong, and that to the extent that it is not, the financial pressure on Social Security to do more will be made even larger. So we would very strongly urge two things: first of all, as Congress proceeds in whatever it chooses to proceed on the issue of Social Security reform, that it take into account the implications for employer-sponsored plans; and, second, that Congress should really not consider Social Security reform without also addressing a variety of things that need to be done to help improve the defined benefit and defined contribution private system. The second very quick point is that one of the greatest threats to retirement security in this country is what is happening on health care costs, and it is very important not to lose sight of the fact that health care costs are absorbing the available resources that would otherwise be put into what we think of as more retirement income plans. These two issues must be considered together. The third point is that the retirement system not only is obviously crucial for providing retirement income security, but also is the source of most of the investment capital in this country, and I see you perhaps want to---- Senator Kohl. The time for the vote is just about out, and Senator Smith will be back in just a minute and will resume the hearing. But I need to recess so I can get over. Mr. Klein. Absolutely. Senator Kohl. So he will be back in just a minute. I thank you. Mr. Klein. Thank you. Senator Kohl. We will be in a short recess. [Recess.] The Chairman [presiding.] We will reconvene this hearing. Regrettably, the Majority Leader does not run the Senate schedule around the Aging Committee's schedule. We mean no disrespect, and we truly appreciate your participation. Mr. Klein, I believe you are finishing, and please proceed. Mr. Klein. Gosh, I was hoping I would be able to start from the top again. [Laughter.] The Chairman. Anything you want to recapitulate for me, I would appreciate it. Mr. Klein. Well, I would be delighted to, either now or in part of the question-and-answer period. I guess the two last points that I would make is that we need to think both short term, which is what I have addressed thus far, as well as long term. In that regard--and I will not take the time now as part of these oral remarks, but in that regard, we have developed a very extensive report called ``Safe and Sound,'' which is a long-term strategic plan about what both the health and the retirement system might look like 10 years from now. In that report, we establish three retirement policy goals. They are very specific, measurable goals relating to financial literacy, increasing coverage in employer- sponsored plans, and also boosting overall retirement savings. Then, not surprisingly, we followed up with a substantial number of very specific initial policy recommendations to help us achieve those goals, and with your permission, I would like to submit that report as part of the formal hearing record. The Chairman. We will include that. [The report follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Klein. The last point I would like to just pick up on is something I was not necessarily planning on discussing, but in light of the fact that it has been discussed so extensively already, I just want to comment on it. That is the issue about whether or not we are really getting our money's worth with respect to the tax expenditure for employer-sponsored retirement, which is one of the largest tax expenditures in the budget. I agree with some of what has been said, but also would point out the following: First of all, in terms of whether or not an adequate portion of the tax expenditure is going to lower-income individuals, as my testimony indicates, we very strongly support both extension and, frankly, the expansion of the low- income saver's credit. We think that it is extremely important to do more to help low-wage workers save more effectively. So I am in complete agreement on that point. But there is a very comprehensive, many would say extraordinarily onerous set of nondiscrimination rules that govern the employer-sponsored retirement system that are designed to ensure that a disproportionate amount of the value of the tax expenditure not go just to the very highly paid. So it is not like Congress has somehow ignored this issue and not tried to design the system in order to ensure that workers across the income spectrum are benefiting from this system. Moreover, there are at least two reasons for what would appear to be a disconnect between the amount of the tax expenditure and also the amount of taxes that are being paid out on the benefits. That, of course, relates to simply the present value that workers now today are getting as an exclusion for money that is being put into a plan. In the case of their 401(k) plans, companies get a deduction, individuals get an exclusion for the amount that they put in, as well as the amount that their company puts in on their behalf. But, of course, those benefits will then be paid out later on when those individuals retire, including, of course, those high- income people for whom these large deductions and exclusions presumably are taking place. So I think that one has to keep in mind, uppermost in mind, the timing issue. The other point, of course, is that we are dealing right now demographically with a situation whereby there is a larger group of baby boomers who are in the working population for whom these deductions and exclusions are being taken and being made and a comparatively smaller group of retirees. But once we baby boomers retire, we are going to be in the population that will be paying taxes on the benefits that are paying out. So I think that these are very crucial points to keep in mind in answer to Senator Kohl's earlier questions around this point. With that, I would conclude and be delighted to answer questions later. [The prepared statement of Mr. Klein follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Kimpel. STATEMENT OF JOHN M. KIMPEL, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS, BOSTON, MA Mr. Kimpel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fidelity is the largest mutual fund manager in the country. In addition to that, we are the largest provider of employer- sponsored plan services. The main part of that business is in providing investment management and recordkeeping services to defined contribution plans. All of you have received a copy of a report that we have done now for 5 years drawing on the data that we have as the largest defined contribution recordkeeper. We currently record-keep over 10,000 plans covering over 8 million employees with assets approaching $500 billion. The report is all based on data at the end of 2003. We are in the process of gathering the data and putting together a report for 2004. With that, I just want to focus on three or four points. The first, in looking through this and trying to get a capsule of who is the average defined contribution or 401(k) participant, who is it, and what we see from our database is it is a person 44 years old, who earns about $53,000; who is contributing 7 percent of his or her compensation a year, that works out to slightly more than $3,500 a year; and who has an average account balance--and I am jumping ahead because I just received the numbers for the end of 2004--of a little over $61,000 in that account balance. Now, the good news there is that average participant still has approximately 20 years to grow that number into a significant retirement nest egg. As the presentation I provided and the report also shows, all of the important things we care about--participation rates, deferral rates, and account balances--increase as the participant's income goes up, as the participant ages, and, importantly, as the participant's job tenure with the employer increases. Now, the opposite of that is also true, as we have all talked about as well, that a lower-paid, short-tenured, low- compensation participation will have less. But if you make some reasonable assumptions about where that person will ultimately be, you can see that those account balances will grow, participation rates will grow, and deferral rates will grow. So the issue that I would like to focus on in particular is trying to put these numbers in the appropriate context, and what I would like to do is focus on the importance that the employer plays in all of this. In addition, as you know, Fidelity is a very large IRA provider. We have some experience in that market as well. But what is significant to us--and if you look at one of the pages in the presentation, if you look at participation rates comparing employer-sponsored DC plan to IRA, if you look at deferral rates or contribution rates, and if you look at account balances, what you see is significantly, wildly larger numbers under the employer-sponsored plan. The most important of those is the participation rate. Sixty-six percent of people who are offered the opportunity to participate in a 401(k) plan do so. We sometimes complain that is not high enough, that it should be higher, that it should be 100 percent, and God knows we all wish it were 100 percent. But the figure for employees who do not participate in an employer- provided plan, the contribution rate or the participation rate for them in IRAs--and all of them have the ability to participate in an IRA--is only 5.5 percent. So the power of the workforce, the power of the employer providing a plan is very significant. The Chairman. Sixty percent versus 5? Mr. Kimpel. It is 5.5 for IRAs. Now, then we get to the question of what to do. People have talked about automatic enrollment. We think automatic enrollment is terrific. We are doing it with a lot of plans. Treasury regulations allow it today. Anything to encourage greater use of automatic enrollment is terrific. To make it unanimous, we, like the other panelists, are in favor of the continuation and possible expansion of the saver's credit. But there is one other thing I would like to bring up that nobody else has talked about, and that is, when you have automatic enrollment, where does the money go? How is it invested? Another thing that we think is important to put on the legislation table is having the default fund be a life cycle fund or some kind of a balanced fund, because what everybody does now is the money goes into a money market fund. Again, looking at our data base, fewer than 5 percent of the participants are defaulted into a life cycle fund. A life cycle fund is one that invests in different asset classes, that change as the participant ages, so it is appropriate for that age, so it is a higher--it would be a higher investment in equities, and then as the participant ages, it will go increasingly away from equities into money market. The Chairman. So is that something that exists or something you want us to create? Mr. Kimpel. It exists, Senator. The problem is the fiduciary rules under ERISA and Section 44(c) in particular. They do not provide any relief from liability to an employer who identifies the life cycle fund as the default fund because participants are not deemed to exercise control over the default fund. So what employers all do, therefore, is default to a money market fund. That, coupled with automatic enrollment, would be a huge benefit under the current system. The Chairman. What percent of, say, their 7 percent, their personal and their employer contributions, what percent would it take to do the default fund? Mr. Kimpel. Well, I am not sure---- The Chairman. Is this something separate that you created? Mr. Kimpel. No, no. The Chairman. An extra percent or something? Mr. Kimpel. No. The question is what happens to a participant who does not identify where his or her account should--what investment should be allocated to. So when you think of automatic enrollment---- The Chairman. Oh, I understand now. OK. You are not talking about somebody whose investments tank. Mr. Kimpel. No, no. No, I am just talking about someone who was automatically enrolled into a plan---- The Chairman. But they do not designate where---- Mr. Kimpel. They do not designate an investment fund. The Chairman. Of those who enroll with Fidelity, what kind of a program do you offer them? High risk? Medium risk? Low risk? What does the average participant do? Do they spread it? Mr. Kimpel. The average participant--well, let's go back to the default issue. Approximately, I believe, 20 percent of participants end up being in one fund, and typically that one fund will be the default fund, which is why that issue is so important. Beyond that, what we---- The Chairman. What does a default fund earn? Mr. Kimpel. Money market rates. The Chairman. Just the same money market rate. Mr. Kimpel. Yes, typically. If the money market fund is the default fund. If you look at this across different age spectrums, what we see is that there is some level of appropriate--of reasonably appropriate--at least on average, of appropriate allocation among participants, among equity, fixed income, and money market. In other words, you see significantly higher concentrations of equity funds in participants' accounts when they are younger, and that percentage declines over age. I think the typical holding, number of funds held, it will again depend on the particular plan because it is the plan sponsor who designs the plan, decides what investment options to provide and how many of them. So you will get variations depending on how many plan options are available. The Chairman. The 20 percent who go into the default fund, why don't they choose? What is their excuse? They are not educated? They are not told? They are not given an option? Mr. Kimpel. Well, the why, I am not sure we know the answer to. The Chairman. I mean, you know, they have to sign up for it. Mr. Kimpel. Correct. They have signed up. I think it is because they simply--I think, and this is just opinion, I think they don't have confidence in terms of what it should be, what they should be doing. Now, going back to the life cycle funds, we do see more and more employers offering them as an option, and we see more and more people going into them of their own volition. But we also have not been able--and this is one of the things we are trying to do in the data point, is track what people do. In other words, if they go into a default fund, do they stay there? We think most of them, unfortunately, do. The Chairman. Does Fidelity handle any defined benefit plans? Mr. Kimpel. Yes, we administer defined benefit plans as well, and we also manage defined benefit plan assets. The Chairman. Can you share with me the pros and cons? I am looking for an answer why is--beyond the complexity of defined benefit plans and the cost--why is one declining and the other going up? Mr. Kimpel. Well, I think the simple reason that defined benefit plans are declining is not so much the cost but the uncertainty of the cost. If you are a corporation, what you do know with defined contribution plans, if you are contributing 5 percent or 7 percent, or whatever that number is, no matter what happens fiscally to your company, that is the rate you will have to contribute each year. But in a defined benefit plan, you don't know from year to year what that contribution is going to be because it will be in part determined by your workforce and your compensation, which you have some control over, but it is also going to be determined by how well your investments do. That uncertainty, in our experience, drives corporate treasurers crazy. The Chairman. The mobility of our society today, I assume a lot of employees, as they become educated with respect to in 401(k) plans, they are asking for that instead of defined benefit plans. Mr. Kimpel. I think that is true, too. The Chairman. Because it goes with them. There is no red tape. It is theirs, they own it, they grow it, they manage it. [The prepared statement of Mr. Kimpel follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Steuerle. Senator, could I speak to that? The Chairman. Yes, please. Mr. Steuerle. We have done some studies at the Urban Institute speaking exactly to your point. The traditional defined benefit plan over time only favored a small segment of the employee population, mainly---- The Chairman. It is usually the high-income. Mr. Steuerle. The higher-income, but also those who are long-term employees with the same firm, not the more mobile population. If you look at the distribution of benefits by age and time with the firm, it is a hill-shaped. The very young get almost nothing because if they leave the plan at age 30 or 40, the plan is not indexed for inflation. The benefits are often almost worthless. The middle-aged people on the other hand start getting a huge buildup of assets, but that works badly for retaining employees. If you are an employer, all of a sudden you have some middle-aged employees say in a firm in Detroit who become very expensive. It is sometimes cheaper to close down the plant and move to Kentucky. Whereas, if you are on the other side of the hill, if you are on the down side, as I mentioned earlier in my testimony, sometimes the benefits go negative for older employees. Are employers looking for older employees? I think they are a major demand in the future as these people who are now retiring 55 to 75 and are the largest underutilized pool of human resources in our economy. The traditional defined benefit plan has not adjusted to figuring out how to provide them with a modicum of benefits. One thing all four of us have spoken to at one level or the other is how important it is to provide employers with some simple default options that they can use for a variety of pension reform issues so they are not threatened with suits under the labor laws, the tax laws, and the age discrimination laws. They know they can set it up. In many cases they don't want broad fiduciary responsibilities. They don't mind making deposits on behalf of employees, but they generally don't want long-term fiduciary responsibilities that threaten them with lawsuits. I think we spoke of this challenge for cash balance plans, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation plans and allowing life cycle plans. The notion that in the law or at least in the regulations there are safe harbors that reduces the threat of lawsuits, I think, is a very important advance, which I think all four of us would support. The Chairman. Can I ask you a question? I don't know the answer to it. I am looking for education for myself. Where you have a company like United Airlines who--I believe one of their problems is the whole defined benefit plan liability. A new airline is set up called Ted. What does Ted offer to their employees? Is it a 401(k) or is it a defined benefit plan? Mr. Klein. Well, I don't specifically know what is offered to that airline---- The Chairman. I mean, there are lots of examples like that. Mr. Klein. I assume that they do not provide the same level of benefits, retirement or otherwise, but it is clear that in that industry they are facing pressure. Some of the companies, the legacy carriers, are facing pressure not only from those who have terminated their plans, like the Uniteds and U.S. Airways, but also some of the newer low-fare air carriers that clearly do not have a defined benefit pension. The Chairman. Would JetBlue have a 401(k)? Mr. Klein. I would think they do. Mr. Iwry. Mr. Chairman, I agree---- Mr. Klein. I also--go ahead, Mark. Mr. Iwry. I am sorry. I was just going to add to what Jim Klein is saying, that the newer carriers and in general the newer industries in our country have gone much more toward the 401(k) model, and this answers both of your questions in part, in addition to the factors my colleagues have mentioned. The defined benefit has been associated traditionally with manufacturing and with unionized industries particularly. As the share of the workforce represented by unions has declined and as the share of the workforce in this country involved in manufacturing has declined in favor of service industries, we have seen that mix of---- The Chairman. That accounts for part of the decline of one and the rise of the other. But are there any union pension funds that are or were defined benefit, are any of them transferring to 401(k)? Mr. Iwry. Yes, or they have added 401(k)s. The Chairman. They have added it. Mr. Klein. Mr. Chairman, if I might also further embellish upon the answer to your question about the reasons for the decline, which are many, and kind of refer back to the chart that I showed during my comments. You know, at its peak in 1985, we had 112,000 of these defined benefit plans insured by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. In 1986, the Tax Reform Act was enacted. Now, admittedly it did, through some of its changes, get rid of a number of very, very small defined benefit plans that maybe were only covering one or two people in a professional organization. But once you clear those out of there I want to debunk the notion that employers do not really necessarily want a defined benefit plan. I think that a lot of the provisions and the regulations that have followed on top of the provisions from the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and its progeny have made it very difficult for companies to have defined benefit plans. I completely agree with John Kimpel's comment that it is not so much the actual cost as it is the uncertainty about the cost. I hear that time and again from our Fortune 500 company members who are saying they find it very, very difficult to make the case to their boards of directors and their shareholders that it is worthwhile having a defined benefit plan given the unpredictability. That is why we are so tremendously concerned about certain features of the administration's proposals on funding. The last point is the notion that people have obviously experienced, notwithstanding the dip during the market downturn, an enormous amount of wealth accumulation in 401(k) and other types of defined contribution plans. So from an employee relations point of view, there is a tremendous amount of interest in those kinds of plans, which brings us back to the beauty, I think, of the cash balance and other kinds of hybrid plans that combine the best features of both. It is a defined benefit plan. Its benefits are guaranteed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The employer funds it, but it is more transparent and individuals have a better sense of the value that they have. I will just leave you with one fascinating anecdote. A member company of ours did a survey of its workers about the extent to which those workers value different kinds of benefits, and they found that they placed a far superior value on the company-run gymnasium than they did on the defined benefit pension plan, notwithstanding that the company was obviously spending vastly more resources on the defined benefit plan. That speaks to the issue of communications and why it is important to engage people in the value of their defined benefit plan since it is not as evident to them as the defined contribution plan. But I think also that survey was done prior to the market downturn, and I think a lot of people began to realize the value of that security of the defined benefit plan. Most large companies obviously sponsor both or try to sponsor both. The Chairman. I have to apologize. There is another vote. We have only a few minutes left. Do any of you have any concluding comments that you can say briefly that would add to our record? Yes, Mr. Iwry. Mr. Iwry. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reinforce and expand upon something that Mr. Kimpel called attention to. 401(k)s can be made easier and more effective in a number of different ways, really in all three phases: contributing to the plan, accumulating through sound investment, and then paying out. Mr. Kimpel is absolutely right that the accumulation phase needs some legislative comfort, and Gene Steuerle said this as well. We can use some more fiduciary reassurance for employers that if they default people into a life cycle fund instead of a money market fund or into a managed account where there is a professionally managed individual account for employees, if they want to let a professional manage it the way we run our defined benefit plans, with professional management, we will have made a great step forward and moved the system away from the excessive dependence now on self-direction. Every employee having to become their own investment expert, their own investment manager, it is too great a demand on people. Again, if I can refer to these focus groups that the Retirement Security Project has arranged, we saw people essentially begging for help with the investments. They do not know exactly how they ought to be investing their money. They want some professional help. You can have the right to opt out and have the right to continue to choose your own investments, the way we do today in 401(k)s, but let the employer have a default that represents a diversified and balanced fund or managed account. Mr. Klein. Mr. Chairman, my only final comment would be to echo what is in our written statement commending you for the efforts that you articulated earlier with respect to automatic enrollment and associate myself with the comments of the others on the panel. The Chairman. Thank you. Yes? Mr. Steuerle. Senator, the one comment I would add is that for some of the options we have been talking about at the end-- the automatic enrollment, the clear statements as to fiduciary responsibilities and the removal of possibilities of a lawsuit--I think there is fairly uniform agreement. I really do hope that Congress moves ahead in those areas. But in some ways, those are the easier decisions. Especially at this time of budget stringency, we have to admit that some aspects of our current system are not working well, and I do not want to leave you with the notion that some harder decisions do not have to be made. I would mentioned one, for instance. We have a system now where people can borrow on the one side, take interest deductions, put money into accounts that get interest receipts, not save a dime, not make a dollar of interest income on net, and yet get substantial amounts of tax savings--tax savings, by the way, that can be as great or greater than these given to the people that actually do save. I have given other instances in my testimony. Consider early withdrawal options that are so easy for employees that sometimes they take money out of saving that the Government has subsidized, and leave nothing by the time of retirement age. The people then are more likely to turn to the Government for help in old age. Maybe it is nursing home help. Maybe it is retirement help. There are some tough decisions to be made here to encourage more people to keep money in a retirement solution. If the Government is going to be subsidizing people, and especially subsidizing additions to the saver's credit, which most of us favor, we have to take a hard look in making sure that this money is adding to net saving and actually does stay in a retirement solution. The Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you all so very much. I know you have given me some ideas of things to add to my bill, and I invite and encourage and ask for your continued engagement with my office and other Senators, because we have got to start working on this soon because we have got a real economic or retirement tsunami ahead of us if we do not get ahead of this. So thank you all so much. It has been a very enlightening hearing, and you have added to the public record in a measurable way. With that, we thank you and we are adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:16 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] <all>