CNNMoney.com is reporting: “House backs IBM pension ruling.” According to the article:
The House of Representatives voted 237-162 Tuesday to prohibit the government from trying to use regulations to overturn a court case that ruled against the cash balance pension plan of International Business Machines Corp.The move echoed a vote the House took a year ago. But the sponsor of both measures, Rep. Bernard Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, argued that Congress should weigh in on the subject again to make clear its opposition to cash balance plans that do not include protections for older workers.
Opponents of the measure charge that Sanders is trying to “enshrine in law a flawed court case,” and warned that such a measure would undermine pension plans generally:
“Given the growing reluctance of business to sponsor additional defined benefit plans, this amendment is just one more reason for companies to walk away from this type of pension,” [Rep. Sam] Johnson said.
The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) also reports on the development: “House Votes to Bar U.S. Intervention On IBM Pensions.”
You can access the legislation here. The language of the amendment reads as follows:
None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to assist in overturning the judicial ruling contained in the Memorandum and Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois entered on July 31, 2003, in the action entitled Kathi Cooper, Beth Harrington, and Matthew Hilleshein, Individually and on Behalf of All ThoseSimilarly Situated vs. IBM Personal Pension Plan and IBM Corporation (CivilNo. 99-829-GPM).
You can read about the amendment in this previous post here. (For background on the cash balance plan controversy, previous posts on the topic are here and here.)