Transcript Available of IRS Hearing on Benefits Suspension Votes

For IRS:

One thing we are determined to do at Treasury, and you know this, we will not make any decisions under this law in 2016 without first making sure that we have heard from retirees and those who have expressed reservations about the law and about the Central States submission. I want to make sure, and we at Treasury want to make sure, that everybody who wants to be heard is given an opportunity, either in public sessions like this, by email -- you can send in to Treasury, and we're reading everything about your concerns or your criticisms -- and we have been holding, as you know, weekly conference calls from Treasury, reaching out to people by phone who want to be heard. We do those usually every Monday. So whatever we have to do, have to do, under the law, we didn't pass the law, we're obligated to enforce the law. We have certain discretion and we have the plan submitted by Central States, and we are now reviewing every line and every paragraph of this, and every assumption in the Central States submission.

Now, this hearing this morning is limited in scope. It is a special hearing focused on the voting aspects of the law and proposed regulations. Especially, we have heard over and over again so far in our public hearings concern about the law and the provision that says a retiree, Central States retiree, who doesn't vote, that vote, that absent vote is listed as a yes in terms of approval of the Central States submission. That's been a major criticism of retirees, not the only one, on voting. Others have talked to us about how you vote. Does it have to be online? Can it be paper ballot, et cetera? So we're here this morning to hear from you.

Now, before I introduce our panelists, I urge you be brief. We do not want to tie up an efficient expeditious hearing by retirees or witnesses making speeches. If you would limit your comments to a couple of minutes, two minutes, that will allow us to hear everybody this a.m. So with that introduction, that overview -- we're here to listen -- I ask each of my panelists, beginning on my left, to please introduce themselves by name and their government affiliation.

MS. JUDSON: Thank you, Ken. First, I'm also going to say for the record that this is a public hearing on proposed regulations, administration of Multiemployer Plan Participant Vote on an Approved Suspension of Benefits Under MPRA, and its REG 123640-15. And my name is Victoria Judson. I'm Associate Chief Counsel, Tax Exempt and Government Entities, with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel.

MS. MARSHALL: I'm Linda Marshall. I'm with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel too, with the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel, Tax Exempt and Government Entities.

MR. ANDRZEJEWSKI: I'm Chet Andrzejewski. I'm Chief Actuary at the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.

MR. WELLER: I'm Harlan Weller. I'm an actuary in the Office of Tax Policy at the Department of Treasury.

MS. ANDERSON: Good morning. I'm Theresa Anderson. I'm an attorney in the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation.

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you, panelists. Now, there are nine scheduled speakers today. I also note that a few other requests have been made beyond the nine, that they have signed up as well, and that's fine. We want to hear from whoever wants to be heard. The list of speakers has been handed out. Speakers should speak from the stage here, and in the order in which the request to provide oral comments have been made.

Now, even though you have, again, up to 10 minutes under the rules of this hearing, brevity is a virtue. I've learned over the years, brevity is a virtue. And I would urge each speaker to summarize their comments so that we can make sure we have plenty of time to hear from everybody. There is a timer at the podium. You're going to be the timekeeper.

MS. JUDSON: I -- yes.

MR. FEINBERG: Very -- she's tough. And we'll count down from 10 minutes, but hopefully you'll be able to complete your comments in less than that much time.

MS. JUDSON: And the yellow light will come on when you've spoken for seven minutes and there are only three left. As Mr. Feinberg said, we applaud folks who can keep it so brief that they don't need to see the yellow light, but if you see the yellow light, it's time to wrap up.

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you all, and we are now ready. Timekeeper, do you have the list as well of speakers?

MS. JUDSON: I have the list of everyone who signed beforehand --

MR. FEINBERG: That's good.

MS. JUDSON: -- but we'll also -- we will at the end ask for additional people, and I heard an additional four people have requested to speak.

MR. FEINBERG: Let us begin.

MS. JUDSON: First is Bernard Anderson.

MR. FEINBERG: Mr. Anderson, welcome. Welcome again, Mr. Anderson. I've seen you before. You've --

MR. ANDERSON: Well, I can tell you right now, you've not going to have to worry about any yellow light.

MS. JUDSON: Thank you.

MR. ANDERSON: Being a truck driver for 35, 40 years, this is one of the hardest places I ever thought I'd find myself. I want to say thank you to the panel, and Ken Feinberg especially, because we almost seem like we're old friends, I've been seeing so much of you. Anyway, my name is Bernie Anderson. I would like to comment on the voting process that was put in place. This suspension of benefits is so one-sided that, to use Ken Feinberg's words, almost un-American. To set up a vote to count nonvoting participants as a yes vote is taking advantage of the homebound or inactive seniors. To use electronic and phone ballots is foreign to a lot of retirees. This process should be the normal process of using --

MS. JUDSON: Step back a little from the mike.

MR. ANDERSON: Oh, too close? Okay. To set up a vote to count nonvoting participants as a yes vote is taking advantage of homebound or inactive seniors. To use electronic and phone ballots is foreign to a lot of retirees. This process should be the normal process of using mail ballots to retirees that we've used all our lives, and returning envelopes by mail and only count the ballots that are being returned. For a vote to be so one-sided is truly insulting. And with that, I have finished my comments, but I do want to bring up one thing that Mr. Feinberg talked about in Milwaukee is that we need a lot of solutions, because we're going through phases of this disaster, which he's very good at is disasters, and with all of the complaining and the arguing stage, and now we're into the solving stage, so Bob Amsted and myself and other committee members in my local union have researched and looked for answers and solutions, so we have a few written down and I'd like to give you a copy and I'll pass copies for the other panelists also. So with that, thank you very much.

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson.

MS. JUDSON: Mary Packett.

MR. FEINBERG: Mary Packett. Ms. Packett, come on down.

MS. PACKET: I have the right drink this time, so I'm cool. Hello, Mr. Feinberg. Hello, panel.

MR. FEINBERG: From Omaha.

MS. PACKETT: Yes, sir. I'm waiting for you to come to Omaha. You got to come to Omaha.

MR. FEINBERG: We'll get there.

MS. PACKETT: All right. I want to thank you, first of all. I'll get right into this, couple of things. This is a list that I got from God, that's all I'm going to tell you. I sent out letters. Unfortunately, when I was flying here, my hairspray, the lid came off, and kind of did a number on these envelopes, but these envelopes were the envelopes that came back from this list. Now, my concern is not the envelopes or the list. It was who called me on this list. I got 11 phone calls from family members of participants that could not talk to me because they were in nursing homes. They were in hospice. They had dementia. They had Alzheimer's. You have a list here. I had 11 calls. I don't know how many of these people didn't call and didn't have family members that couldn't talk. But the thing is, is we've got a group of people that are incapable of voting. This is the list and these are the envelopes that came back. Of the envelopes that did not come back, the family members got them, or people got them, and they're not capable of voting. Are we going to have a certain group set aside, a certain percentage set aside, that says they are incapable of voting? There has to be some consideration or statistical information on this. The other thing I'm asking is, I've noticed that we have a retiree representative who seems to have a list of retirees. Is there any way to get that list of retirees from that retiree representative? Those are the only things I have to say. Thank you, sir.

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you.

MS. JUDSON: Tom Krekeler.

MR. FEINBERG: Mr. Krekeler, come on down.

MR. KREKELER: First of all I'd like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. I really, really do appreciate it. We were never raised in America to accept something that was not democratic, at least I thought so. We would never let the President or a congressman or a senator by the method that Central State's pension fund deems acceptable. Even in grade school when we elect the class presidents or basketball team captains we didn't use the method that Central State's pension fund has chosen.

So I ask myself why would Congress think it is acceptable for a pension fund to have the authority to change our lives without a democratic vote? Why would anybody with any decency believe that this vote that is acceptable and fair and just. And so is there anyone with any ability to change this voting method to please do so? To remember that we are all American citizens with basic American beliefs in justice and democracy. We believe in our right that American citizens have and this should include our rights to cast a vote in writing to be able to trust our elected officials and count our votes and to believe that the decision of a majority of votes will rule. In my life I have yet to witness any kind of voting process to be overturned simply because someone with power and financial resources can make it so. I want you to think of how you would feel if someone had that kind of power over your personal life.

It is degrading and it is despicable and it reminds me of slavery, something that our ancestors rejected many years ago. Please don't allow our rights to decline to levels of this magnitude. Mr. Feinberg I have in this envelope over 50 copies of letters that were mailed to retirees in Ohio and Kentucky. They tell you that pension cuts of at least 50 percent are common in Central States pension plan. Please reflect on how this will effect these families. As secretary of the club I have listened to countless men and women over the past year as they try to imagine in 2011 that suffer the collapse of their income. I have (inaudible) family situated so much that I have yet time to try to think of how my family will survive such a blow -- I'm delivered this packet of letters to you today with hope that as you look at each letter you will try to imagine the American family with debts, medical bills, and other responsibilities that this letter has been delivered to. Please imagine how this family feels, how they are featured in this land of plenty where their retirement was promised to be secured.

Then think about the trustees of Central State and how they spent retirement money and think about the security to their lowered salaries and their comfort level with their future. At the very least we deserve the opportunity to vote in a fair and democratic method that insures that our decision is (inaudible) I will let you give the authority to make this happen for all the people that are affected by Central State's application. Thank you all very, very much.

MS. JUDSON: Thank you. Estil "Butch" Lewis.

MR. LEWIS: Pass.

MR. FEINBERG: Pass, next?

MS. JUDSON: Tom Ruwan.

MR. FEINBERG: Mr. Ruwan come on down.

MR. RUWAN: Mr. Feinberg, ladies and gentleman of the panel, appreciate the opportunity to speak. When I first read about this situation I -- I actually thought that the individuals that presented with me were just doing it to see what type of emotions they could evoke. I really thought it was a joke. I didn't even take it serious until I looked at them and they thought that I was joking around -- that I wouldn't take it serious.

After I realized that it was a real situation I was insulted. I couldn't believe this was even being presented to us. As if the people that were presenting this as a reality feel -- must feel that we're ignorant. It's that unreal. I mean -- honest to God -- when I first read it, I thought that this was a monologue for a Johnny Carson or Jay Leno monologue. That there was going to be some joke at the end of it. Seriously, it's ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that we're even sitting here discussing it. Thank you.

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you.

MS. JUDSON: Henry Morgan?

MR. FEINBERG: Mr. Morgan, come on down.

MR. MORGAN: Thank you, sir. Good morning panel, retirees. One minute, Mr. Feinberg, and I'll be brief. Just want to tell my story. My name's Henry D. Morgan, Junior, proud Teamster, over the road truck driver with twenty-seven years credited service. Vietnam Veteran, U.S. Marine Corp. If the pension cuts go through on July 1, 2016, this is what will happen in the Morgan household. My $2,700 a month pension will be cut down to $1,279, like 55 percent, leaving my family a balance of $188 for food, medication, insurance. My choice -- drop the car insurance, I hope I don't have an accident. Okay, drop the house insurance, hope I don't have a fire. Now for the vote. The retirees believe a no vote means no. A yes vote means yes. And throw out the part that says a no show vote should mean a yes vote. Throw that out, please. The voting process should be a paper ballot. That's all we know. We've been voting on paper ballots all our life. Back at home in Cincinnati, Ohio, my polling station is at the Friendship Methodist Church for city officials, state officials, and U.S. officials but they give us a paper ballot. That's all we know. And they are retirees coming into the polling station in wheelchairs and on walkers. These people don't know about computer voting and so please keep it on a paper ballot. And Mr. Feinberg, when you came out to Columbus at the Ohio State University Teamsters town hall we gave you a standing ovation, and the Teamsters in 2016 would like to give the U.S. Treasury Department a standing ovation for a fair decision, no cuts. So please let's work together and put a good footprint in history for the teamster retirees. Thank you.

MS. JUDSON: Thank you. Dennis Kooren?

MR. FEINBERG: Mr. Kooren, didn't I see you -- was it Columbus or Milwaukee or no?

MR. KOOREN: I'm a long way from there. You're talking to a North Dakota boy here.

MR. FEINBERG: Okay.

MR. KOOREN: Yeah, I just need to tell you this is -- I'm in a short sleeve shirt because you guys keep it way too warm in here for us from North Dakota. We can't handle this type of heat. We're used to below zero. And if you ever come up here you'll find that out, Mr. Feinberg. So my name is Dennis Kooren, I'm a 30 plus year UPS driver from Fargo, North Dakota that retired in 2007. I'm also one that's in the same boat as the rest of you that scheduled to lose 50 percent of my pension. Those that retired after 2008, UPS is covering the rest of them. We were left out in the cold. Literally up North Dakota. I may take closer to 10 minutes. I do apologize.

MR. FEINBERG: You don't have to apologize. Close to 10 minutes.

MR. KOOREN: It is just plain wrong. It is just plain wrong for Central State's pension plan to send out the letters to all the retirees in regular mail. And it would be just plain wrong if Central State's pension plan sent out the votes where a lot of people would not even look at them. I have people up in North Dakota that I've talked to that have not even opened up their letter's yet. People are going to be stuck not even knowing that they've got their pensions reduced until they're actually reduced.

This vote -- until yesterday I was saying it was triple rigged against those of us that lost the most money. And it's actually quadruple rigged against those of us that have lost the most money. The first -- and everybody's covered that here before, is a non-vote -- is a yes vote. That's just plain wrong. There's a tier -- UPS has called them tier two people that have had a 10 to a 30 percent reduction for the retirees that are a large presence in the fund. Central State's has kept this hidden. Not too many people know about it. Even UPS is starting to figure this out.

These are people that have small pensions, that I believe Central State's has classified them as "vulnerable". The bad thing is these are people that only worked five to ten years. Maybe fifteen years, they have $500 -- 1,000 dollar pensions. They only got reduced 10 percent. And I've got the letters to prove it. They went on -- like this friend of mine worked 20 more years for the government. He's got a government pension. He got reduced from $522 to $477, a 10 percent reduction. This is how they are doing it, folks, to get that 22 percent.

I have other friends of mine that are between $1,000 to $2,000 range, they just had a 30 percent reduction. These people are most likely to vote yes on the vote because they aren't getting hit hard. And then the one that kind of caps all of them -- and I just talked to Mike a little bit about it -- is that the UPS retirees after 2008 also go back into the Central State's pension plan from age 65 until they retire. They're not having any reduction because UPS is covering all of it. What do you think they're going to vote?

This vote, along with the Treasury override which can rule out any no vote anyway in my book makes this a quadruple rig against a no vote. It is just plain wrong. It is also just plain wrong that the Freedom of Information Act is used against affected retirees for those of us that are trying to find who all got the letters so we can try to help one another. I'm having a terrible time up in North Dakota just trying to connect the dots of all the UPS retirees much less all the regular trucker retirees. It's terrible, it's terrible. It's just plain wrong.

I also have been trying to contact the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and we have a representative here on the panel and to the IG's office -- the Inspector General's office to try to find out answers about funding liability questions from 2008 until 2012. I've not gotten what I consider adequate responses. I've been shoveled over to usury to different things here, different people talk to -- trying to find out what's -- how this could happen where our own insurance has been used against us. It's just plain wrong.

Am I allowed to go off course like this? Okay. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation allowances of the multi-employer pension plans unfunded insurance levels to skyrocket from 2007 to 2014 while keeping the funding levels of the single employer pension plans roughly stable is just plain wrong. Not only the multi-employer pension plans lost their protections underneath ERISA -- the Employee Retirement Income Security Act is just plain wrong. Now only our own insurance does us no good, since the passing of the multi-employer pension reform act, that, my friends, is just plain wrong. That now we'll be opened up and our benefits reduced before insurance could ever kick in. That is just plain wrong.

To take money from some of the most vulnerable people in society, those of us in this room and other ones that can't walk. I've got friends of mine that got their pension reduced -- he's totally disabled from $1,850. He's a former UPS driver -- $1,850 to $1,770. Two new knees, three rods in his back, everything due to UPS. He can't go to work. He can't replace that money. This is just plain wrong. I think you can tell I'm coming from the heart here and my heart is pumping.

It is also just plain wrong that the managers of Central States are not sharing in the pain of its own participants. They just give themselves regular raises. It's wrong. It is just plain wrong that we are watching the shredding of the social contract with all workers with the passing of the multi-employer pension reform act. This is unprecedented law that takes away rights from senior citizens that has not been done before. It has erased rights of close to 11 million workers. Most of them don't even know they've lost their rights to a secure pension at this point. That, my friends, is just plain wrong.

It's also just plain wrong that Central States pension fund characterizes these extreme 50 percent and up cuts as an average of 22 percent to congress. That is just plain wrong. That UPS itself be allowed to keep their 2008 and newer drivers in the Central States pension plan fund since they have separated from the fund, I personally believe that is just plain wrong. I believe it's also just plain wrong that those impacted by this legislation had absolutely no representation in the formation of it. It's just plain wrong. These articles or these barnacles on bills have to be stopped. You're looking at what happens with one of the barnacles on this bill in this room with all of us losing our pensions.

It's just plain wrong that the government finds ways to bail out other institutions and even countries but turns its back on its own senior citizens, especially when the government itself is heavily responsible for causing these problems with the Central States Pension Fund through trucking deregulation and the department of labor oversight. It's just plain wrong. It's just plain wrong that the rights of corporations trump the rights of workers in this case. Just plain wrong. And it's just plain wrong that this list that I've got can go on and on and on.

MR. FEINBERG: Mr. Kooren let me ask you a question. You say you have trouble finding retirees -- locating them in North Dakota.

MR. KOOREN: Correct.

MR. FEINBERG: Have you thought about trying to get help from the Teamsters themselves as sort of a -- while John Murphy's here or others who might be able to have a list.

MR. KOOREN: Freedom of information act is what's been put out to restrict access so far.

MR. FEINBERG: I don't get that, but all right.

MR. KOOREN: Me either. I would love to get a list of everybody affected. If someone in this room has that ability to get it to me, get it to the other committees, I think all of us would love it.

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you, Mr. Kooren. Central States may, but I'm wondering if their might be another resource like the Teamsters union or somebody that may have that list. I don't know.

MR. KOOREN: I'm open to more question if you'll allow.

MS. PACKETT: Mr. Feinberg what about the retiree representative? She sent letters to all these people.

MS. JUDSON: Ms. Packett, we're still in the process of hearing from the different people who've signed up to speak. So if we could continue that process first, thanks.

MR. FEINBERG: We'll try and maybe help you out on that, Mr. Kooren, thank you.

MR. KOOREN: Thank you very much for doing what you're doing.

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you.

MS. JUDSON: Michael Walden, please--

MR. FEINBURG: Mr. Walden, Michael Walden. Mr. Walden, come on. Good to see you again.

MR. WALDEN: Good to see you again. My name is Mike Walden. Represent several committees in Ohio, and the majority of the committees across the country. And we're here today because of the voting. And as a veteran, I fought to make other countries, fought to have other countries to have a democratic way to vote. Now, I'm in my country, along with all my colleagues that were veterans also. We are getting an undemocratic way to, to me an unconstitutional way of voting. The vote is stacked against by discrimination and part-, partitioning. It creates animosity towards each other and divides organizations. This vote only pacifies the participants. It does not create solvency to our plan. We need a stay or a repeal on this law so that we can really create a plan to solvency so, uh, so we have the right to vote on that.

This is a unique statute that covers so many age groups, so many physical abilities. To only allow it by phone, by Internet, it limits many of the people it affects. The voting, in my opinion, should allow the participants to have a choice of internet, phone, or paper ballot. That would be easy to do. Let you have the right to choose which one you want, especially if the Treasury Department is overseeing the ballot, or the vote. I would like to see that happen because many of us in our age group do not have internet. We do not have smart phones, but we do get the mail.

But the mail is another problem. Let the people have at least one choice in this law. We have no other choices. We're only pacified by the choices that are read into law. We should be voting on solutions, not reductions. We should be voting on possible self-contributions to the PBCG or assessments to participants in the funds that we are in. We should have the vote to truly rescue our pensions, not create more poverty in our country. The voting should be expand, uh, should be extended to at least 60 days, given the fact that many still have not received the original letter from Central States saying what their reductions are going to be.

The, the letter was sent out the first week of October. This is December. Many have still not received it. And Central States is now sending out letters saying that they miscalculated on many of the participants, increasing their fund or their benefit that they're going to receive, at least in all the cases I've seen. I've seen in a negative figure yet. But, uh, anyway, that's uh, and the other thing people aren't bringing up is how it affects your communities if we vote, if we get a vote and this vote is turned down. This is a list of all the districts in the state of Ohio. Just, I'll just take one district in the state of Ohio, and this is what you people in Ohio will be voting for, or the, the law that allows us to vote on this.

One district in the state of Ohio, District 16, retired 4,427 people. The number of companies who employee participants, 90, plan contributions made by the 16th District employers in 2013, $5,152,872. Total annual payments to pension beneficiaries in the 16th District, 36,186 dollars, four hundred and, or 419. Total annual federal tax payments made by retirees on benefits, $3,292,533. Current pensions at risk in Ohio 16th District, $443,771,315. That's one district in Ohio.

Put all the other districts together, dole that across the country and all I can say is the Treasury, the IRS, you're going to lose a lot of tax dollars, you're going to create a lot of poverty. Let's vote on something that means something. Let's vote on something that creates solvency. Let's not partition the people that are disabled from the people that can't work anyway. Let's not partition the people that couldn't work if they had to right now. We need some sort of a law, we need a stay, we need a repeal. We know the bad parts of this law right now. Let's go over that, and let's vote on that to create solvency to keep these people's lives together. Thank you.

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you.

MS. JUDSON: Eva Cantarella.

MR. FEINBERG: Ms. Cantarella, come on down.

MS. CANTARELLA: I don't mind the heat in here a bit because I'm usually cold all the time. I hope that won't count towards my ten minutes. Hi Linda.

MS. MARSHALL: Hi.

MS. CANTARELLA: And Harlan. I haven't seen you for about (inaudible)

MR. FEINBERG: Oh, are you okay?

MS. CANTARELLA: I'm fine. I'm fine.

MR. FEINBERG: That's right.

MS. CANTARELLA: All right, don't start my timer yet until I get organized here. And I have a kidney problem so I'll be drinking a lot of water. And I want to say, I, I was really hoping for a little more than ten minutes. I've been sitting in the back of the room crossing things out madly. So I hope my presentation still makes sense in light of that. But anyway, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to comment to you directly today on the proposed regulations under Section 432-E9 as they relate to the participants' right to vote on an application to suspend benefits.

As you know, if you read my comments, I currently represent 307 disabled carpenters and millwrights in a class action against the trustees of a critically underfunded multiemployer plan. This is the Underwood class action. The trustees had determined that these 307 individuals were totally and permanently disabled from continuing work in the construction industry. And since this satisfied the plan's definition of disabilities, the trustees awarded these individuals the disability benefits provided under Article 5 of the plan.

However, in 2013, the trustees amended the plan and cut the benefits of the disabled retirees over 60 percent. And they made these cuts despite the fact that disability benefits in pay status are expressly excepted from the definition of adjustable benefits that may be reduced under Code Section 432-E8, and this relates directly to 432-E9. They made these cuts also despite the fact that the plan had a provision, 10-4, which expressly prohibits plan amendments that reduce the benefits of any kind of persons who are in pay status. Therefore, we brought a class action against the trustees under both Section 10.4 of the plan and ERISA Section 305-E8, which is the ERISA analog to Code Section 432-E8. And I would submit that compliance with 432-E8 is required before benefits may be suspended under Code Section 432-E9. If you doubt me on that, look at 432-A2 and A3.

Regarding our ERISA, our statutory theory of liability, the trustees contended that the statute applies solely to pension benefits and that the disability retirement benefit under the plan was not a pension benefit, but rather an ancillary welfare benefit. And the trustees asserted this defense notwithstanding that Article 5 of the plan and many, many other plan documents had always referred to the disability retirement benefit as a retirement benefit or a pension benefit.

We explained to the district court that the, that one, PBGC deems benefits like the disability retirement benefit under the plan to be a pension benefit. Two, the amount of the disability retirement benefit under the plan is always a percentage of the participant's age 65 accrued benefit. Three, like the early retirement benefit and normal retirement benefit under the plan, the disability retirement benefit under Article 5 of this plan requires satisfaction of a minimum length of service. And, four, when a disability retirement, uh, recipient divorces and is required to pay the ex-spouse a portion of the benefit pursuant to a divorce decree, the trustees require use of a qualified domestic relations order. This is the ERISA vehicle for apportioning pension benefits and only pension benefits in the context of, of a divorce.

Nonetheless, the district court ignored all of those points, and perfunctorily held that defendants had no liability under ERISA section 305-E8. The district court, fortunately, did however, find liability under section 10.4 of the plan, which as I said, prohibits plan amendments, reduce the benefits of any kind that are in pay status. Although the district court did not initially take a position as to the character of the benefit, later in the proceedings, I'm short circuiting my notes here, the district court did, notwithstanding all of our points, decide that the disability retirement benefit, that's what it's called under the plan, was a welfare benefit and therefore not subject to the funding rules under ERISA Section 305-E8, which as I said, is the same as Code Section 432-E8.

Now, most multiemployer plans in critical status do not have a provision similar to Section 10.4 of the plan we were litigating. Therefore, the Code Section 432-E9 limitation on suspending benefits based on disability is vulnerable to the same types of arguments and avoidances advanced by the Underwood, uh, by the defendants in the Underwood class action under Section 432-E8. If a plan's sponsors or trustees adopt the district courts analysis, that notwithstanding that the benefit has always been called and treated as a retirement benefit or a pension benefit, then they will do the same thing that the defendants did in this, in our case. They will decide that the Section 432-E9 prohibition against reducing benefits based on disability applies solely to pension benefits, re-characterize the disability retirement benefit under the plan as welfare benefit. Remember, that's what happens in our case, and then reduce the so-called disability welfare benefit.

Worse, the plan's sponsors could do all of these things without disclosing the disability retirement benefit cuts in the notice to participants of the suspension or suspension application, because, after all, the prohibition against reducing benefits based on disability applies solely to disability pension benefits, and the disability retirement benefit is not a pension benefit, but a welfare benefit, or so goes the argument or defense. Even worse, participants who have their disability retirement benefit cut, but are old enough to elect an early retirement benefit will make the early retirement benefit election even though the early retirement benefit is typically reduced, being that the participant will never receive the full unreduced accrued benefit at age 65, or at any earlier age specified under the plan. Even worse, the plan sponsor could then apply to suspend these early retirement benefits because after all, they would not be a benefit based on disability.

So Treasury needs to clarify which benefits based on disability may not be disbanded, only those disability benefits that are pension benefits or also those disability benefits that are some other character, such as the welfare benefit, or auxiliary benefit, a term used in proposed regulations that I don't really know what, what it means. Okay. I've got three minutes left, okay.

MR. FEINBERG: Ms. Cantarella, let me explain something.

MS. CANTARELLA: Yes, sir.

MR. FEINBERG: You, you have a written statement.

MS. CANTARELLA: Yes, sir.

MR. FEINBERG: You don't have to read that whole statement. You can put that statement into the record. It will be included. We'll consider it.

MS. CANTARELLA: We appreciate that.

MR. FEINBERG: And you can highlight it. You're, you're going a mile a minute and we're having trouble keeping (inaudible)

MS. CANTARELLA: I'm sorry, I'm --

MR. FEINBERG: So talk, no, no. Go ahead. You can continue, but--

MS. CANTARELLA: I apologize.

MR. FEINBERG: Don't apologize.

MS. CANTARELLA: I'm looking at the clock here.

MR. FEINBERG: You don't have to apologize.

MS. CANTARELLA: Okay.

MR. FEINBERG: I'm just suggesting that the statement itself--

MS. CANTARELLA: Okay.

MR. FEINBERG: -- in its entirety --

MS. CANTARELLA: Yes.

MR. FEINBERG: -- can be included and you can highlight what you'd like to highlight. Go ahead.

MS. CANTARELLA: Okay. And hopefully you can tell me after this is over how that--

MR. FEINBERG: It's fine. Go ahead.

MS. CANTARELLA: -- how that happens because I'm not familiar with the process. I'm going to, I'm going to bring it to a, a close here pretty quick. So in addition to clarifying which benefits based on disability may be suspended, I have another suggestion because of what happened in our case. And that is that in finalizing the proposed Treasury regulations, Treasury insists that plan sponsors in their suspension application disclose all benefits cuts, whether they are proposed or made that have occurred after the adoption of the rehabilitation plan. In that way, Treasury may make the call as to which benefits may be lawfully reduced under the statute. Otherwise, Treasury could inadvertently approve a defective suspension application and that would taint the entire voting process and circumvent one of the clear goals of the statute, which is to protect the benefits of those least able to make up a benefit reduction, the, the disabled.

Indeed, if there is no reference to actual or planned cuts to disability benefits in the suspension application, or in the notice to participants, or on the ballot because the plan sponsor concludes, that's what happened in our case, that the statute applies solely to pension benefits and that the disability benefits are not pension benefits, then the suspension application, the notice, the ballot and the subsequent vote will all be defected.

To ensure integrity and transparency in the voting process and to reinforce Congress's goal of protecting disabled participants in multiemployer plans in critical status from having their disability benefits reduced, I request that the final regulations address all of the issues I have raised in this hearing. And in my November 2 comments and my November 24 outline.

And one thing I, I see I have one minute left, so I'm going to say this quickly. One thing you might be interested in after I submitted those comments, one of our class members came up with a DVD that the trustees had distributed to all of the participants explaining their benefits. And it's very clear in there that they are saying that disability retirement benefit is a pension benefit.

You can, if you're interested in looking at the DVD or even a snippet of it, we had our webmaster put it in a URL form and it's mrcc.hertzschramm.com. You'll find a link there to the full DVD, as well as to the snippet about the disability retirement benefit being a pension benefit. So it's MRCC, Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters, mrcc.hertzschram.com. I want to thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to speak and I'll, I guess I'll stick around to find out how to make my written comments an official part of the record.

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you.

MS. CANTARELLA: Thank you.

MR. FEINBERG: Ms. Cantarella, you should take, you should take your full statement--

MS. CANTARELLA: Yes.

MR. FEINBERG: -- and go over it.

MS. CANTARELLA: Okay.

MR. FEINBERG: Correct it, and add anything you would like, add additional points if you would like, and then it doesn't have to be today.

MS. CANTARELLA: Okay.

Mr. FEINBERG: You can then submit the entire document to our record and we will, as a comment, we'll consider it. And if you want to know exactly how to submit it, ask Sam or Mark over here, and they'll be glad to go about making sure that your entire statement is part of the official record.

MS. CANTARELLA: Okay. Thank you so much for helping me out with that.

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you. Okay.

MS. JUDSON: While all the people who signed up before the hearing have spoken, there are several people who signed up when they came here this morning. I will read those names, and then we will ask if there are any additional people who want to speak.

The people who signed up are Bob Amsden, Paul Host, Charles Constable, Ken Stribling, David Grant, and Paul Susy.

Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak with us today? (No response)

MR. FEINBERG: Who's first?

MS. JUDSON: Bob Amsden.

MR. FEINBERG: Bob. Bob has followed us around. (Laughter) He is the conscience of the retiree effort. We've become old friends, and I'm very pleased to see him here in Washington. Bob?

SPEAKER: I'm here on behalf of Ms. Moran.

MR. AMSDEN: You're here on her behalf?

SPEAKER: Yes, I am.

MR. AMSDEN: Well, welcome. Great. We finally got some recognition from her.

My name is Robert Amsden. I've been a Teamster since 1973. I retired in September of 2007. I had the life of luxury until this devastating news hit. When I read through it, I was pretty amazed. I read that thing three times, 161 pages. I still have a headache. It was handed to me by my President of Local 200 Tom Bennett, because he got tired of reading it, I guess.

The voting provisions of MPRA mirror those traditionally followed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the IBT, in voting on the National Master Freight Collective Bargaining Agreements. That procedure considered union members who didn't vote on this contract to be "yes" votes.

While that concept may have been appropriate when able bodied men and women decided not to exercise a preference on the terms of a renewable contract, it is highly inappropriate as a means of determining the outcome of whether the kind of pension benefit reductions Central States Pension Fund intends to be implemented should be made, especially for retirees.

While many retirees are still in good shape both mentally and physically, a large number are simply not. Age breaks down both minds and bodies, especially in the labor intensive industry that the IBT covers. Many retirees being asked to vote on these reductions genuinely can't do so. Follow Mary Packett.

Some are in assisted living, nursing homes, and hospice. Some are bed ridden at home. Some are shut ins with no mobility. Some don't have access to or skills to use computer technology to learn more about the process, the specifics of the reductions, the importance of their vote. Some cannot get to meetings with others affected by this tragedy to accomplish this aim. Some don't have families or friends to help them through this procedure.

Imagine the terror facing these benefit reductions all alone, not allowing and knowing what will happen, having someone to turn to. How frightening, how sad. It's not only highly unfair to impose this not voting means "yes" procedure on retirees, it's cruel, unconscionable, and immoral. I have other words but I'm keeping it clean. (Laughter)

Those legislators who voted yea on MPRA should be ashamed of themselves for being so disrespectful to hard working men and women who sacrificed everything they had, including in many, many instances their health, doing jobs that provide us with the standard of living we enjoy in this country. Their very own legislative bodies don't operate under the kind of voting rule MPRA prescribes.

A member of Congress who does not show up for a vote is either a "yea" or a "nay." The fate of any legislation voted during his or her absence is simply decided without them.

Who, if they could get out to vote, would actually vote to reduce their pensions to help the Federal Government's PBGC agency out of a jam of its own making?

Why hasn't PBGC's Director contacted those covered by Central States directly? Why is Executive Director of Central States, Tom Nyhan, doing this for them, and speaking on behalf of PBGC about its perilous financial future? He doesn't work for PBGC. He's supposed to be working for us, for solutions, not coming to Washington lobbying to get our pensions cut. He's not working for us. He is supposed to be working for Central States to help us.

Why has it taken him so long to come up with a rescue plan, when Central States has been reporting PBGC's red zone status for nearly 10 years? Why is it so drastic, so punitive, why is he so concerned about what will happen in 10 years when he seems to have ignored the last 10 years. Why the rush now to cut our pensions?

Why didn't he drive the unfunded liability so Central States would be attractive to new employers? Why will he not get out and see those affected by these reductions face to face and see us and tell us this? He will not send his staff or anybody to do so.

Why is it impossible to get more detailed information out of Central States? Why after 40 years has the Federal Government not figured out how to fund or now resuscitate one of its agencies?

It did that when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got in trouble. They were private agencies no different than the PBGC. Why is PBGC still accepting premiums from Central States when it says it cannot insure its pensions?

This PBGC pronouncement is the very reason being given for these reductions. Yet, its details have never been fully explained. Why has that not been done? What becomes of Central States' premium payments for the last 40 years? Were these premiums just a waste of money, false hope?

These questions need to be answered in order to give those who will suffer reductions a complete understanding of how to cast their ballot and why; to do anything less is simply not acceptable.

Every Teamster retiree, every moment of every day, gave a little piece of themselves doing Teamster work. They deserve to have an honest, straightforward, up or down vote on their final and financial future, and not some convoluted bullshit rigged to take advantage of the frailties of the unfortunate in the prime of their lives.

Thank you. (Applause)

MS. JUDSON: Paul Host.

MR. FEINBERG: Paul Host. Mr. Host? Good to see you.

MR. HOST: We talked about the mailing list with John Murphy yesterday. Once you retire, you basically fall off the list of your local and the international. The only people that have our addresses is the Central States Pension Fund, and they have refused to give it, when it was requested by either locals or the international.

Thank you for hearing us, once again, you and your distinguished panel.

The vote should not be rigged as it is set up now. Return ballots by U.S. Mail should be counted. Non-returned ballots should not count as "yes" votes. I think we wouldn't have to be here discussing this if possibly with a real retiree representative. We have shown our displeasure with this particular process. If we had a legitimate retiree representative, we might not even be here for this.

Her e-mail says "Will not reply." She hasn't shown up at any of our local meetings or rallies or D.C. The one time she spoke, she gave out incorrect information, such as the ratio of retirees, the active's. Sue Marie now has a very public record of doing basically nothing for us. She doesn't seem to have the decency to resign and allow someone who will advocate for us at this important time in our lives to take over.

I would like to suggest Mike Walden for this very important position. (Applause)

MS. JUDSON: Charles Constable.

MR. FEINBERG: Charles Constable. Mr. Constable, are you here? Come right down. Did we see you in Milwaukee?

MR. CONSTABLE: I sure did, sir.

MR. FEINBERG: Yes, I remember. Good to see you again.

MR. CONSTABLE: I'm not going to be as articulate as a lot of people, this is totally new to me. I'm worse than Bernie Amsden. I'm totally out of my element.

All I got to say to this distinguished panel here -- it's like I'm coming up here begging these people to save something that I earned. I worked 36 years in this union.

I came out of the military after five years, got into the trucking industry again, and I was working on the docks and driving trucks for a machine outfit when a good friend of mine told me, "well, Bill, why don't you get into the union where they pay better benefits, better union, better scale, and you're going to have a pension."

I said, "I never really thought about it, but that really makes sense." So, that's what I did. I came into the union in 1973.

Now, I get the distinguished title of being called an "orphan," because half the trucking companies that I worked for and dedicated my life to and gave up a lot of my free time to work for are no longer in business. So, now I'm called an "orphan" because they decided to pull up, go out of business.

One of my employers, I worked for five weeks, and never got my final paychecks, my vacation, my sick days. They just shut the doors. I worked hard for them. I worked 65 hours plus every week, driving on the road, from here to wherever.

I don't ask for anybody to give me any breaks. I chose that job. I was proud to be a Teamster. There was nothing wrong with this profession. It was a good honest wage, good honest work, a lot of dedicated people did it. There was a lot of people -- I was one of the fortunate ones that didn't have to get up and move, but when a company decided to do a change of operation, you had two choices; you either moved with the freight or you looked for another job.

My situation was I worked for five big major companies, and four of them went totally out of business. At 50 years old, I went to Railway Freight and competed with people half my age, but I did it. You know why? Because I had too many years into the pension just to throw it away. I was at that golden ring where it was just in my grasp, if I just did 10 more years, I'd get my full pension. I did. I worked weekends. I worked holidays. I was gone.

I did everything in a union that you could do. I worked the dock, I worked the yard, I did city freight, and I ran the road. Anything that was asked of me, I did. I never gave them any questions. If it was asked for me to do, I did.

Now, I feel like I'm a low class citizen because now I'm down here talking to this distinguished panel and all you people, and I'm actually begging for you people to keep what I earned. Nobody handed me this pension. I worked for it, along with everybody else out here.

We worked for these pensions. Now, we are told because they don't know how to invest the money in the right way, we're going to pay the price for it. Nobody asked us how we felt they should invest our money.

They just said we're going to take your money, we're taking it from the companies, this is how we are going to invest it. If they chose to squander it, we didn't have any choice or say about it. Now, we're going to pay the price.

That's all I've got to say. Thank you. (Applause)

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you.

MS. JUDSON: Ken Stribling.

MR. FEINBERG: Ken Stribling? Mr. Stribling? Good to see you again.

MR. STRIBLING: Thank you, sir. I want to thank the distinguished panel. I really came up with a lot to say, but I have nothing to say because my fellow brother from UPS said it all, and I don't know what else I could add to it, except it's just plain wrong. Thank you. (Applause)

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you.

MS. JUDSON: David Grant.

MR. FEINBERG: Mr. Grant, welcome.

MR. GRANT: Good to see you again.

MR. FEINBERG: Good to see you again.

MR. GRANT: Panel and Mr. Feinberg, it's a pleasure to be here again today and able to share with you a lot of my concerns.

Since the last time I spoke to you folks, I've been active in getting more committees set up across Nebraska. It's quite interesting, the things we have had to run into, the various people that show up. I had a phantom UPS driver I had been trying to locate in O'Neill for about three and a half/four weeks, and last week, lo and behold, he called Mary Packett. She referred him to me. With that one call, I found 10 more drivers in that O'Neill area. I spoke to 40 of them, 40 UPS drivers, in Grand Island, Nebraska. The angst and frustration that these folks are going through is beyond comprehension.

I had a driver that had worked in Hastings, Nebraska. He called me. When I got to visiting with him, his frustration -- I have hearing aids; I had to hold my phone out this far away. It's very frustrating.

Now, I'd like to address the rest of this issue. I'm here today to encourage those of you in the Treasury and Mr. Feinberg to think long and hard about this voting process as it is set forth in the MPRA.

The fact is that those recipients over 80 and those disabled will have no interest in the outcome of this vote. Eleven of 480 people that Mary Packett had spoke up, and I'm sure there are a lot more than that that we are unable to reach.

The recipients 75 to 80, some will have marginal cuts, also this will cause a lot of angst for that group. Do they take what is given them or turn down these drastic cuts? Their vote will depend upon whether they are closer to 80 or 75.

Many of the retirees over 80 have not received a letter or communication. We found two out in Lincoln, Nebraska. This pertains to the status of their pensions, what will happen to these ballots since they have not been notified, and they are unaware of the possibility to vote against this. Many will automatically assume this is a done deal. I hear this over and over; quite frustrating.

I'm also a strong supporter of Rob Portman's bill, that the vote shall stand as it is counted.

For the group over 80, there are protected amounts to approximately 27 percent. The group from 75 to 80, it is approximately 17 percent. This is 44 percent of those affected.

Now, add to that 5,000 that are disabled, you are close to half of all retirees. They will probably accept the proposal that means the other half are shouldering all the cuts. This is a far cry from Mr. Nyhan's 22.6 percent cut across the board, he told the media. I say do the math. It would be nice if we could get true and accurate figures from him.

I might add there are a lot of retirees that are qualified for a disability from Central States, but the dollar amount on that type of pension was so low that many had enough time to take their regular pension because it was more. Now, after the fact, they are penalized the same as those retirees that retired on a 30 to 35 and out pension.

Another one of my concerns are those retirees in nursing homes, Alzheimer's care facilities, or bed ridden, unable to understand what this vote is about. As you know by now, our Locals have not helped the retirees to understand what is going on. There have been a handful of Locals that came to the rescue of our retirees to get them information as to time lines, what to do if you had a discrepancy with your proposed cut, and so forth. Thank you to those locals.

Now, the active members. They are so confused by the lack of communication from their respective locals. I've had contact with several active drivers to get them up to speed right in Lincoln, Nebraska about these proposed cuts, how this mess has been thrust upon us, and why we are so set against cuts as they are proposed.

The use of electronic voting or a paper ballot should be possibly an option, and the more I think about it, I believe a paper ballot is the only way to go. We are used to that. It makes it a lot easier, and they can go out to the retirees, and they need to be mailed back.

As a matter of fact, there are a lot of retirees I've talked to who will not use a computer or a smartphone.

The way the MPRA was written, especially the voting process, any ballots not returned counts as a "yes" vote. This goes against what this country was founded upon, which is a democratic process, the right to have a say in our laws that govern our nation and its people.

One of the unique characteristics and basic tenants of democracy is that its citizens get to vote, both figuratively and literally.

We were denied this basic right to have our voices heard at the time this MPRA was proposed in the last hours of the legislative work in 2014. Our representatives failed us by allowing this travesty to become law, and at the 11th hour, when no one was watching, it was passed.

To Mr. Nyhan, to those who worked so hard to pull this off, and those attorneys who helped write this fiasco, I wish you a permanent case of diarrhea. (Laughter) (Applause)

MS. JUDSON: We have some questions.

MR. WELLER: I have two questions. One, in the comments we have heard a lot about people who could have elected disability but didn't because the regular retirement benefit was bigger.

MR. GRANT: Correct.

MR. WELLER: Is there any way to now after the fact identify those people, given that they didn't actually elect disability, what record is there that says they could have elected disability?

MR. GRANT: What I have experienced, I have two UPS drivers in Grand Island, Nebraska. One chose to go the other way, just due to the fact it was less money. That was the number one reason. Now, my understanding is if you went on disability, which was a lesser amount, you drew that until 65, and then you could go to a regular pension. At that point -- what I had read -- they are supposed to maintain you as a disabled person.

MR. WELLER: Yes, under the regulations, if you started on disability and you transferred into a regular retirement, you are still treated as disability.

I'm asking about the other category of people who when they first started determined that their regular pension was larger, so they never asked for disability.

MR. GRANT: I think there are a whole lot of them who, didn't even know it was available. I had two people in Lincoln, Nebraska -- one was a Yellow Freight driver, Jim Hubble, when I spoke to him and told him, "you could have taken a disability." He said, "I didn't even know they had one."

MS. JUDSON: Part of the question is would there be a way to respond -- if people wanted to respond to those comments -- by allowing different treatment, what would be the way to determine who had been eligible for disability?

Is there any other evidence? Is there anything else, a corollary area where they might be disabled? Is there any way to show that they could have been eligible for disability?

MR. GRANT: The one gentleman in Grant Island that I spoke to, he had to sue UPS, so there should be some records from that, I would imagine. They should have recourse through that to look at it and see the doctor's designation on it.

Another UPS driver in Grant Island, he needed the money. He couldn't live on what a disability pension was. He chose to go to work. He had a back brace. This is a sad story because this man, I can only imagine how painful that was to wear that brace for 20-25 years, that he had done.

The disabilities -- like I say, there were a couple of others in the Lincoln area. I have spent anywhere from five, six, to eight hours a day on the phone visiting with various ones, anywhere from Springfield, Missouri to Las Vegas. These people, they tell a friend, the friend says, "Hey, I know about this committee back in Nebraska and everything."

These people are coming out. That is why it's so frustrating for us to try to find those people.

MR. WELLER: Let me just make one more comment. You mentioned people unfamiliar with the Internet and smarttphone.

MR. GRANT: Yes, sir.

MR. WELLER: It is not intended they need to use a smarttphone. I think the system that is referenced talks about voice response.

MR. GRANT: Okay.

MR. WELLER: A regular rotary phone will work.

MR. GRANT: Okay.

MR. WELLER: Thank you.

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you.

MS. JUDSON: Paul Susy.

MR. FEINBERG: Mr. Susy? Is it Columbus or Milwaukee that I saw you?

MR. SUSY: Columbus.

MR. FEINBERG: Columbus. I remember.

MR. SUSY: Welcome, thank you. Good morning to the panel and you, and the retirees. As a senior citizen, I think our government has let us down. When we had the Gulf oil, they'd thrown money at the people. 9/11, the government put money into it. And all our weather tragedies, the government put money into it. But the senior citizens we're forgot about. No matter how this vote comes out, it doesn't make any difference, because we don't have the say so. It's unfair. Mr. Feinberg, and the panel, has a decision. They accept that proposal, or come up with a fair adjustment. And I think a fair adjustment would be 10% across the board, 79 years old and under, disabled UPS, just 10% straight across the board on a calendar year for three years. No more than 30%, 10% each year with a 30% cap -- to see how this fund is doing. Because I don't think -- no matter what they do, the fund's not gonna make it. That's all I've got to say.

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you, Mr. Susy.

MS. JUDSON: We've completed all the hearing from everyone who signed up to speak either before the hearing, or at the front door. Is there anyone else who would like to address us today?

MR. FEINBERG: Come on down.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Mr. Feinberg, how are you?

MR. FEINBERG: I'm fine. Now, when you come up, make sure -- since you're just coming up now, we don't have a record, you'll give us your full name, and spelling, if we need it.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Sure. My name is Fred Zuckerman. It's --

MR. FEINBERG: Oh, yes. We heard from you in Columbus, I think it was.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: Z-U-C-K-E-R-M-A-N.

MR. FEINBERG: Right.

MR. ZUCKERMAN: I am the principle officer of a local union in Louisville, KY. We have 9,400 participants in Central States, be it active, terminated, vested, so our retireds. I just got a couple quick comments, and I hope I stay within the scope of this hearing. One, is that on behalf of the actives, we also agree that democracy calls for one vote and tally the votes, and the majority of those votes that are submitted should dictate the outcome of this problem we have.

In the Columbus hearing I had talked about the UPS threat to sue. And I believe that we are wasting a lot of time and effort, and there's a lot of anxiety if we don't know what the outcome of the UPS problem is going to be. UPS has made a threat in their comments that were submitted on the 7th of December, that says that they don't agree that Central States has applied the law correctly. And that the Tier 2 people have to, by law, be cut to 110% of the PBGC rate before they can cut any Tier 3 people. They have threatened to sue. This could take an enormous amount of time and I don't think that this should proceed, or a vote go out until that determination is made, until there is a legal judgment that says if UPS is right or wrong.

This past week I met with one of the Central States trustees. And that Central States trustee told me that if UPS is correct legally, that they will withdraw their submission. That Central States will not continue with their submission to cut benefits. They will not cut the Tier 2 people down to 110%. So what I'm asking this panel to do is to contact Central States and find out what their position is on that, because if this is going to be held up in a legal battle that could take a dozen years, we are just wasting our time at this point and all these guys, with all their anxiety that could be stopped for the time being, until we can figure out what the correct course of action is. Thank you very much. (Applause)

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you.

MS. JUDSON: Is there anyone else who would like to address this hearing today?

MR. ANDERSON: Can I say one more thing?

MR. FEINBERG: Sure, come back up. You've come a long way.

MR. ANDERSON: Oh, yeah, well you know, I wanted to get a few minutes in anyway.

MR. FEINBERG: That's all right. Come on back up. Repeat your name for the panel.

MR. ANDERSON: My name is Bernie Anderson. I just wanted to say a little thing on what Fred was talking about, anxiety and just the stress level that a lot of the retirees are feeling. I mean you can hear it in everybody's voices today. And it's just intense. A lot of us, like I explained to Local 200, Tom Bennett one day, that a lot of us were thinking of fishing, seeing our grandkids, and all of a sudden we're in front of federal panels and everything else. It's just unbelievable and we need a break. Thank you.

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you. (Applause) Come on, Mary, you want to be heard now? Come on. Come on, we have time. I would have been surprised, Mary, if you didn't want to be heard again. I would have been surprised if would have just kept quiet, so come on up. We're glad to hear you again.

MS. PACKETT: Mr. Feinberg, I love how you catch yourself when you trip. Unfortunately, I had a fall over there. When I fall, I fall. My name's Mary Packett. And I'm going to direct this at you for Susan Moran, please. She is supposed to be the retiree representative for these men. These men are the most amazing people I have ever met in my life. My father is a retiree. This is taking its toll on him. My dad's not here in DC, because this has taken its toll on my dad really bad, guys.

Anyone, Susan Moran was appointed to represent these men. I'm here helping represent these men. I'm not being paid. It's not even my pension. Where is she? Why is it that we are not hearing from her? I can get up here and help these men. I can come to Washington, D.C. and talk and help these men. Why is she not here? Why was she not at the September 10th hearing? Why is that these men had to form their own groups and get their own representation, and this man right here is representing them more than this woman ever was? Why is she wasting money on letters that are dated December, telling people that they can look into the Central State site and find information there, but not give any pertinent information? And the biggest question I've got for Susan Moran is: Why does she never mention Mr. Feinberg? She has not mentioned Mr. Feinberg in any of her letters. If she's really representing these retirees, then she would understand how important this man is.

My question, and I want to ask you, could you please have her give her response to the U.S. Department of Treasury on why she has not done any of these things? Thank you.

(Applause)

MR. FEINBERG: Come on up, Mr. Amsden, come on up again.

MR. AMSDEN: Robert Amsden, thank you again for letting me up here. I want to follow up on Mary to Ms. Moran's visitor here today. She is supposed to be an advocate for retirees. She has done nothing but piss and moan about having to do something she wasn't being paid to do. She volunteered for this. I'd like to know the procedure on how she was appointed this though through Woberley, through the IBT, through Central States, how was she appointed this position in the dark of the night, just like this damn was? How did she become the spokesperson when she's going to be so critically damaged by this MPRA is if it goes through herself, because of her Central States pension? Not to mention the other four pensions she's drawing on living high off the hog. How the hell is she gonna be affected by this, when she won't even come and see who she's supposed to be representing?

There are people, real people, real lives, real stories, if she would have been here in September, she would have seen Alex Adams lift his shirt and show his goddamn feeding tubes. She would have seen that in person. Mr. Feinberg seen it. These other two panelists seen that. That's heart wrenching. If she would have been in Milwaukee last week Wednesday, with a registered invitation to attend that damn meeting, she would have seen my cousin, Gary, get up there and start bawling like a little baby. Toughest, goddamn teamster I've ever know in my life, never cried when he was a kid gotten his ass kicked, he broke out and started bawling in front of everybody. He's got stage IV cancer, diagnosed on April 6th, pulled out of a truck. His wife died April 12th. He gets a letter from Central States, they're cutting his goddamn pension. That's real life. That's what Susan Moran should be seeing, hearing, and feeling. Not sitting in Minnesota, a mile from meetings being held from retirees that she won't even go down and see.

She lists Central States rescue plan as the solution. Get it done now. Get it done quick. Why doesn't she got everyone of these goddamn committees on her messages and website telling people who to go hear and who to go see and get help with? Not Nyhan. $694,000, 2014, got a $32,000 a year raise, for doing what? Any CEO in this country would have lost 30% of his goddamn investments over that period of time, would have been thrown on the street. But he keeps on going, and he keeps getting raises.

The recommendations I gave all of you is we need a new administration in there. This plan is gonna fail no matter if this goes through or not. This plan is destined to fail with his leadership. And if people involved in the Central States management, fund management advisories, Northern Trust (Applause), get rid of that whole damn bunch. We're all going down no matter what. And we need the government's help to do right what they did wrong. Thank you. (Applause)

MR. FEINBERG: Now let me say this, does anybody else want to be heard on the subject of this hearing, which is the voting procedures, and the law, and the regulations? Many of you know that after the first of the year, Treasury will hold additional field hearings in the Midwest. Various individuals have asked us to come to various locations -- Minneapolis, et cetera, St. Louis, Illinois -- we plan to reconvene the hearings, but I want to know today, right now, have we heard everybody who wanted to be heard on voting procedures? That's the subject of this hearing. And if there's anybody else -- we had lists -- but if anybody else wants to be heard, otherwise I'm able to ask the panelists, if they have any additional questions before I adjourn the hearing? So hearing that there are no other requests, do any of my panelists have any questions that they'd like to pose to any of our speakers or any of our witnesses? Hearing none -- yes.

MR. WALDEN: I think I can say it from here --

MR. FEINBERG: Michael, it's Michael, right?

MR. WALDEN: Yeah.

MS. JUDSON: Actually, we need -- you're still part of our official hearing, so we need you to come to the front.

MR. FEINBERG: I would have been shocked if you didn't want to have the last word anyway. I remember his filibuster in Ohio. Go ahead.

MR. WALDEN: Well I was going to say (laughs). The voting concerning smartphones, whatever you want to call them, I don't remember seeing anything announced anywhere including the letter from Central States that says you could do this over a rotary dial phone. Is there some way we can?

MR. WELLER: The regulation refers to interactive voice response. So it's that's someone gonna be -- it's like those robo calls essentially, they say that you would be answering do you vote yes or no. And you'd say "yes." And the computer would say, "Did you mean to say yes?" And you'd say "yes" and go on your merry way.

MR. WALDEN: The regulation also says that this law, the application, should be written in a way that the average individual should understand it. I don't know how many people here understand what you just said that was. (Laughs) It should have said voice interactive, not what you just explained, robo call and all that. Many of us have not experienced that. As I said, the regulation -- a lot of these things in that regulation -- says that it should be put that the average individual understand it, not Harvard grads, and I respect your position. By any means, I'm not -- I'm just saying that we have a lot of people here, and some people in that age group, you have to remember a lot of these people didn't graduate from school. They just took these jobs and worked. They have had no interactive phone. They have not had to make a call and push buttons. Many people give up when they phone anybody and have to push buttons, or dial 1, or dial 2, or any of that. So somehow or another, we need to address that too, and I'm not even going to say the elderly, but a lot of people in this society still do not understand that. So that's my comment on that.

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you. (Applause) Anybody else on voting? Yes?

MS. CANTARELLA: I just have a --

MR. FEINBERG: Eva, you got to come down. Come on down. Now, you realize after you testify, Eva, that Michael will want to come back again and. (Laughter) Got to say close. Go ahead.

MS. CANTARELLA: This is a question that's going through my mind and maybe the minds of most of you in this room. First does Treasury have a tentative date when it would like to finalize the proposed regulations?

MR. FEINBERG: Panel?

MR. WELLER: We don't have a set schedule as to when we are finalizing. We have received the comments on the regulations. We have extended the comment period on the specific application, and we are doing our due diligence to evaluate the comments on the regulation at this point.

MS. MARSHALL: And of course, we'll have to consider what we heard at the hearing today.

MS. CANTARELLA: Gotcha. Then is there a deadline when the proposed regulations need to be finalized, a deadline? And if so, what is it?

MR. WELLER: We said in the original regulations that we don't expect to approve any applications before finalization. So we need to have the final regulations in place before we decide what to do with these specific applications.

MR. FEINBERG: What's the deadline for Central States under the law?

MR. WELLER: Two hundred and twenty-five days for Central States, I think runs to early May.

MS. CANTARELLA: I'm aware of that 225 day-period. So you don't have an internal deadline?

MS. JUDSON: I should say, as a general matter, particularly with regulations that time-sensitive, we work as expeditiously as we can, taking into account all the public comments. We appreciate the comments we've received. The staff working on it has gone through those comments. And we'll also take into account the supplemental things you said today, which are very helpful. And we will work as quickly as we can to finish the project.

MS. CANTARELLA: OK. So it could be a couple more, two or three more months basically?

MS. JUDSON: We can't predict.

MR. FEINBERG: It could be.

MS. CANTARELLA: It could be.

MS. JUDSON: And we are going to try to take into account what you've told us and work as expeditious as we can. I should also mention that some statements made today related to dissatisfaction with the law, and I just want to be clear that our job here is to write regulations that implement the law that was enacted. We do not have power to change the law. So, please keep that in mind.

MS. CANTARELLA: I totally understand that, as an attorney. And thank you. It was just a question that's been going through my mind, and I think others want to know to.

MR. FEINBERG: Fair question. That's a fair question, thank you.

MS. JUDSON: I think with that, we are ready to finish our hearing, adjourn. And this is the end of the public hearing on proposed regulations, administration of multiemployer plan participation vote, on approved suspension under MPRA Reg 123640-15. Thank you all so much for coming.

MR. FEINBERG: Thank you. (Applause)