-26-
It is clear from the legislative history that the statute
gives a special status to employees and that this was not
inadvertent. See infra Appendix. However the statute does not
in terms require that retired employees must, as petitioner
suggests, be "able to enjoy the liberty to appoint their own
representative(s)." Our examination of the legislative history
does not bring to light any such intended requirement. Our
examination of those portions of the record that petitioner cites
supra in his paragraph 19(b) does not bring to light any such
requirement.
On the contrary, it clearly emerges that the Congress
entrusted the Treasury Department with the specific task of
writing interested party regulations. The Treasury Department
has done so. As our analysis, supra, shows, in most instances
only present employees of one sort or another can qualify as
interested parties under the regulations. In the case of plan
terminations, the focus shifts to certain former employees and
beneficiaries of deceased former employees. Perhaps the
objectives sought to be furthered by ERISA would have been better
served if the Treasury Department had issued regulations more in
line with petitioner’s suggestion. However, ERISA does not
require the Treasury Department to do so, whether we focus merely
on the enacted words or take into account the legislative history
in order to understand the enacted words. Under these
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011