An amendment to let troubled multiemployer pension plans cut retireebenefits initially moved forward in Congress on Thursday but facedan uncertain future after the House recessed mid-afternoon withouttaking a vote on a massive spending plan.

A final vote was expected by about 2 p.m. Eastern on the $1trillion spending bill but it had not been taken by 4 p.m.

It appears leaders were scrambling to find additional supportamong members of Congress before taking a final vote. Unlesssomething changes, Congress was scheduled to end its currentsession tonight.

If the House eventually approves the spending bill, it thenheads to Senate for a vote. If approved there, it will be sent toPresident Obama. He could veto the bill, which is unlikely, or signit into law.

Also read:
Benefit clawbacks: Only way to avoid a pensioncliff?
PBGC deficit hits record $62 billion

The pension reform amendment would help the Pension BenefitGuaranty Corp. remain solvent by letting ailing multiemployerpension plans cut retiree benefits – so long as workers andretirees approve. One of its other key provisions eliminates thepenalty on employers who increase their contributions tounderfunded plans.

Opponents to the amendment lobbied hard this week, questioningthe details of the proposal and why it was even up for a voteduring a lame-duck session of Congress.

But in making his final case for the amendment, House Educationand the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline, a MinnesotaRepublican, said the reforms were “critical” to avert a “loomingpension crisis.”

“The multiemployer pension system is a ticking time bomb,” Klinesaid in a speech on the House floor. “A crisis is staring us in theface.”

He acknowledged there are some “shortcomings” in the plan. Butsaid doing nothing will mean cuts in benefits for retirees, andthat, with the amendment “retirees are better off than if we didnothing.”

Similarly, George Miller, a ranking California Democrat, saidthat the amendment was the “only available option to save thesefailing plans.”

He has repeatedly pointed out in recent days the provisions inthe amendment were reviewed in “extensive hearings” over the lastfew years and that the amendment gives employees and retirees theopportunity to vote on whether to cut their own pension benefits.And there are some safeguards in place to exempt older retirees aswell as the disabled.

Some unions actually want to be able to take such an action tosave their multiemployer pension plans, but currently are forbiddenfrom doing so, he said.

“They want to make these adjustments; the law says they can't,”Miller explained on the House floor.

“These plans are losing altitude every day,” he added. “Trustthese workers enough … to make these decisions on theirretirement.”

But opponents of the amendment reject such arguments.

“I urge my colleagues to oppose this poison-pill measure,” Rep.Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat, said in a statement. “Thisrider undoes 40 years of the Employee Retirement Income SecurityAct.”

“The process should have been a great deal more transparent,”Hastings added during a Rules Committee meeting. He claimed theamendment also “drastically cuts” pensions of retirees, and pointsout that plans are not in any immediate danger of insolvency.

Also, the Pension Rights Center claimed the cuts in pensionbenefits could, in some cases, exceed 60 percent of a participant'sbenefits.

Among those opposing the amendment is the AARP. It called theamendment the result of a “last-minute backroom deal.”

“After a lifetime of hard work to earn their pensions, retireesdon't deserve to receive a bad deal, in which they've had no say,cut behind closed doors and excluding the very people who would beimpacted most,” Joyce Rogers, an AARP vice president, warned in astatement.

Also read: Can this government bailout be avoided?