The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 10, COMPREHENSIVE RETIREMENT SECURITY AND PENSION REFORM ACT OF 2001” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H1745-H1747 on May 2, 2001.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 10, COMPREHENSIVE RETIREMENT
SECURITY AND PENSION REFORM ACT OF 2001
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 127 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 127
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 10) to provide for pension reform, and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means and the amendment recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of debate on the bill, as amended, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; (2) the further amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, which may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, last night the Committee on Rules met and granted a modified closed rule for H.R. 10, the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act of 2001. The rule provides for 90 minutes of general debate with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Additionally, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and against consideration of the amendment printed in the report.
The rule provides that in lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 shall be considered as adopted.
The rule also provides for consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, printed in the Committee on Rules report, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled between a proponent and an opponent.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule for reform of our Nation's pension and retirement security laws. This is clearly a balanced, bipartisan measure and this rule provides for a minority substitute and comprehensive debate.
Mr. Speaker, in the Second Century, B.C., Cato the Elder, a Roman statesman, orator and writer, noted that ``cessation of work is not accompanied by cessation of expenses.''
In the next 15 years, some 76 million baby boomers will retire. But less than 40 percent of these retirees have invested enough to enjoy a comfortable, secure retirement.
While people are living longer and healthier lives, our retirement systems simply have not kept pace. According to the Department of Labor, nearly half of all private sector workers will have no pension coverage, and only one-fifth of small businesses with 25 or fewer employees offer a pension plan.
Individual Retirement Accounts provide a critically needed source of retirement savings for millions of workers currently lacking pension coverage, including the self-employed, part-time workers, and many small business employees. These are not the very wealthy, but instead, hard-working, middle-income Americans who would invest and save more money if only it was not for one significant barrier in their way, government regulations.
The $2,000 IRA contribution limit has not been changed since 1981, and a lot has happened in 20 years. The absence of growth in retirement coverage since 1980 is simply unacceptable.
Since 1990, pension coverage has declined from 40 to 33 percent among workers making less than $20,000; and despite record surpluses in the Federal Government, the personal savings rate has dropped every year since 1992 and is at its lowest point in 66 years.
Currently, these high costs and complicated requirements prevent many employers from offering retirement options to their employees. It is time that we simplify the regulatory barriers and update our retirement systems. Let us make it easier for employers to help their employees and easier for employees to help themselves.
The underlying bipartisan bill is critical to the financial and retirement security of countless Americans. H.R. 10 will strengthen Individual Retirement Accounts, 401(k) plans and small business retirement plans, finally bringing retirement savings to the 21st century.
The Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act increases the old IRA contribution limit from $2,000 to $5,000 over the next 3 years for both traditional and Roth IRAs.
One of the most important measures of H.R. 10 is that it includes a fairness provision to allow workers over 50 years of age to catch up in contributions for 401(k) plans by increasing the contribution level immediately.
This bipartisan measure will remove excessive, burdensome and unnecessary Federal regulations, providing relief to American businesses and workers by encouraging small businesses to offer pension plans. By removing these restrictions, Americans will be allowed the freedom to invest in their future as never before.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 10 is a fair, balanced, and bipartisan plan that will help millions of Americans. I would like to commend the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for their hard work on this measure.
In addition, I would like to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the sponsors of underlying legislation for their dedication to pension and retirement reform.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind this body that nearly an identical measure had overwhelming bipartisan support in the 106th Congress. I urge my colleagues to once again support this fair rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule. H.R. 10 deserves full and open debate, and an open rule would have ensured that no one would have been shut out of the process.
The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) would have been able to offer her amendment to make the benefits of the underlying bill available to employees of small businesses; and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) would have been able to offer her amendment to make Federal employees eligible to participate in the benefits of the underlying bill.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support expanding opportunities for working Americans to save for their retirement, which are the underlying goals for H.R. 10. Congress must ensure that no segment of our workforce is excluded from the opportunity to financially improve their retirement years.
The pressure to save adequately for retirement affects all working Americans. H.R. 10 includes a number of provisions which improve current protections for workers and retirees. It encourages rollovers of pension plans when workers switch employment, and eliminates compensation caps that unfairly affect pension benefits of rank-and-
file workers.
Specifically, H.R. 10 increases the annual IRA contributions from
$2,000 to $5,000. It increases the amount that individuals can contribute to 401(k) plans from $10,000 up to $15,000. Also, it allows taxpayers age 50 and above to contribute an additional $5,000 to an IRA. The bill allows workers to become vested and eligible for employer-matching contributions in 3 years rather than 5.
Currently, more people are joining the workforce than are receiving pension coverage. Only half of the workforce is covered by a pension plan. And worse, there is reason to believe that it will not provide them with an adequate level of supplemental income in retirement.
Although there is insufficient data to measure contributions and benefits, data from the Federal Reserve shows pension plan contributions declining by 50 percent in recent years. The underlying bill could be strengthened to ensure opportunities for those low- and moderate-income workers with few or no opportunities to save. We must continue to work together to improve this aspect of the bill.
Statistics confirm that low-income workers are far less likely to participate in an employment-based retirement saving plan than workers with higher incomes, even when the plan is available to them. Only 29 percent of full-time workers with earnings below $20,000 annually are covered by pensions. On the other hand, 76 percent of those earning above $60,000 annually have coverage.
During consideration of the underlying bill, my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) will offer a substitute which incorporates the text of H.R. 10, as well as provisions to encourage the participation of low-income workers.
Specifically, the substitute provides a refundable credit for low- and middle-income workers who save for their retirement; and it makes small business employees eligible to claim a tax credit for establishing a qualified pension plan. That is most important.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these important improvements to the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adopting the resolution will be followed by a 5-minute vote on approving the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 404, nays 24, not voting 3, as follows:
YEAS--404
AbercrombieAckermanAderholtAkinAllenAndrewsArmeyBacaBachusBairdBakerBaldacciBaldwinBallengerBarciaBarrBarrettBartlettBartonBassBecerraBentsenBereuterBerkleyBermanBerryBiggertBilirakisBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBonoBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrady (PA)Brady (TX)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)Brown (SC)BryantBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCannonCantorCapitoCappsCapuanoCardinCarson (IN)Carson (OK)CastleChabotChamblissClayClaytonClementClyburnCobleCollinsCombestConditCookseyCostelloCoxCoyneCramerCraneCrenshawCrowleyCubinCulbersonCummingsCunninghamDavis (CA)Davis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis, Jo AnnDavis, TomDealDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDeLayDeMintDiaz-BalartDicksDingellDoggettDooleyDoolittleDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEngelEnglishEshooEtheridgeEvansEverettFarrFattahFergusonFlakeFletcherFoleyFordFossellaFrelinghuysenFrostGalleglyGanskeGekasGephardtGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGoodeGoodlatteGordonGossGrahamGrangerGravesGreen (TX)Green (WI)GreenwoodGrucciGutierrezGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HansenHarmanHartHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHergerHillHillearyHinojosaHobsonHoeffelHoekstraHoldenHoltHondaHooleyHornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInsleeIsaksonIsraelIssaIstookJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee (TX)JeffersonJenkinsJohnJohnson (IL)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamJones (NC)Jones (OH)KanjorskiKapturKellerKellyKennedy (MN)Kennedy (RI)KernsKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)King (NY)KingstonKirkKleczkaKnollenbergKolbeKucinichLaFalceLaHoodLampsonLangevinLantosLargentLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LathamLaTouretteLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LinderLipinskiLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucas (KY)Lucas (OK)LutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)ManzulloMarkeyMascaraMathesonMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryMcHughMcInnisMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeek (FL)Meeks (NY)MenendezMicaMillender-McDonaldMiller (FL)Miller, GaryMiller, GeorgeMinkMollohanMooreMoran (KS)Moran (VA)MorellaMurthaMyrickNadlerNapolitanoNethercuttNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOrtizOsborneOseOtterOxleyPallonePascrellPastorPaulPaynePelosiPencePeterson (MN)Peterson (PA)PetriPhelpsPickeringPittsPlattsPomboPomeroyPortmanPrice (NC)Pryce (OH)PutnamQuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRangelRegulaRehbergReyesReynoldsRileyRiversRodriguezRoemerRogers (KY)Rogers (MI)RohrabacherRos-LehtinenRossRothmanRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushRyan (WI)Ryun (KS)SanchezSandlinSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchafferSchakowskySchiffSchrockScottSensenbrennerSerranoSessionsShadeggShawShaysShermanSherwoodShimkusShowsSimmonsSimpsonSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SnyderSolisSouderSpenceSprattStearnsStenholmStricklandStumpStupakSununuSweeneyTancredoTannerTauscherTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TerryThomasThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)ThornberryThuneThurmanTiberiToomeyTownsTraficantTurnerUdall (CO)Udall (NM)UptonVelazquezVitterWaldenWalshWampWatkinsWatts (OK)WaxmanWeinerWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWexlerWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfWoolseyWuWynnYoung (AK)Young (FL)
NAYS--24
ConyersDeFazioDeutschFilnerFrankHastings (FL)HilliardHincheyLeeMatsuiMcDermottMcGovernNealOberstarObeyOlverOwensSaboSandersStarkTierneyViscloskyWatersWatt (NC)
NOT VOTING--3
Johnson (CT)MoakleyTiahrt
{time} 1139
Messrs. McDERMOTT, HASTINGS of Florida, NEAL of Massachusetts, DEUTSCH, TIERNEY, OLVER, McGOVERN, and Ms. LEE changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
