[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8024-S8027]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FAIRCLOTH:
  S. 1968. A bill to reorder United States budget priorities with 
respect to United States assistance to foreign countries and 
international organizations; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


                   THE FOREIGN AID REFORM ACT OF 1996

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Foreign Aid 
Reform Act of 1996. I would like to offer just a few brief remarks 
about this legislation and its three component parts.
  First, it bars foreign aid to countries that vote against the United 
States more often than not in recorded votes at the United Nations.
  Second, this legislation creates a point of order to require the 
Congress to enact domestic appropriations bills before it considers 
foreign aid bills.
  Third, this bill prohibits foreign aid to be distributed by agencies 
that are essentially domestic, and it defines domestic agencies as 
those not primarily responsible for foreign affairs or national 
security.
  Mr. President, 64 percent of American foreign aid recipients voted 
against the United States more often than not in the 1995 session of 
the United Nations. India, for example, received $157 million of 
American taxpayers' money last year--it is the fifth largest recipient 
of American aid--and, yet, it voted against the United States in 83 
percent of their U.N. votes. India ties Cuba and exceeds Iran in its 
record of opposition to American diplomatic goals.
  In fact, the nations that voted against us a majority of the time at 
the United Nations received a total of $3.1 billion in foreign aid in 
1996. I find it incredible that we gave $3 billion to nations that 
refused to offer some consistent support to our diplomatic initiatives.
  The United States sent troops to Haiti to restore President Aristide 
and sent $123 million in financial aid. The aid continues, but, Mr. 
President, Haiti voted against the United States 60 percent of the 
time.
  President Clinton engineered a $40 billion bailout for Mexico, and, 
yet, Mexico voted against us 58 percent of the time in the United 
Nations.
  United Nations votes are based on a range of considerations. However, 
foreign aid is sold to the American people as a program to defend 
American interests, to promote our interests, and to assist our 
friends, but it is clear that support for our diplomatic efforts is not 
a popular response to our generous distribution of aid.
  The second provision of this bill, Mr. President, subjects the 
foreign operations appropriations bill to a point of order that 
requires the Congress to complete domestic appropriations prior to 
consideration of the foreign assistance budget.
  The foreign operations bill for fiscal year 1996 became law on 
February 12 of this year, but four domestic spending bills remained 
unfinished for another 10 weeks. In fact, foreign operations is 
probably going to be among the first three appropriations bills that we 
consider during the current budget process.
  The American people will have every right to be upset if part of the 
Government shuts down, and benefit and payroll checks are not 
delivered, but the foreign aid checks flow freely. The constitutional 
charge of the Congress is to attend to the Federal business of the 
American people. The American people worked to earn this money, and we 
should attend to their business first, not to foreign aid.
  This bill also takes domestic agencies out of the foreign aid 
business. I will illustrate the need for this provision with some 
rather remarkable examples of waste in just one Agency, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, although I am confident that it exists 
at numerous others.
  The EPA was one of the few domestic agencies to receive a real 
increase in its 1996 budget. After receiving an increase in its budget, 
however, it awarded 106 grants worth a total of $28 million to foreign 
countries between 1993 and 1995.
  The foreign assistance budget sent $600,000 to Communist China, but, 
Mr. President, the EPA sent $1,200,000 to Communist China. The EPA, in 
effect, tripled their infusion of American aid. This aid went to a 
country that voted against us 79 percent of the time in the United 
Nations and with which we recorded a $34 billion trade deficit.
  The EPA awarded a $20,000 grant to the Chinese Ministry of Public 
Security. Of course, the Ministry of Public Security is not an 
environmental agency, but a national police force that issued shoot to 
kill orders during the pro-democracy rallies of 1989. The grant was 
designed for ``halon management and maintenance training,'' which, Mr. 
President, turns out to be upkeep of fire extinguishers. The taxpayers 
are responsible for this program, Mr. President, because the Clean Air 
Act obligates the American people to assist developing nations. In my 
opinion, however, a nation that builds and maintains nuclear weapons 
should be able to maintain their fire extinguisher without the hard-
earned American taxpayers' money.

  The EPA sent $175,000 to China to build a clearinghouse in Peking for 
information about Chinese coal mining issues. The American taxpayer 
will be delighted to know that they bought the Chinese a $25,000 
computer and spent $4,500 to air condition the clearinghouse office.
  These are not isolated incidents. It goes on: $350,000 for a 
refrigeration project, $160,000 for an energy efficiency center, and 
$125,000 to assist in the construction of an environmental industrial 
park. This is to a country that boasts a $34 billion trade surplus.
  China is not the only foreign nation to receive EPA grants. Nigeria, 
which voted against us 69 percent of the time at the United Nations, 
earns billions of dollars each year in oil exports, but the EPA sent 
them $410,000 to study gas emissions.
  Oman, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, received a 
$100,000 grant. Oman, indeed, voted against us 65 percent of the time 
in the United Nations. I find it impossible to imagine that this 
Persian Gulf monarchy could not afford $100,000 for an environmental 
study of its own environmental issues.
  The list continues. The Swedish National Board for Industrial and 
Technical Development received $50,000 to study efficient lighting. It 
appalls me that our money--American taxpayers' money--is going to 
Sweden, one of the most technically advanced countries in the world, to 
study efficient lights.
  The EPA sent $50,000 to a university in Austria to help host a 
conference in an Israeli beach resort town on indoor air quality. The 
EPA also sent $50,000 to the Clean Air Society of Australia and New 
Zealand, two of the nations with the cleanest air in the world, and 
$140,000 to a university in Denmark.
  Mr. President, these are not Third World nations, and I certainly do 
not believe the American people need to fund conferences and research 
in countries that can easily afford these efforts.
  The grants that I describe were all funded with Environmental 
Protection Agency discretionary money. As you know, the EPA is very 
vocal about its budget. The EPA claims the environment will suffer if 
its budget is scrutinized, but, clearly, millions of dollars are 
squandered.
  I think that these grants reflect a profound lack of appreciation for 
the hard work that the American people perform to pay their taxes. If 
the Federal Government can find no better use of the taxpayers' money 
than these wasteful grants, then Washington should return it to the 
American people.
  The American people do not carry their lunch buckets to work in order 
to send their dollars to the security forces that order soldiers to 
shoot students in China. The American people do not

[[Page S8025]]

labor in order to send Austrian professors to beach resorts. The 
American people do not labor to help the Sultan of Oman develop a list 
of emissions from his bountiful oil wells. Unfortunately, however, that 
is the case. It is an outrageous waste of American tax dollars. I hope 
my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring the Foreign Aid Reform Act 
of 1996.
       By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Bradley, Mrs. Kassebaum, 
     Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Bingaham, Mr. Chafee and Mr. 
     Wyden):

  S. 1969. A bill to establish a Commission on Retirement Income 
Policy; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


         THE COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT INCOME POLICY ACT OF 1996

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I introduce the ``Commission on 
Retirement Income Policy Act of 1996'' with my colleagues Bill Bradley, 
Bill Cohen, Bob Kerrey, Nancy Kassebaum, Jeff Bingaman, John Chafee, 
and Ron Wyden. As you can see, this is a bi-partisan effort by many of 
the members of the Senate/House Ad Hoc Steering Committee on Retirement 
Income Security. This bill is a companion to a bill introduced in the 
House on March 13, 1996, by Nancy Johnson and Earl Pomeroy HR 3077.
  The objective of the Steering Committee, which is co-chaired by 
Senator Bradley, Representative Nancy Johnson and Earl Pomeroy, in its 
first year of operation has been to engage Members of Congress and 
experts in the private sector in a national dialog concerning this 
country's retirement income policies. Over the past 9 months, the 
Steering Committee has hosted a series of luncheons for members and 
staff to discuss retirement savings issues. During that time, we heard 
from a variety of experts who represent a cross-section of views and 
interest in the retirement policy field.
  Although, generally I am not a great fan of Commissions, I believe 
after this past year of informal meetings with Members and private 
sector experts that it is imperative that we as a Nation go back to 
basics regarding all of the components that make up retirement income. 
I am referring to the three-legged-stool approach which was so nicely 
illustrated at our first luncheon on November 9, 1995, by Deborah 
Briceland-Betts, Executive Director, Older Women's League. The three-
legged-stool which represents our national retirement savings is 
collapsing. The problem is that not only is one leg shaky instead all 
three legs, employer pension benefit plans, Social Security and 
individual savings, are wobbly.
  The private pension system simply does not cover a majority of 
workers. Those employees fortunate enough to have coverage will find 
their pension plans will not provide them with sufficient retirement 
income to meet their expected needs. The Social Security program which 
is now over 60 years old, is heading for a collapse under the weight of 
the baby boom generation. Personal savings have been in a downward 
spiral for years, Americans have become used to personal deficit 
spending.
  Financial planners, actuaries, pension consultants, and economists 
have begun to warn the public and policy makers that, if current trends 
continue, the retirement income of future retirees will fall far short 
of their anticipated needs. Yet, more pressing issues, such as health 
care costs and coverage, cuts in government spending, and other 
domestic concerns, have made if difficult for the message to get 
through to the American public. By the time individuals start to plan 
for retirement income needs they often become overwhelmed. Faced with 
falling wages and competing savings demands for college for the kids or 
providing for long-term health care needs for aging parents, many baby 
boomer sense they are in a deep financial hole from the start.
  If we continue to ignore this looming retirement crisis and wait 
until the baby boomers begin to retire, it will be too late. Future 
retirees must save throughout their earnings lifetimes and we as a 
society must find the way to shore up the Social Security and private 
pension systems by determining how the two systems can work as a team 
to meet this Nation's goal of adequate retirement income for all 
Americans.
  I would like to take a few minutes to outline the bill. First, the 
Commission will review trends in retirement savings in the United 
States, and will evaluate existing federal incentives and programs 
designed to encourage and protect such savings. In developing 
recommendations, the bill requires the Commission to consider the 
amounts of retirement income that future retirees will need (including 
amounts needed to pay for medical and long-term care), the various 
sources of retirement income which are available to individuals, the 
needs of retirement plan sponsors for simplicity and reasonable cost, 
and the recent shift away from defined benefit plans toward defined 
contribution plans. The Commission will gather information through a 
series of public hearings and through receipt of testimony and evidence 
from a wide variety of witnesses.
  This Commission must report to Congress and the President within 1 
year after being established. It will recommend concrete steps to 
ensure that future retirees have adequate retirement income. While the 
Commission will consider savings generally, it will focus on private 
savings vehicles and will not make recommendations regarding an 
overhaul of the Social Security Program, rather it will look to ways 
the private and public programs can work together. The Commission's 
recommendations will address the role that traditional pension plan 
coverage should play in reaching retirement income goals, as well as 
the role to be played by other retirement savings tools such as 401(k)s 
and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). The bill requires that any 
recommendations for new federal incentives or programs to encourage 
retirement savings also identify the funds necessary to finance these 
initiatives.
  Finally, the only change that we have made from the House bill is the 
compliment of the Commission. Our Senate version has put greater 
emphasis on having private sector representation. The Commission will 
have 16 members, four appointed by the President, of which at least two 
must be from private life. Three members each, appointed by both the 
Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, of which at least two must 
be from private life. Three members each, appointed by both the Speaker 
of the House of Representatives and the Minority Leader the House of 
Representatives, of which at least two must be from private life.
  Mr. President in closing, I along with Senator Bradley, would also 
like to acknowledge with special gratitude, the American Society of 
Pension Actuaries for their letter of endorsement, which we would like 
inserted in the Record, for this bill we are introducing today in the 
Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         American Society of Pension Actuaries, Actuaries, 
           Consultants, Administrators and Other Benefits 
           Professionals,
                                     Arlington, VA, July 11, 1996.
     Hon. Jim Jeffords,
     513 Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Jeffords: The purpose of the American Society 
     of Pension Actuaries is to educate pension actuaries, 
     consultants, and administrators and other benefits 
     professionals and to preserve and enhance the private pension 
     system as part of the development of a cohesive and coherent 
     national retirement income policy.
       ASPA supports the establishment of a commission on 
     retirement income policy. We are very excited that you and 
     Senator Bradley plan to introduce legislation in the Senate 
     as a companion bill to HR 3077. When Representatives Nancy 
     Johnson and Earl Pomeroy introduced HR 3077, a bipartisan 
     call for the creation of a special commission to examine the 
     scope of our nation's growing retirement savings crisis and 
     recommend policies to help improve the economic security of 
     retired workers, ASPA applauded the initiative shown by this 
     session of Congress to safeguard our nation's economic 
     future.
       Because of the looming retirement income crisis that will 
     occur with the convergence of the Social Security trust 
     fund's potential exhaustion and the World War II ``baby 
     boomers'' reaching retirement age, ASPA created a National 
     Retirement Income Policy Committee to study these alarming 
     issues and suggest potential solutions. Without a thriving 
     private pension system, ASPA's NRIP Committee believes there 
     will be insufficient resources to provide adequate retirement 
     income for future generations.
       ASPA's NRIP Committee devoted two years to preparing six 
     in-depth research papers on this topic. The National 
     Retirement

[[Page S8026]]

     Income Policy Research Papers, published in 1994, present an 
     integrated plan for avoiding a retirement income crisis and 
     develop constructive solutions to: (a) stimulate interest and 
     debate over retirement income policy issues; (2) make 
     specific policy recommendations on what ``retirement 
     savings'' for Americans should encompass; and (3) call for 
     the creation of a commission on retirement income policy as 
     described in HR 3077.
       Enclosed are the ASPA NRIP papers Executive Summary and 
     Research Papers which are: Income Replacement in Retirement, 
     Social Security, Working Beyond Retirement Age, Personal 
     Savings, Targets for Personal Savings, and Private Plans.
       We believe you will find these papers to be highly 
     creative, quite stimulating and helpful in understanding the 
     urgent need for legislation such as HR 3077 and the creation 
     of a retirement income commission.
           Sincerely,
                                               Chester J. Salkind,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, today, Senator Jim Jeffords and I are 
introducing a bill to create a special national commission to study 
retirement issues and recommend specific policies to improve the 
economic security of retired Americans. Millions of Americans are not 
saving nearly enough through pension plans or in their own personal 
savings accounts to provide for their retirements, and they cannot rely 
upon the Social Security system to provide a comfortable life for them. 
A crisis is brewing--and we will only be able to prevent it if we focus 
on solving our retirement savings problems now. That is what this 
commission is for, to start that process comprehensively and in 
earnest.
  The aging of our population is a principal contributor to the 
impending retirement crisis. Baby boomers are turning 50 this year, 1 
every 7 seconds. The economic implications of this demographic shift 
are tremendous. By 2030, 20 percent of our population will be retired, 
compared to 12 percent today. There will also be a lot fewer workers in 
our economy to support a lot more retirees. In the 1940's, there were 
42 workers for every retiree. Today, there are 4.8 workers supporting 
each retiree. In 2030, there will be only 2.8.
  Not only can we expect a lot more retirees, we can expect that they 
will be retired for a lot longer, with increasingly high expenses. 
Persons working today can expect to live about 25 percent of their 
adult lives in retirement, compared to 7 percent in 1940, because life 
spans are lengthening considerably. Enjoying a longer life is a miracle 
of science and good health management, but it is also very expensive. 
We will need to support ourselves for more years of retirement, and we 
will face dramatically rising health care costs, which 
disproportionately consume the incomes of retired persons, particularly 
as individuals live longer.
  Meanwhile, the Social Security system is expected to completely 
exhaust its resources by 2029. Yet 60 percent of all retirees (over the 
age of 65) rely on Social Security for at least 70 percent of their 
total retirement income.
  Unless we are hoping to support ourselves on the backs of our 
children or are willing to accept impoverishment and destitution in our 
retirements, we as individuals and as a nation need to be sure we are 
saving enough now to support ourselves in the future. But the fact is 
we are not. Despite the initiation of savings incentives such as 
favorable tax treatment for Individual Retirement Accounts and frequent 
warnings about the need to save, the U.S. savings rate remains among 
the lowest in the developed world. We should be saving more in our own 
personal accounts than our parents did since we are anticipating longer 
and more expensive retirements--but we are putting aside less.

  Moreover, far too many Americans will be unable to rely on an 
adequate pension income to supplement their meager savings. Nearly half 
of all full-time workers are not currently covered by an employer-based 
retirement plan. Although two-thirds of middle-aged employees are 
expected to receive some type of employer pension benefit upon 
retirement, the amount of these benefits may not be adequate to offer 
them security. The one-third who are not expected to receive pension 
benefits will be even less secure, forced to continue to work into 
their last years or become a burden on their families or whatever 
social safety net remains.
  Concerns about inadequate pension incomes are heightened by recent 
trends such as the movement away from traditional pension plans toward 
plans which give employees more responsibility for starting, 
maintaining, and investing their own retirement savings accounts. Our 
national public policy needs to understand the implications of this 
evolution and develop effective methods to educate and encourage 
Americans to make responsible investments for their retirements. We 
need to figure out how to encourage more employers to offer good 
pension plans. We need to know what prevents or deters Americans from 
participating in those plans. And we need to assess what government 
policy can do to encourage people to save more.
  The changing nature of our economic world and the workplace 
complicate these tasks. Old solutions may not be effective in today's 
environment of downsizing, outsourcing, and international competition. 
The availability, size, and security of pensions tighten as various 
industries are squeezed by global competition. Compounding the problem 
is the fact that workers anticipate changing jobs much more often in 
the past, so that many will leave each workplace before they have had a 
chance to accumulate a decent pension. Women may feel the pain of this 
problem even more acutely, because more women work part-time or in 
industries with poorer pension benefits, and because women more often 
enter and leave the workforce in order to care for children or elderly 
parents. We need a new approach to retirement policy that surmounts the 
insecurity implicit in our changing economic environment and delivers 
increased availability, security, and portability of decent pensions.
  We also need to recognize how other social changes play a role in 
reducing the opportunity for saving. For instance, the tendency of 
parents to have children later in life means a shorter period of time 
between when the parents become empty-nesters and when they retire. As 
a result, baby boomers and other generations will have less time in 
which to save for their retirement. This problem is further exacerbated 
by dramatic increases in college education expenses.
  While we are making some positive steps toward improving retirement 
security through our efforts to save the social security and health 
care systems, simplify pension laws, and provide increased savings 
incentives, our efforts are piecemeal. Unfortunately, the magnitude of 
the retirement crisis that is descending upon us is too awesome to be 
approached piecemeal. We need to understand how the elements of 
retirement income--private savings, employer-provided pensions, and 
social security--fit together to provide security, as well as how they 
do not. Then, in a comprehensive fashion, we need to consider what 
public policies might strengthen these various elements and provide 
true retirement security for all Americans.
  The Retirement Income Policy Commission which Senator Jeffords and I 
propose will be charged with this critical assignment. Sixteen experts 
from both the public and private sectors--chosen in a bi-partisan 
fashion by the House, Senate, and President--will sit on the panel 
voluntarily, without pay. Together, they will begin to explore the 
dimensions of our savings problem, understand its causes, and recommend 
better government policies to promote retirement security. Within one 
year of beginning their investigations, they will report their findings 
to the President and Congress, and the Commission will be dissolved.
  It would be easy to look the other way as the retirement crisis 
quietly descends upon us, but our responsibilities to our parents, our 
children, and ourselves demand that we do not. Taken alone, the aging 
of the baby boom generation gives urgency to this matter; when these 
demographics are coupled with our low savings rates, inadequate 
pensions, potentially debilitated social security system, and current 
economic and social trends, they harken a disaster. I urge my 
colleagues to support this modest first step toward averting that 
disaster.
  I am pleased that distinguished Senators from both sides of the 
aisle--Nancy Kassebaum, Bob Kerrey, John Chafee, Jeff Bingaman, Bill 
Cohen, and Ron Wyden--are original co-sponsors of the legislation which 
Senator

[[Page S8027]]

Jeffords and I are introducing today. I am also pleased that 
endorsements of this bill or the very similar House companion bill have 
been made by the American Society of Pension Actuaries, the American 
Council of Life Insurance, the American Association of Engineering 
Societies, the National Defined Contribution Council, the Society for 
Human Resource Management, the American Institute of Chemical 
Engineers, and AT&T. I ask unanimous consent that their letters of 
endorsement be inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           American Council of Life Insurance,

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 1996.
     Hon. Earl Pomeroy,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Earl: On behalf of the member companies of the 
     American Council of Life Insurance (ACLI), I want to applaud 
     you for introducing H.R. 3077, the ``Commission on Retirement 
     Income Policy Act of 1996''. Our members strongly support 
     this legislation, which will establish a commission to review 
     and study trends in retirement savings and Federal incentives 
     that encourage and protect such savings.
       As you may know, the life insurance industry manages more 
     than one-third of the assets held in private pension plans 
     today which represents $750 billion in pension assets. With 
     such a large commitment to the retirement security of 
     millions of Americans, our industry is vitally concerned with 
     issues affecting the continued viability and expansion of our 
     retirement system.
       Demographic, economic, social and political factors will 
     continue to play a significant role in the financial security 
     of future retirees. The ``coming of age'' of the baby boom 
     generation, the shift in business to smaller service 
     companies, the increasing prevalence of two income families 
     and the financial uncertainties underlying the current 
     structure of Social Security will necessitate a reassessment 
     of our current approaches to retirement income savings. A 
     rational national retirement income policy must be developed, 
     communicated and supported so that resources can be allocated 
     most efficiently, ensuring that each American can have a 
     financially secure retirement.
       It is imperative to promote a framework in which Americans 
     can enjoy a dignified and financially secure retirement. We 
     believe your legislation can help develop that framework. 
     Accordingly, we applaud the leadership role you have 
     undertaken on this important issue and we would encourage 
     your colleagues to co-sponsor the bill. Please do not 
     hesitate to call on the ACLI for support to help enact the 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Carroll A. Campbell, Jr.
                                                                    ____

                                           American Association of


                                        Engineering Societies,

                                    Washington DC, April 26, 1996.
     Hon. Neil Abercrombie,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Abercrombie: I am writing on behalf of 
     the American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES) to 
     request that your consider co-sponsoring H.R. 3077, which 
     provides for the establishment of the Commission on 
     Retirement Income Policy. The bill was introduced by 
     Representative Earl Pomeroy and Representative Nancy Johnson. 
     A summary of the bill's provisions is attached.
       AAES is a multidisciplinary organization of 28 engineering 
     and scientific societies whose more than 800,000 members are 
     dedicated to advancing the knowledge, understanding, and 
     practice of engineering in the public interest. The AAES 
     December 1994 Statement on Retirement Income Policy called 
     for a commission on retirement income policy.
       AAES is committed to improving opportunities for engineers 
     and other workers to earn retirement income that will enable 
     them to remain economically secure at the conclusion of their 
     working lives. As the 21st century approaches, demographic 
     and economic changes are imposing severe strains on the 
     nation's retirement income delivery system. For most workers, 
     including engineers, career-long employment with one company 
     is a thing of the past. Members of the U.S. work force now 
     experience periodic unemployment, frequent job changes, and 
     increasing reliance on part-time, temporary, or contract 
     employment, which affect their current livelihood, and their 
     future retirement income security.
       AAES believes that the Commission on Retirement Income 
     Policy would give national focus to this crucial issue and 
     would contribute to a fiscally responsible effort to resolve 
     retirement security problems.
       We hope you will co-sponsor and work for active 
     consideration of H.R. 3077. Thank you very much for your 
     attention and interest.
           Sincerely,
                                                     E.L. Cussler,
     1996 AAES Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                                  National Defined


                                         Contribution Council,

                                         Denver, CO, May 13, 1996.
     Hon. Earl Pomeroy,
     U.S. Congress, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Pomeroy: On behalf of the National Defined 
     Contribution Council (``NDCC''), I am writing to applaud your 
     leadership on retirement savings issues and support your 
     efforts to establish a commission on retirement income 
     policy.
       The NDCC fully supports H.R. 3077, ``The Commission on 
     Retirement Income Policy Act of 1996'' and looks forward to 
     working with you and other members of Congress on its 
     passage.
       The NDCC is a national organization dedicated to the 
     promotion and protection of the defined contribution 
     industry. It has been organized specifically for plan service 
     providers and focuses on public policy analysis, legislative 
     advocacy and educating the public on the need for retirement 
     savings.
       The NDCC commends you on your recent proposal to create a 
     commission charged with studying policies to help improve 
     Americans' economic security during retirement. Please feel 
     free to call on us in this effort.
           Sincerely,
                                               Mary Rudie Barneby,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                                 Society for Human


                                         Resources Management,

                                                     July 3, 1996.
     Hon. Nancy Johnson,
     Hon. Earl Pomeroy,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Johnson and Pomeroy: On behalf of the 
     Society for Human Resource Management, SHRM, I am writing to 
     enthusiastically endorse H.R. 3077, The Commission on 
     Retirement Income Policy Act of 1996. SHRM is the leading 
     voice of the human resource profession, representing the 
     interests of more than 70,000 professional and student 
     members from around the world.
       Today most individuals are able to retire comfortably. On 
     average, workers retire earlier and live longer than in the 
     past. However, a number of trends in the economy and 
     workplace suggest that it will become increasingly difficult 
     for American workers to meet their needs for adequate 
     retirement income. The U.S. population is aging rapidly and 
     the elderly live longer. The retirement of the baby boom 
     generation will impose severe pressure on Social Security, 
     Medicare and Medicaid. It is clear that a coordinated 
     strategy is needed.
       That is why H.R. 3077 is so critical. The establishment of 
     the Commission on Retirement Income Policy would give 
     Congress access to the research and recommendations of 
     experts so that America can meet the challenges ahead. This 
     bipartisan legislation should be cosponsored and actively 
     supported by all members of Congress.
       Thank you for introducing this key legislation. SHRM looks 
     forward to working with you to see H.R. 3077 considered and 
     passed in 1996.
           Sincerely,
                                           Michael R. Losey, SPHR,
     President & CEO.
                                                                    ____



                                                         AT&T,

                                    Washington, DC, July 17, 1996.
     Hon. Earl Pomeroy,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Pomeroy: As you are aware, AT&T has a 
     strong interest in its employees and the manner in which they 
     are, or will be, provided for in retirement. Because of our 
     interest in these matters, we were extremely pleased to see 
     the legislation which you and Congresswoman Nancy Johnson 
     have introduced in the House (H.R. 3077). It is our 
     understanding that the legislation, if passed, would 
     establish a commission for the purpose of studying how to 
     best deal with the future retirement needs of this country. 
     The commission, in turn, would issue its findings and 
     recommendations to both the President and Congress by the end 
     of 1997.
       AT&T believes that proper planning for the financial needs 
     of retirement and the safeguarding of the retirement savings 
     of U.S. workers is extremely important, and strongly supports 
     your and Rep. Johnson's efforts in introducing and moving 
     H.R. 3077 forward. We urge your House colleagues to co-
     sponsor this important legislation and to work with us to 
     achieve its swift passage.
           Sincerely,

                                          Thomas R. Berkelman,

                                                         Director,
     Federal Government Affairs.

                          ____________________