[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 116 (Tuesday, September 26, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1594-E1595]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         DEBT RELIEF AND RETIREMENT SECURITY RECONCILIATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 19, 2000

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no reason for us to be 
here today debating

[[Page E1595]]

this bill. Recently the House passed the ``Debt Relief Lockbox 
Reconciliation Act'' which was nothing more than an attempt by my 
Republican colleagues to grandstand on their new conversion to a party 
that claims to care about reducing the national debt. Today, we are 
here with another version of a bill that does the same thing. In 
addition, this bill tack on a so-called pension reform bill that has 
also already passed the House. The Comprehensive Retirement Security 
and Pension Reform Act passed the House this summer by a vote of 401-
25. It didn't have my support then and it won't have my support today.
  So why are we here again debating the same measures we've already 
debated--and passed? The leadership believes it will help them in the 
upcoming elections. This debt relief bill is meaningless filler for the 
GOP agenda. And the pension bill is bad policy. It benefits the wealthy 
and does nothing to help low-income workers who are most in need of 
retirement incentives.
  Although the pension bill implies that it will help all workers, it 
serves to help those earning an average income of $337,800. More than 
forty-two percent of the pension and IRA tax breaks will go the 5% of 
the population with the highest incomes--those making over $134,000 
annually and an average income of $337,000. In sharp contract, the 
bottom 60 percent of the population (those making less than $41,000) 
would receive less than 5% of these tax benefits.
  When the Democrats offered a substitute bill to give low-income 
workers incentives to save for their retirement, my GOP colleagues 
scoffed at the idea claiming that it was too expensive. In other words, 
it's too expensive to help rank and file workers save for their 
retirement, but it's completely affordable to help top executives 
accumulate wealth for their retirement. The Democratic substitute 
offered incentives to small businesses to sponsor retirement plans for 
their low-wage and young workers. I supported this substitute bill 
because it attempted to help those workers who need it most.
  If this Congress plans to spend $55 billion on the wealthy, then we 
should be able to offer the same pension opportunities to those who 
currently do not save for retirement. I opposed H.R. 1102 when it came 
to the floor in July and I oppose the bill before us today.

                          ____________________