Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on International Relations have until 5 p.m. tomorrow, June 8, 2001, to file a report to accompany H.R. 2052.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the legislation before us today, H.R. 1000, legislation I introduced providing for an important land transfer and boundary adjustment for the William Howard Taft National Historic Site in Cincinnati. I would like to thank my cosponsor and colleague the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) whom I believe will speak in a moment. I would also like to thank the leadership of the committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for her nice words and her help on this legislation as well as the committee staff that helped put this together and have brought H.R. 1000 to this point. Mr. Speaker, William Howard Taft, as was noted, is the only person to have served as both President of the United States and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Family influence, a love for the law, and personal ambition propelled Will Taft into public service at a very young age. As Solicitor General, Governor of the Philippines, and Secretary of War, he represented our Nation well. He was then elected as the 27th President of the United States in 1908 by an electoral vote count of 2 to 1. His significant legacies from the Taft administration are still an important part of American life. William Howard Taft realized a long-held dream in 1921 when President Warren Harding named him 10th Chief Justice of the United States. In fact, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will be interested to know that President Taft was so proud of his distinguished tenure as Chief Justice that he was once quoted as having said, ``I don't remember having been President.'' President Taft's boyhood home is located at 2038 Auburn Avenue in Cincinnati. He lived in the home from the time of his birth until 1886 when he married Helen Herron and embarked on a journey that led him to the White House and the highest court. This beautiful home where he grew up and much of the original property is now the William Howard Taft National Historic Site. It is administered by the National Park Service which has an excellent relationship with the greater Cincinnati community. There is a lot of community involvement in the birthplace. H.R. 1000 is commonsense legislation to enhance the cultural heritage of the beautiful Taft home. The legislation provides for a simple land transfer between the Park Service and the SABIS International School of Cincinnati. This transfer is very important to the Taft home as it will bring the facility together on one contiguous site. Currently when visiting the Taft home or the education center that is next to it, visitors must park either on a very busy street or in a parking lot that is located away from the home at the other end of the block. The land the Park Service would receive in this transfer would allow for a more convenient and safer parking facility that would help attract more visitors. It would also enable the Park Service to revert a portion of the area to green space which is how it would have appeared, of course, when young Will Taft was growing up in that home. The transfer is also beneficial to the school. SABIS School likes this because it allows the two plots of land they own to be located directly across the street from each other. We have been working very closely with the members of the SABIS administration, Mr. Speaker; and I am pleased to say this morning that they are fully supportive of this land transfer. Mr. Speaker, the cost of H.R. 1000 to the Federal Government will be at little or no cost depending on how the transfer of the lands are exchanged because the parcels of land are actually of equal value. Finally, the bill expands the park's boundary to include a 40-unit apartment building. The owners of the building are fully supportive of being included within the boundary and have an excellent relationship themselves with the Park Service. They have worked closely with us and with the Park Service. In fact, the Park Service currently rents office space in the building and the facility's parking lot is already part of the historic site. In effect, Mr. Speaker, this boundary adjustment will give the Park Service an important right of first refusal should that building ever be put up for sale. In conclusion, I would like to thank again the leadership of the committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), and others, for helping us enhance the legacy of William Howard Taft. I very much appreciate their assistance in getting us to this point.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report providing needed tax relief for the American people and for our economy. The retirement security provisions are excellent and will help everyone save for retirement. Unfortunately, several retirement security provisions had to be dropped from this bill because of the Byrd rule, a Senate rule that applies to tax bills passed under budget reconciliation rules. Several of these provisions would make it easier for small businesses to offer defined benefit pension plans. For example, one provision would allow small businesses who adopt a new pension plan to pay more reasonable PBGC insurance premiums in the early years of the plan. Another would simplify annual reporting requirements for small plans. We hope to work with the Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Boehner and Subcommittee Chairman Johnson, and ranking members George Miller and Rob Andrews to get these and the other important ERISA and tax provisions enacted that had to be dropped from this bill for procedural reasons.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to congratulate the Chairman and his colleagues for excellent work on this tax relief measure. I know I am not supposed to talk about Democrat Senators, but I will talk about them in terms of sponsors. Senator Max Baucus, who did sponsor the legislation on the Senate side, and Senator John Breaux, who is one of the sponsors on the Senate side, worked very hard with Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Finance Committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means; and they did a fantastic job in putting together a great bill. A couple of points need to be made. One is that this is about 25 percent of the tax surplus that is permitted to go back to the hardworking American people that sent, after all, every dime of that surplus to Washington. That is certainly fair and not consistent with what we have heard on the other side. In terms of special interests, let us talk about the special interests here. First, all of the President's major proposals are here, the ``big four.'' Across-the-board tax relief that benefits every single American, while those at the lower- and middle-income levels get a disproportionate amount of the tax relief under this provision. An increase in the child tax credit, allowing all American families to have a little more to be able to raise their kids and the expenses incurred by that. It is also refundable, so it helps folks that do not pay any Federal income taxes, some who pay payroll taxes, some who pay no payroll taxes or Federal income taxes. Marriage penalty relief. All of us know about that, we have been fighting for that for years. Finally, in this legislation, we get relief to folks who are married so they are not paying more just for the benefit of being married. Death tax repeal; very important to small businesses around this country, and those four are all in this legislation. All finally, after so many years of talking about them, so much discussion here on the House floor, we will have enacted into law to help the American people, not special interests, but the people who work hard every day to make this country work. Other things are also added. The adoption tax credit to let people adopt children more readily. Education tax credit to help with tuition, to help with student loans; and, finally, the retirement security provisions which are extremely important to let every American save more for their own retirement. Raising the IRA contribution from $2,000 to $5,000. Had it been indexed to inflation originally, it would be a little over $5,000 a day. We are doing a catch-up there where it should be. On the 401(k) side, helping people to save more, again, for their own retirement. This is a good bill. That is why 68 percent of the American people, 55 percent Democrats, support it.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, just looking at the motion to instruct, I find it interesting that the other side is instructing the conferees to include provisions that were not in the Democratic substitute. I have the Democratic substitute in front of me. There is a requirement twice here that the conference report shall include increasing the per child tax credit, for instance, which was not in the Democratic substitute. We just heard that we need to add all of these things, and yet when the Democrats offered their own tax bill, it was not included. I see a permanent extension of the research credit must be included. That is an instruction to the conferees, yet the Democrats have no research and development tax credit in their plan. There is a discussion here of the AMT saying we shall adjust the current law AMT tax so it does not disallow benefits. That is in the House-passed bill in conference. That is something that this House took up as part of the legislation. It has a number of provisions here saying we must be sure that the revenue laws and associated debt service costs do not exceed Social Security and Medicare in the HI Trust Fund. That is included in our budget resolution and included in the House-passed version. And as the chairman said in the Senate-passed bill today, it does not in fact do that. Mr. Speaker, I would make the suggestion that the motion to instruct is not consistent with the Democrat's own tax plan that they came forward with. I would make the further point that despite what we have heard here today on the floor, the budget resolution under which this tax provision is provided does provide for tax relief, but only after taking care of Social Security and Medicare in ways this House has never done. Mr. Speaker, my colleague is shaking his head, but I have spent 8 years here, and I have watched us raid the Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund. We are setting aside all of those trust fund surpluses for those programs in ways that we have not done before. We are also providing for debt relief in ways that are unprecedented. We will relieve the country of more of our national debt than we have done ever in this House. All of the available debt will be relieved. We also have increases in spending where appropriate: education spending, defense spending. Yet after all of that, Social Security and Medicare are being preserved, after the debt being handled in a way that is unprecedented and is appropriate, and after increasing domestic discretionary spending, still because there is a $5.6 trillion tax surplus building up in Washington, there is some room left for the folks paying the bills. That is the roughly 25 or 26 or 27 percent of the surplus that is provided for in the tax relief measure that the Senate passed today. Incidentally, the Senate passed that bill with 12 Democrat Senators supporting it. And in the House, we had tax bills go through which are part of the larger bill with 58, 68 up to 186 Democrats supporting some of the tax provisions in this underlying legislation which we will have an opportunity to vote on in the next day in the House. Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees is not consistent with the Democrats' own tax plan; and it seems to be inappropriate to be instructing conferees to be doing something that was not considered appropriate when the Democrats had an opportunity to offer their own plan. Mr. Speaker, this does fit within the budget nicely. It provides some tax relief to the hard-working Americans that created every cent of that surplus. It is not only reasonable, it has been bipartisan. Twelve senators supported it today. We have votes here in the House that have been bipartisan on most of the provisions that are in the tax bill before us. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the motion to instruct and move on to provide the American people with needed tax relief.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, because I was unavoidably detained, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 108. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTMAN. I would say to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York, Mr. Speaker, she is absolutely right. Her understanding is correct. In fact, just the opposite of the concerns she expressed are intended. We have, in fact, made several adjustments in the language to ensure that these provisions will achieve their intended effect, which is, of course, to expand pension coverage and protections for American workers. I thank the gentlewoman for her help on this bill and for helping us to refine it.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for her help in putting this bill together and being sure that Federal employees are covered. Yes, the answer is, the catch-up contributions in this bill lists types of plans to which the provision applies. Included on that list is a trust described in the code under section 401(a). Under an existing section of that code, section 7701(j), the Thrift Savings Plan fund is created as a trust described in that code section 401(a). Therefore, the catch-up contributions do apply to the Thrift Savings Plan in the same manner as it would apply to a 401(k) plan.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to respond briefly to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). I think we will have this on a motion to recommit as well, but the point ought to be made and made very clearly that the underlying legislation actually addresses this issue. It actually moves the ball forward. It provides disclosure. It provides notification in the case of cash balance conversions. It also, as compared to last year, actually deals with the issue of early retirement, so it not only is an improvement from current law, it is an improvement from last year's bill, partly because of the comments that were made to me by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and others. So we do address the issue, and we do it in a responsible way. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), my friend on the Committee on Ways and Means, who has been a leader on the 415 provisions in this bill and also in focusing on the savings incentives in the legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just for a quick response to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). He, in a good faith effort, is trying to expand the opportunities for low- and middle-income workers, and I commend him for that. I also appreciate the kind words he says about the underlying bill, but I cannot let one thing stand and I am disappointed that he has raised it and I just want to get this out because we are going to hear a lot more about it in the Democrat substitute, it sounds like. He uses an outside group that opposes not only this bill but all tax relief that we have tried to do, that people that are making $41,000 or less are only going to get 4.3 percent of the benefits. There is no way, no way, that he could know that; and I am just disappointed that we are getting into that because this is going to help all Americans, including those making less than $41,000. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English); and I appreciate his help on this legislation, particularly on some provisions that help with regard to labor union members.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), my friend and colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, who has been one of the leaders on this, focusing on the importance of this bill to savings and to our economy.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, who has been the leader on including very important provisions in this bill that help ESOP companies.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are here on the floor of the House to talk about a very serious problem which faces our country, which is a retirement savings problem. It affects millions of Americans; but importantly, we are also talking about a bipartisan and very constructive solution which addresses the problem directly. I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle, many of whom have already spoken, for their hard work on this issue. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has been my partner on this effort for the last 3 or 4 or 5 years. We have been to the floor of the House on this very bill, and he has been instrumental in making this a better bill. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, who is responsible for getting this bill to the floor. He has been a leader on this issue over the year. We all know about the Roth IRA. Here on the House side, we call it the Thomas IRA because he was the House author of that new IRA provision, and for years the gentleman from California has taken a leadership role on expanding retirement security through IRA contributions. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce who spoke earlier. His committee looked at the ERISA provisions and improved them through the process. They are an important component of expanding retirement savings. The gentleman went into that in some detail. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the subcommittee chairman who is also on the Committee on Ways and Means, and has taken a leadership role this year; and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the ranking member, who has taken a courageous stand on some tough issues on the ERISA side, and taken the correct stand because he has focused on the goal here which is expanding the ability for everybody to save more for their retirement. Mr. Speaker, this legislation does a number of things, but it can be probably summarized three ways. One, it lets everybody save more for retirement. We move IRA contributions from $2,000 to $5,000 a year. It is just adjusting it for inflation. We also allow people in 401(k)s to go from $10,500 a year to $15,000 a year, really just restoring these limits to where they were in the 1980s. On 401(k)s, after adjusting for inflation, a taxpayer could save more in the 1980s than they can under our bill. We were constrained by some fiscal concerns that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) talked about. This is a dramatic increase in what our constituents, millions of Americans, will be able to save for their own retirement. Second, we help to address the concerns that people have about an increasingly mobile workforce. We increase the vesting time from 5 years down to 3 years so people who are moving from job to job can get into a pension sooner. We also allow portability between defined contribution plans. The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) will talk about this, but his legislation is incorporated as part of this legislation to let people as they move from job to job keep their pension in one account. That is very important as more and more people are moving from job to job more and more quickly. Very importantly, we want to make sure that companies that want to offer pensions can do so without a lot of red tape. This is very important. I would underscore what someone already talked about, it is really a small business problem. An American who works for a large business probably has a pension, and it is probably a pretty decent one. An American who works for a small business probably does not. There is a 1 in 4 chance. Twenty-five or fewer employees, there is only a 19 percent chance that there is a pension at all, even a simple plan. This Congress passed the Portman-Cardin legislation a few years ago, a SEP plan, for the most basic 401(k). This is where the problem is. This is where most of the low- and moderate-income workers work. This is the focus of this legislation, to give those employers more encouragement and more incentive to offer plans to cover more people so everybody has more retirement security. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and others have talked about what Congress has done over the years. Over the last 20 or 30 years, Congress has done the wrong things in terms of pension coverage. That is why pension coverage is totally flat. That is why 70 million Americas, half the workforce, have nothing at all today. No pension at all. Social Security is not enough. It is hard to live on $900 a month. People need to have increased private savings; and that is what we need to do as a Congress, start making it easier, not more difficult. Mr. Speaker, we have lowered limits. We have added to the rules and regulations. From 1982 to 1994, the number of traditional defined benefit plans, the good plans, decreased from 114,000 to 45,000. The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) talked earlier today about how 40 percent fewer people are in these defined benefit plans today. The data is unbelievable. We need to do more to ensure that low- and moderate-income workers have access to pension plans, and that is why this legislation is so important. Mr. Speaker, it is a comprehensive approach. It is the most sweeping change in our pension laws since the 1970s. It is something that is going to help everybody, and it is something that every American worker has the ability to benefit from. Seventy-seven percent of the people who are involved in pensions today make less than $50,000 a year. You are going to hear some discussion today how we should target this more towards low- and moderate-income folks. These are the people that are going to get help under this legislation. Finally, I thank all Members of Congress who have supported this effort over the year. We have over 300 cosponsors of the legislation as of today. We have, on the outside, over 100 groups who have supported this, from the National Federation of Independent Businesses and other groups supporting small businesses, and the Chamber of Commerce, to the Building and Trades Construction Department of the AFL-CIO. It is a broad cross-section. It is a bipartisan product. It is the product of several years of working carefully together to ensure that we have the best possible way in order to help people save for their own retirement. Mr. Speaker, the bill is good for our future, our families. It is good for small businesses. It is great for workers, and I hope that we can pass it with a resounding vote in the House of Representatives to give it the momentum that it needs to get through the Senate and end up on the President's desk to be signed into law, and help Americans have more peace of mind and security in their retirement years. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I applaud my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, for his concern about expanding pension coverage to low- and moderate- income Americans. That is, as he knows, precisely what we are trying to do in this underlying legislation. The small changes around the edges that he was just talking about happen to just about double the cost of the bill. The underlying bill is about $52 billion over 10 years, which we hope to be able to fit into the reduced tax bill number. The amendments the gentleman is offering through the substitute add another $45 billion, taking it up to $97 billion over 10 years, so it is doubling the cost. These are not small changes. In terms of the changes, I do like the start-up credit, which is $177 million over the 10-year period. The other two, the employer credit, which is $5.4 billion, and the individual credit, $35.5 billion, I have problems with. The gentleman mentioned that the Senate is likely to add these. I think the Senate is likely to do something in terms of the small business start-up, which is, again, a relatively small part. It is tinkering around the edges, I believe, in terms of the costs and impact it will have, but it is important for small business. But I do not think they are going to do the employer credit or the individual credit. I say that because legislation that was introduced on a bipartisan basis in the Senate by the Chair and ranking members of the Finance Committee did not include a refundable tax credit. It was a nonrefundable credit at a much lower cost, as a result. Second, on the merits of this, having a refundable tax credit does create a new entitlement program. At a time when we are struggling to try to make the earned income tax credit work in terms of the compliance costs, and the Treasury Department under the Clinton administration told us there was a mispayment of about 25 percent under that program, I think it would be ill advised for us to start a new entitlement program until we have at least tried some of these other things that we are talking about under this proposal. What we are talking about in this proposal is primarily expanding pension coverage to small- and mid-sized businesses where there is very little coverage today. Again, I commend the gentleman for focusing on that, but that is what we do in our underlying legislation. This is where most of the low- and moderate-income workers are working today, where the folks are working who do not have pension coverage. We are trying to do this through the increased limits in this legislation, through the complexity provisions, which are very important to get at the costs and burdens. We know from the surveys that have been done they will help to expand coverage. Also, though in terms of the portability provisions, there will be faster vesting. All of this is going to help precisely the people that the gentleman's refundable tax credit is aimed at, and without all of the complexity and all of the compliance problems that are inherent in that kind of a problem. Finally, on the business tax credit, which is the third piece of the gentleman's proposal today, I have some concerns about how that would work. It does not cover the plans that many small businesses use, the SIMPLE plan, the SEP plan, in any way. It also does not cover some of the other plans, the 403(b)s, 457s, and so on. It also would be very difficult for businesses to administer the way in which this credit is put together. The Clinton administration Treasury Department had some of these changes they wanted to see to our underlying legislation. We thought they were ill-advised because they went the wrong way, adding more complexity, more regulation and regulations. So I do not think this is the way to do it. Instead, let us stick to the underlying bill, of which I appreciate the gentleman's support. It is focused exactly on these workers, focused on trying to expand the coverage to the small companies. Remember, only 19 percent of companies with 25 or fewer employees offer any kind of pension today. Those are the people we are trying to help. Those are the people we are trying to encourage and incentivize to offer a plan. So I hope we can stick to that today, rather than doubling the cost of the bill with something that is not tested, something that is going to create a lot more complexity. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), senior Republican on the committee, who was very helpful in putting on this legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN. I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who has taken an active role on this legislation.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the question from the gentleman since he asked for a question on our time. What I said is accurate which is that this bill does address the question of cash balance conversions. It does so in three very important ways: number one, it addresses the issue of disclosure. It says the disclosure has to be in plain English which is also in their motion to recommit, I understand. It also addresses the issue of notification. It makes sure that not only do we have disclosure but it is notification in advance of what current law requires. It also says, as compared to last year's legislation, that changes to early retirement benefits would also have to be disclosed, which is not current legislation, not even the last year's law. My only point is that in a responsible way we have tried to address this issue, and we have done it in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), a new Member of the Congress who has spent a lot of time looking at these retirement issues.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) for his comments about the underlying bill and the way in which he and other members of our committee on the other side of the aisle have worked with us on this legislation. As I said at the outset, this has been a 4- or 5-year process, bipartisan from the start. We have refined it through that process. We believe that this legislation, the underlying bill, addresses the problem that confronts us, which is again that half the American workforce does not have that critical third leg of the retirement savings stool which is employer- sponsored plans. We also help with regard to personal savings, the critical second leg of that stool, by expanding IRAs. Finally, as someone has said earlier today, the President today has indicated his strong interest in moving forward on that third important leg, Social Security. All three are important. What we can do today is make tremendous progress focusing on where the most potential for gain is, and that is among our small business employers. I have talked a little about the substitute today and some of the concerns I have with it. First is the cost. It almost doubles the size of the legislation before us. We are trying to keep this a fiscally conservative bill so that it can be part of any final tax relief package that goes to the President's desk. Second on the merits, the refundable tax credit has a number of problems in terms of its implementation, administerability and this is something that has happened over the years with the earned income tax credit. We know from the Treasury Department in the Clinton years that the mispayment rate is about 25 percent. We do not believe getting into that kind of a program is necessary, and we think it has a lot of hazards to it particularly in the area of trying to administer it with the small business tax credits. I also have some concerns about the way in which it is drafted. It does not cover some of the plans that most small businesses use. And finally it adds some new restrictions to small businesses that we do not think are important, in fact go the wrong way in terms of loosening up the requirements and letting small business offer more of these plans to their workers. Finally, I will say that the legislation, the underlying legislation, targets precisely those people that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), in a good faith effort, is attempting to target in this substitute. Let me be more specific. Again, in the area of small business, we only have 19 percent of companies with 25 or fewer employees offering any kind of pension at all today. Those are the very people who we are targeting by, yes, lessening the restrictions, the costs, the burdens, the liabilities in these plans, by directly giving the people who make the decisions in these plans more incentives to offer the plans by increased contributions. This is the whole focus of the legislation. Let me give some very interesting statistics. I have heard here today how low-income workers are not going to participate and so on. If an employer offers a plan, people will participate. If they build it, they will come. Among people who make $20,000 to $39,000 a year, 85 percent participate when an employer offers a plan, even a SIMPLE plan, a SEP plan, the most simple of plans. A 401(k), it is even more than that. Among people who make less than $20,000 a year, 68 percent, Mr. Speaker, over two-thirds of those people participate when an employer offers a plan. These statistics are from the Congressional Research Service, by the way. This is not from even the Committee on Ways and Means, much less the Republican side. This is unbiased information that shows that the great potential here is to get these small business employers in plans. That is what we do. We do it through a number of different ways that I have talked about, but we also help with regard to vesting, taking it from 5 years to 3 years because these very workers tend to move jobs more quickly, more often. We do it by dramatically improving the idea that someone ought to offer a defined benefit plan. This is where the employee makes no contribution. So the low-income employees who are in companies that are now going to offer defined benefit plans, thanks to this legislation, are going to benefit directly. We do it by a very interesting change in the law that says there should no longer be an arbitrary limit, that 25 percent of your compensation is all that can be put into a pension. Who does that hurt? That hurts the low- and moderate-income worker; well-meaning restriction put in place by this Congress. It does not make any sense because it actually erodes the ability of the low-income worker and the moderate-income worker to put what they want to put aside for their retirement. We eliminate the 25 percent of comp rule altogether. We also have increased portability, as I said earlier, which will extremely focus on the folks who are moving around a lot, folks who now cash out their plan because when they move from job to job, say from a schoolteacher to a job in the private sector, they end up with two plans and most of those people actually cash out. We are now saying those plans can come together in a seamless way. The point, Mr. Speaker, is this: the underlying legislation addresses the problem in the substitute. It addresses it in a conservative way in terms of the fiscal impact. It addresses it in a way that directly relates to the existing problem, what we know about it, and it has been, as I said, over the last 4 or 5 years an entirely bipartisan effort, a comprehensive look at our problems and the best ways to address them. I urge my colleagues to vote, therefore, against the substitute and support the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.