[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 84 (Friday, June 21, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3781-H3812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                RETIREMENT SAVINGS SECURITY ACT OF 2002

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 451, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 451

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4931) to provide that the pension and individual retirement 
     arrangement provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall be permanent. The bill shall 
     be considered as read for amendment. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) One hour of debate on the bill equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by 
     Representative Matsui of California or his designee, which 
     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. Simpson). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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 purposes 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 451 is a modified closed rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 4931, the Retirement Savings Security Act of 
2002, a bill that makes permanent the pension and IRA enhancements 
contained within President Bush's 2001 tax relief program, the Economic 
Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act.
  H. Res. 451 provides for 1 hour of debate in the House, equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means. It also provides for consideration of 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on 
Rules report accompanying this resolution, if offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Matsui) or his designee, which shall be considered 
as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  H. Res. 451 waives all points of order against the amendment printed 
in the report and provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule which will allow the House to work 
its will on the underlying bill, H.R. 4931. This legislation helps to 
provide for a new national strategy to promote more retirement security 
by providing a supplement to Social Security by enhancing employer-
provided benefits and giving companies and individuals incentives to 
save more money for their retirement.

[[Page H3782]]

  The underlying bill increases 401(k) contribution limits and IRA 
contribution limits and provides for enhanced flexibility by allowing 
employees to roll their pension savings from a prior employer to a new 
employer. These are just a few of the noteworthy benefits available to 
individuals looking to provide themselves with a more secure 
retirement.
  H.R. 4931 also waives certain IRS user fees and enhances catch-up 
provisions to assist women who enter and leave the work force when they 
have children or care for their families.
  I urge my colleagues to approve this rule so that the full House can 
proceed to adopt H.R. 4931 in order to ensure that we encourage 
investment in the market and continue to encourage older and younger 
workers to prepare for retirement.
  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 Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, our constituents are reeling from the daily headlines 
that highlight the corporate implosions. Companies like Enron, Tyco 
International and Adelphia Communications, once the darlings of Wall 
Street and 401(k) managers, are now threatening the retirement security 
of thousands of Americans. I know of which I speak.
  Global Crossing's North American headquarters were located in my 
district of Rochester, New York. I am sure my colleagues know Global 
Crossing. This is the company that plummeted from a net worth of $22 
billion to just $750 million in a span of less than a year. In the wake 
of its collapse, the lives of thousands in my district were shattered, 
all because promised safeguards failed at every level. My constituents 
got a hard lesson in how companies cheat, overstate or obscure their 
financial disclosures in an effort to charm analysts and manipulate 
investor expectations.
  Many of our constituents were also stunned to learn the top 
executives from many of these failing companies walked away with 
millions, while the pensioners and employees were left penniless. On 
March 9, I hosted a public forum in Rochester where 250 people came to 
share their experiences on Global Crossing. One constituent noted, 
``Many former employees have been economically devastated as a result 
of corporate greed and mismanagement of Global Crossing. People have 
spent their life savings and have had to cash in their deflated 
retirement 401(k) plans just to survive these last few months after 
Global Crossing abruptly ceased their promised severance payments.''

                              {time}  1000

  Some former employees are now forced to file bankruptcy themselves 
while others may lose their homes and have had to drastically change 
their lifestyles and are barely surviving.
  Since the collapse of Global Crossing, I have worked to ensure that 
the interests of current and former Global Crossing and Frontier 
employees are not forgotten in the bankruptcy proceedings. Indeed, I 
have asked the court to order expedited lump-sum payments to former 
employees and to give employee stockholders priority status during the 
proceedings.
  But, Mr. Speaker, fundamental reform is required. We have an 
opportunity today to tackle some of the most egregious outcomes of 
these bankruptcies. It is unconscionable that executives can walk away 
from failing companies where pension plans are depleted. Congress 
should tackle the double standard that exists between workers and their 
executives. The so-called golden parachutes are a slap in the face to 
the work and trust afforded these executives by the working men and 
women of this country.
  If we are serious about enhancing pension participation, workers must 
have confidence that Congress is doing all it can to protect them 
against corporate corruption. The substitute before us is an important 
step.
  For starters, it would put a halt to executives resigning and 
receiving large severance packages while shareholders are left holding 
worthless stock. The substitute would extend the golden parachute 
excise tax to severances and retirement benefits when there is a large 
reduction in the employer's stock or when the corporation goes into 
bankruptcy.
  Moreover, the substitute would eliminate the ability of corporations 
to provide performance-based tax double compensation in excess of $1 
million if performance includes cost savings from raiding pension 
plans. Corporate executives should only receive tax deductible bonuses 
for real improvement of business operations, not fictitious 
improvements. And corporate executives should not be rewarded for 
cutting employees' pension benefits through conversion of the pension 
plan to a less costly plan.
  Finally, when a corporation incorporates overseas to avoid United 
States taxes, the ordinary shareholders are required to pay capital 
gains tax on the exchange of their old stock for their new stock. But 
guess what? Corporate executives are not required to recognize gain on 
their stock options. The substitute would require executives to pay 
taxes on their stock options when the corporation moves overseas just 
as share shareholders are required to do.
  Mr. Speaker, much is at stake here. The stability of our financial 
markets has been severely undermined by a perception of widespread 
corruption. This instability is hitting shareholders hardest, many of 
whom are middle-class workers whose only involvement in the stock 
market is their 401(k).
  Congress must once again take the lead. Since the 1970s, Congress has 
been an important proponent for expanded savings participation. The 
enactment of tax incentives for retirement savings, together with the 
establishment of new investment vehicles, such as the Roth Individual 
Retirement Account, has significantly enhanced the level of pension 
participation among a larger cross-section of the American workforce. 
But these gains can be obliterated in a heartbeat if we do not take the 
serious and justifiable fears of our Nation's workers into account.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui).
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
  I am frankly kind of perplexed today. We came into session on Friday, 
now, and we are taking up one bill, and that bill is to extend the 
Portman-Cardin pension legislation. Here we had Secretary Paul O'Neill, 
just 2 days ago, say that on June 28 of this year, next week, the 
Federal Government will reach a debt crisis. Because what is going to 
happen is we are going to meet the debt ceiling, and we are not going 
to be able to pay Social Security checks or veterans checks or meet our 
obligations.
  At a time when most Americans are saying, what is the status of our 
Social Security benefit, because the President went out and scared 
everybody by wanting to privatize Social Security, we should be 
bringing up the Republican proposals to privatize Social Security so we 
can at least find out before November where Members stand and what 
their values are when it comes to income security for senior citizens.
  We should bring a prescription drug bill that really does benefit 
senior citizens instead of the bill that passed at 2 a.m. in the 
Committee on Ways and Means Tuesday night and is still being worked 
upon in the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  But, instead, we are taking up a pension bill. A pension bill. What 
is ironic about this pension bill is that whatever we do today will not 
take effect until the year 2011, 9 years from now. It is 2002 today, 
2011 is when this bill will take effect, 9 years from now. So we are 
not dealing with Social Security, we are not dealing with prescription 
drugs, we are not dealing with the debt crisis that we are going to see 
on June 28 that Secretary O'Neill has talked about.
  We are also not dealing with another more fundamental issue as well. 
In Business Week of June of this year it has a front page story, and 
Business Week is not a liberal magazine, and it says, ``Special Report: 
Restoring Trust in Corporate America.'' This week's Business Week, 
again not a liberal manager: ``The Crisis in Corporate

[[Page H3783]]

Governance, a Special Report.'' Fortune Magazine, this week, and I 
would urge my colleagues to read it: ``System Failure, Corporate 
America. We Have a Crisis. Seven Ways to Restore Confidence.''
  We are not dealing with these issues. Senator Corzine and Senator 
Sarbanes on the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs just 
this week passed legislation out of the Senate committee essentially 
trying to restore Americans' confidence in our soft market by dealing 
with accounting standards, by changing accounting standards so average 
Americans will understand when there is an Enron Corporation and they 
cannot cook their books, or when Arthur Andersen tries to manipulate 
books, it will not happen because there will be severe penalties under 
their legislation.
  We are not dealing with that either. We are not dealing with that. We 
are ignoring it. In fact, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the 
majority leader of the Republican Party, says we should allow companies 
to go offshore if they want to save taxes.
  And that brings us right to Stanley Works. Stanley Works is going to 
vote in the next month or so whether to go to Bermuda and open up a 
post office box so it can save $30 million in taxes. It will not go to 
their employees. It is going to go to top managers. Because we have 
seen that on Enron and we saw that on Global Crossing, and we will see 
that on Stanley Works as well. But what is so offensive is not only 
that this bill that we are dealing with today will not take effect for 
9 years, but there is another aspect of it as well. I am going to read 
a short part of a letter that I received on June 20, and it is 
available to my colleagues. This is a letter written by a professor of 
law who deals with pension issues, Norman P. Stein, University of 
Alabama, again not a liberal school.
  He says in the second paragraph: ``The original Portman-Cardin bill 
was an unwieldy package of disparate measures cobbled together by the 
pension industry.''
  On the second page and I read three short paragraphs: ``Many of the 
bill's provisions were so technically complex that their unlikely 
impact could only be determined by pension experts. Thus, many in 
Congress uncritically accepted the lofty expectations of 
Representatives Portman and Cardin (and industry lobbyists) and 
persuaded themselves that they were voting for a bill that would 
increase retirement security for middle-class Americans and 
particularly women. So far there is no evidence that the bill has done 
any of that, but there is evidence that many of the technical 
provisions are being manipulated by pension planners to allow the most 
affluent Americans to greatly reduce their taxes and to reduce 
retirement benefits for middle-class workers. If any legislative action 
should be taken now, it should be to scale back Portman-Cardin's one-
sided tax breaks for the wealthy, extend and expand the tax credit to 
help lower income'' savers ``and to repeal Portman-Cardin provisions 
that some firms are using to reduce benefits for middle-class and 
lower-income workers.''
  ``In any event, it is certainly premature for Congress to'' take up 
``the Portman-Cardin and make them permanent, just one year after their 
enactment and 9 years before'' we need to.
  I find it to be absolutely inexplicable that the greatest legislative 
body in the history of the human race would be spending time when we 
have a crisis on the debt, when we have a crisis in Medicare and Social 
Security, to be talking about something that will not take effect until 
9 years from now and we know that the provision will hurt the average 
American and only help the Ken Lays of America.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
the legislation. I was not going to speak. I know we want to move ahead 
just as expeditiously as possible. But the fact of the matter is, as I 
listened to my dear friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), 
talk about the fact that we have not done anything on Social Security, 
we have not got a prescription drug plan, the fact is if we can put 
into place legislation that will allow those 76 million baby boomers 
who are approaching retirement to begin making long-term plans, that 
would go a long way towards dealing with the problems of no Social 
Security plan that they keep talking about that is out there, and we of 
course very much want to address that. It can deal with making sure 
that people have access to affordable prescription drugs if we allow 
people to have more resources as they approach retirement.
  So we know that there are a lot of problems out there in the 
accounting field and corporate America. We are aware of that. We have 
dealt with that here by trying to bring about some major reform and 
accounting practices and in other areas, but to say that as we 
encourage people to make long-term plans for retirement beyond the year 
2010 is somehow going to undermine the financial stability of the 
United States of America is just plain wrong.
  This is very good legislation. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) 
and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) have worked long and hard 
on this. It is important for us to expand it beyond the year 2010, and 
I urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way to support both the rule and 
the legislation itself.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter from 
the University of Alabama signed by Dr. Stein, dated 20 June, 2002.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                    The University of Alabama,

                                    Tuscaloosa, AL, June 20, 2002.
     Hon. Robert T. Matsui,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn Building, Washington, DC
       Dear Congressman Matsui: I understand that the House of 
     Representatives is considering legislation making permanent 
     certain temporary changes to the pension system that were 
     enacted last year as part of the Portman-Cardin legislation. 
     (The Portman-Cardin provisions themselves have a 10-year 
     sunset provision.) Making the Portman-Cardin provisions 
     permanent at this time is ill-advised and premature, for we 
     do not yet have enough information on its effects to know 
     whether it will advance, or as I believe, harm the retirement 
     security of most Americans. We should at least wait until the 
     evidence on whether Portman-Cardin is helping or hurting is 
     in.
       The original Portman-Cardin bill was an unwieldy package of 
     disparate measures cobbled together by the pension industry. 
     Although the bill included a few changes that were helpful to 
     average American workers, its critics (of whom I was one) 
     charged that most of its provisions would simply lavish 
     further tax breaks on the most affluent Americans, who were 
     hardly the group of workers most in need of governmental 
     paternalism to help them save for their retirement. The only 
     provision to help lower income workers save for retirement--a 
     modest tax credit proposed by the Democrats--was watered down 
     by House Republicans and is set to expire in the year 2007. 
     (Ironically, this is the only provision that under the 
     proposed Portman-Cardin extender would not be made permanent 
     or even extended.) A benefit supposedly designed for women 
     who return to the workforce late in life applies to men or 
     women, regardless of whether they were out of the workforce, 
     and in any event is only helpful to those few people who can 
     afford to contribute at least $20,000 to their 401(k) plan. 
     Worse still, the bill included several provision (supposedly 
     to reduce regulatory burdens) that all but invite existing 
     plans to reduce benefits for rank-and-file workers, while 
     maintaining, or even improving, them for the owners of 
     businesses and their most highly paid employees.
       The sponsors of Portman-Cardin dismissed criticism of their 
     bill. Instead, they argued that the bill would provide 
     compelling new incentives for small businesses to adopt and 
     expand their retirement and 401(k) plans. Congressman Portman 
     and Cardin thus contended that the net effect of the bill 
     would be to create thousands and thousands of new plans, 
     whose very existence would benefit middle-class workers.
       Many of the bill's provisions were so technically complex 
     that their likely impact could only be determined by pension 
     experts. Thus, many in Congress uncritically accepted the 
     lofty expectations of Representatives Portman and Cardin (and 
     industry lobbyists) and persuaded themselves that they were 
     voting for a bill that would increase retirement security for 
     middle-class Americans and in particular women.
       So far, there is no evidence that the bill has done any of 
     that, but there is evidence

[[Page H3784]]

     that many of the technical provisions are being manipulated 
     by pension planners to allow the most affluent Americans to 
     greatly reduce their taxes and to reduce retirement benefits 
     for middle-class workers.
       If any legislative action is to be taken now, it should be 
     to scale back Portman-Cardin's one-sided tax breaks for the 
     wealthy, extend and expand the tax credit to help lower 
     income people save for retirement, and to repeal the Portman-
     Cardin provisions that some firms are using to reduce 
     benefits for middle class and lower-income workers.
       In any event, it is certainly premature for Congress to 
     make the Portman-Cardin provisions permanent, just one year 
     after their enactment and nine years before their planned 
     sunset. Before taking that step, Congress should at least 
     wait long enough to study the real-world effects of Portman-
     Cardin, to determine whether it has helped or hindered the 
     average American worker's efforts to save for retirement. 
     Instead of precipitously acting on the important questions of 
     whether to modify, repeal, or make permanent the Portman-
     Cardin provisions, Congress should ask the General Accounting 
     Office to engage in a study of Portman-Cardin's effects on 
     the retirement security of America's working people. There 
     will be time enough to act when the results of such a study 
     are in hand.
       Please note that my comments are my own and do not 
     necessarily reflect the views of the University of Alabama 
     School of Law
           Sincerely,
                                                  Norman P. Stein,
                                                 Professor of Law.

  Mr. Speaker, this is the letter that was referred to by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Matsui). It is always interesting to come into the 
well of the House on a day like today. We are celebrating baseball 
victories. And we have a simple one-page bill here. I mean, it is 
nothing. My mother, my brother, my grocer, the girl who makes my coffee 
could read this bill and understand what it is about. It makes 
permanent the provisions of a bill we passed last year.
  This has been a very interesting procedure we have done over and over 
again. We passed the bill and then we come into make it permanent the 
next year; so we get two votes on it. But the letter from the professor 
in Alabama lays out the case very well for why we should not be 
extending it permanently. If we realize that 70 percent of what happens 
for the pensioners in this country goes to the top 20 percent and 42 
percent of what comes out of this bill goes to the top 5 percent, we 
realize whom this bill is for. It is not for ordinary pensioners. It is 
not for ordinary people or women or people who enter the workforce. 
This is a bill about giving more to the rich, letting them use the tax 
policy.
  And why do they need the repeal today? Mr. Matsui acts as though we 
should be doing it or that it is a mystery why we are giving it to them 
now. It is because people who have a lot of money plan way out into the 
future. Most of us who are living paycheck to paycheck, we do not know 
where we are going to be in 9 or 10 years, but if someone has $50 
million in their family or whatever or if someone makes $150 or $500 
million in Enron, suddenly they need time to plan to deal with how they 
are going to deal with all that money.

                              {time}  1015

  Those of us who go down and get our paycheck and spend it that month, 
and wait for the next one to spend it that month, do not need a bill 
that goes out 10 years into the future.
  Those provisions would be bad enough if it was not for what has not 
happened here around the issue of Enron. Enron went in the tank. They 
manipulated the pensions and the 401(k)s of their employees, and 100 
Enron executives recently got more than $300 million in severance pay 
while the employees suffered devastating losses in their income and 
retirement packages. Those people at Enron who were working there, all 
they have left is their Social Security because we got away from 
defined benefits, and we gave them a defined contribution. We said, 
here is the money, and they can put it anywhere they want as long as it 
is Enron stock. When Enron stock went in the tank, they went in the 
tank. They have no job, no pension, and all they have left is their 
Social Security.
  That should be changed, and that is in the substitute of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui). There was no hearing. When we 
get on the substitute, Members will say we have never had a hearing on 
these provisions in the Committee on Ways and Means. Why not? Because 
we have to protect the people who got all this money, and we have to 
get their pensions set up, never mind the hundreds of people who lost 
their money at Enron. The Committee on Ways and Means has never looked 
at this issue.
  We have another issue, and that is corporate investments, inversions. 
Presently when a company moves to Bermuda, the shareholders pay capital 
gains taxes when they exchange their U.S. shares for the shares in the 
foreign corporations. But the corporate executives, on the other hand, 
are not required to recognize accrued gain on their stock options. So 
again, the ordinary folks, they have to pay taxes; but the corporate 
executives, they can go over there, and they do not have to recognize 
it. They flip it over, and away they go. That should be changed.
  Members will say we have never had a hearing in the Committee on Ways 
and Means on this issue. That is right. Nobody is going to bother 
Stanley Tool or anybody else going to Bermuda. That is why this is a 
bad bill. It has not been considered enough, and we ought to reject the 
rule and reject the bill and go back and do what needs to be done about 
corporate governance.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I strongly support the rule. 
It makes in order the substitute that the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott) just talked about, which is very fair, and it gives us 
an opportunity to talk about the important project before us today, 
which is trying to make permanent these crucial changes in our pension 
system that we enacted a year ago.
  I am concerned about the debate that I have heard so far this 
morning. We are going to have an opportunity during general debate to 
get into the specific details of the bill. Right now we are just 
talking about the rule, and yet the other side of the aisle is taking 
this opportunity to, in a very partisan way, attack the legislation we 
passed last year with over 400 votes.
  Those Members who have spoken are among the less than 10 percent of 
this Congress who did not vote for the legislation, and I sense that 
there is a fierce partisanship in this House in an election year that 
makes it very difficult for them to accept the fact that this 
legislation was developed over a period of over 5 years on a totally 
bipartisan basis. All these issues were fully vetted with subcommittee 
hearings and full committee hearings. There has been ample debate on 
the floor. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who will speak in 
a moment, was the cosponsor of this legislation. There was support 
across the board from the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, and the 
Building and Trades Council.
  I know it is difficult for some Members on the other side of the 
aisle who would just like to attack each other and saying things like 
this bill is just about giving more to the rich. That is not the case 
here. That is not how this bill was developed. That is not the spirit 
in which the debate has been conducted over the past 5 years on this 
issue.
  As we talk about this legislation, and we will have an opportunity to 
do that when we get beyond the rule debate, I hope we can have a more 
constructive debate sticking to the facts and sticking to what again in 
this case has been an unusual, admittedly, but important exercise of 
this Congress working across party lines to do what is best for the 
American people.
  For those who think this is just about the rich, I hope they realize 
that half of America's workers have no pension whatsoever today; no 
401(k), no defined benefit plan, not even the simplest pension program, 
like a SEP plan or so-called simple plan. Those are the Americans who 
will be helped by this legislation.
  It has only been in effect since the first of the year, so we do not 
have year-end data yet, but all the evidence we have, including what 
was presented at a hearing yesterday of the Committee on Ways and Means 
Subcommittee on Oversight, indicated it is working to do that.
  This is not about the rich. This is about helping where it is needed, 
which is in small businesses. With fewer than half of the workers 
covered by pensions

[[Page H3785]]

among small businesses, it is less than 20 percent that have any kind 
of pension coverage. This is where those low-income workers are who we 
all want to see get more coverage.
  By raising the limits and simplifying the plans; taking the away the 
burdens, costs and liabilities; by permitting portability, all of which 
is done in this legislation, which again passed this House by more than 
400 votes, admittedly not during an election year; by doing all of 
these things, we are going to be able to give people who work in small 
businesses more opportunities to be able to save a little money for 
their own retirement.
  On the issue of planning, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) said he lives paycheck to paycheck, and that is how most 
Americans live. That is fine, but I hope the gentleman is planning for 
his retirement, and I hope he is planning more than 9 years out. That 
is certainly what this Congress ought to encourage all Americans to do.
  We need to encourage small businesses to get into the business of 
providing retirement savings. To do that, they need to know there is 
some certainty this is going to continue, that we are not going to go 
from a situation where one can put $15,000 aside in a 401(k) plan to go 
back to where one can only put $10,000 and $500 aside; to get to a 
situation where people will know that they will be able to put into 
their IRA accounts $5,000, and with a catch-up another $2,000, rather 
than going back to the situation where they can only put $2,000 aside. 
That is what would happen if this bill were repealed after 9 years, 
which is the current law.
  So I would ask my Members on both sides of the aisle to view this 
differently than we usually do, particularly during an election year, 
and that is to focus on what is right and good for the American people 
and not try to make this another partisan contest where we are yelling 
and screaming at each other about who cares more about poor people, and 
making it into a class warfare argument.
  This has not been that process all along. It has been a long and 
carefully thought out process, bipartisan from the start, and I hope 
that we can continue in that spirit today.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important as we 
debate this matter to be clear on the urgency of the underlying bill. 
These issues actually do not expire until 2010. I wish that we could 
deliberate more on the substance and what is needed by those of us who 
claim responsibility for governance of the United States of America.
  I represent Houston, Texas, and in that representation have Enron in 
my congressional district. First, let me say that the employees 
remaining at the company are trying their very best to turn the tide 
and work on behalf of those who work for them. As their Representative, 
and they are my constituents, I wish them well. But we have a duty here 
in this Congress, and the American people have not been responded to; 
that is, for corporate response, corporate reformation, restoration, 
and reconfiguration. We must reform the corporate laws of America.
  Now we have the best opportunity with this legislation, particularly 
in the substitute that the Democrats have offered. Every commentator, 
every American that is asked the question, has Congress done anything 
to avoid another Enron, answers, absolutely not.
  Members should step in my shoes and travel throughout my district and 
see the pain and the misery: people who are not able to get medical 
care, houses being foreclosed on, no jobs, children not being able to 
go to college. Members would say those are the things that happen to 
folks. These are hard-working Americans and taxpayers who believed in a 
corporation and management, and they believed in corporate executives 
who said that they had the best company in the world.
  We have the opportunity in this legislation today to avoid 
corporations who run away from trouble and leave to go to Bermuda and 
do not pay taxes to help build this Nation. We have the opportunity to 
avoid having deferred compensation with loopholes surrounding the so-
called nonqualified deferred compensation packages, which are 
retirement packages which are designed to be immune to creditors' 
claims.
  Mr. Speaker, my constituents on Friday witnessed $105 million given 
in retention bonuses. On Sunday, the company filed for bankruptcy; and 
on Monday, 5,000 of my constituents were fired.
  We need to have corporate reform for America. I say to my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, we need to work together. Golden 
parachutes for Enron executives, and it is not just Enron, it is across 
America. Ever since Enron, one after another has toppled. Americans 
deserve better.
  In the underlying bill, rather than helping poor people, this 
particular legislation takes away the only provision that will help 
low-income workers. In addition, it lifts the pension amounts for 
executives.
  Mr. Speaker, as I close, there is too much of an opportunity here for 
this Congress to do something. It is a darn shame that we are a 
Congress that is doing nothing.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time to speak on behalf of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I rise in support of 
passage of the permanency of the retirement savings provisions of what 
we call the Bush tax cut.
  First, let me comment very briefly and to the point on my colleague's 
remarks just prior to my speech. I think it is simple. If those in 
business break the law, they should go to jail. If we are probusiness, 
we enforce the law, and lawbreakers are held accountable. 
Unfortunately, the ethnics of the 1990s have come home to roost with 
Enron and Global Crossing and other companies which broke the law. 
Again, if they broke the law, they should be held accountable and 
should go to jail.
  Today I speak in support of the Retirement Savings Security Act of 
2002, legislation which is so meaningful because it has a real impact 
on working middle-class families on the south side of Chicago, which I 
have the privilege of representing. What we call the Bush tax cut 
benefits 100 million taxpayers who saw their taxes lowered. We 
eliminate the marriage tax penalty and the death tax. We increase 
opportunities for savings for education and retirement.
  Today we are focused on making permanent the retirement savings 
component of the Bush tax cut.

                              {time}  1030

  Unfortunately because of an arcane rule over in the Senate, it had to 
be temporary. If you think about it, all the good things that we did in 
the Bush tax cut to help working middle-class families, they expire 
unless we do something.
  It is interesting that in the Congress it is easy to increase taxes 
permanently, it is easy to increase spending permanently, but when you 
want to lower taxes or cut taxes, you can only do it on a temporary 
basis. That is just not right.
  We believe that increasing opportunity for retirement savings should 
be permanent and that the increases in the contribution limits for 
individual retirement accounts from $2,000 to $5,000 should be made 
permanent. Otherwise it goes back down to $2,000. And the increases in 
retirement accounts, of 401(k) accounts, which benefit millions of 
middle-class workers across America, that go from 10- to 15-, that, if 
it expires, goes back to 10-. Who is hurt? Working middle-class 
families. All the more reason we should make the Bush tax cut 
permanent, particularly the retirement savings component.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for their leadership on assembling 
this package which was included by President Bush in his package.
  There are two provisions I want to draw attention to, one which is 
something that I really saw illustrated in

[[Page H3786]]

my own family. My sister Pat is a teacher and for years has taught in 
public schools. When she and her husband Rich, who is a farmer, decided 
they wanted to have children, they had three kids, Matt and Sarah and 
Christy, they decided that she would take time out of the work force 
and stay home and raise the children until they were old enough to go 
to school. What happened in that case is the family income was cut in 
half. They did not have any money to set aside in retirement savings. 
They were just basically making ends meet, so they were not able to set 
aside money for retirement savings.
  Something that is really unique about this legislation is we allow 
people like my sister Pat and brother-in-law Rich, now in this case 
empty-nesters, or working women who go back into the work force, once 
they reach age 50 or older, we allow them to make what we call a catch-
up contribution. They immediately can put up to $5,000 into their 
individual retirement account to make up for what they missed. If they 
have a 401(k) account, they can put an additional $5,000 above the 15-. 
That is meaningful. If this expires, they lose that opportunity.
  Second, I want to draw attention to something that benefits millions 
of building trades people, union members across this country. That 
deals with the 415 provision that is in the legislation. It was brought 
to my attention by a couple by the name of Larry and Lori Kohr from 
Peru, Illinois, retired laborers, this 415 cap which said regardless of 
how much you contribute into your multiemployer pension funds, which is 
usually a building trade unions pension fund, that there is a cap on 
how much you can receive. That cap was originally put in place for 
high-paid executives and public employees. Over the years it was all 
removed, all those caps, except for working men and women in the 
building trades.
  One of the priorities we in the Republican Congress made was removing 
that cap, so that people like Larry and Lori Kohr can get their full 
pension. They contribute more, they qualify for more, they should get 
their full pension. Prior to our cap, Larry and Lori Kohr only received 
about $19,500 a year, half of what they really should have received. 
Thanks to the Bush tax cut, by removing the 415 provision, Larry Kohr 
now receives a $39,500 pension. His pension was almost doubled as a 
result of removing that unfair cap. Think about it. If this is not made 
permanent, Larry and Lori Kohr will see their pension cut in half once 
again.
  So let us help working men and women. Let us help those who benefit 
from the 415 provisions, and the working moms, and the empty-nesters 
who benefit from the catch-up provisions by making this permanent. That 
is why I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for his 
leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. It deserves 
overwhelming bipartisan support. Let us make the retirement savings 
provisions permanent.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the President had it 
right soon after Enron when he was speaking down in Virginia at the 
naval base and he said, ``We've got to make sure that what's good for 
the captain is good for the crew.''
  Last year prior to Enron, we passed this legislation, and this 
legislation greatly increased the disparities and the privileges to 
high-income earners within the pension system. Yes, we have done some 
things for those people at the bottom, for middle-class earners, but 
the fact of the matter is that increasing the amount of money that they 
can contribute is somewhat meaningless when only 2 percent of the 
individuals contribute the maximum because they simply do not make 
enough to have that kind of discretionary income to make additional 
contributions. But for those at the top, it is a very generous bill.
  Yes, we are simply extending last year's bill, but what we had is we 
had an opportunity to review last year's bill, but we chose not to take 
that opportunity. We could have reviewed last year's bill in light of 
Enron, in light of Global Crossing, in light of Adelphia, in light of 
Tyco, when we see that clearly there are two classes of pensioners in 
this country. Those ordinary employees get treated with far less 
deference, with far less resources by the corporation than those who 
are at the corporate elite. We see those who are at the corporate elite 
have their pensions insured. They have their stock options not taxed in 
some cases if the company moves overseas. We see that those individuals 
are given severance pay that is insured, that is guaranteed, so that 
the very people who destroyed some of these corporations are now 
getting the most benefit. Yet this legislation refuses to address those 
issues.
  The gentleman in the well that just preceded me said it is a simple 
basic rule: If you violate the law, you should be prosecuted. If you 
have not, no. What we are finding out is it is really not about a 
violation of law. Many of these activities are sanctioned within the 
law. That is what has got to trouble middle-class Americans as they see 
this rush in the Congress to continue to stuff benefits to the 
wealthiest elite people in this country, whether it is in the pension 
system, whether it is in the estate tax system, whether it is in the 
income tax system. There has been a rush by this Congress to stuff the 
money to the wealthiest people in this country before we hit the 
deficit wall and before America realizes that we are looting the Social 
Security Trust Fund.
  It is very much like the executives of Tyco and Enron and Adelphia 
and these corporations that in the months preceding their bankruptcy, 
they started paying off their debts. Now when we examine who they were 
paying off, their children's real estate companies, their children's 
travel companies, their wives' auction houses, their wives' small 
businesses. They are getting the money out of the corporation to get it 
into their friends' hands before the bankruptcy.
  So what was the end in Enron? One hundred forty executives walked 
away with 3- or $400 million, and the thousands of employees that were 
laid off walked away with $13,000.
  We have an opportunity to reexamine the laws that govern the pension 
plans of this Nation, and we refuse to do it. We are now coconspirators 
in that disparity between the captain and the crew. But as this ship 
starts to sink, and we start to take the Social Security Trust Fund 
with us, the Republicans are not even going to hit the emergency bell 
as they head for the lifeboats with their friends. They are just going 
to get in the lifeboats with the income tax cuts, with the estate tax 
cuts, with the pension changes for the wealthiest people in this 
Nation, and they are going to sail away and watch everybody else go 
down with the ship.
  What we are doing here is we are taking the payroll tax that pays for 
Social Security, and we are transferring it to the wealthiest people in 
the Nation, because that is how this $50 billion is being paid for, 
because there is no other tax available because we are running a non-
Social Security deficit. We ought to understand that. If we are going 
to do that, we ought to make sure that some of those middle-class 
income workers in this Nation get some of the benefits. But in this 
bill 77 percent of the benefit goes to the top 20 percent of the 
people.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of refocusing this 
discussion on what is actually on the floor, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding time. I will be brief.
  Just to repeat, we are not really talking about the same bill here. 
What we are trying to do here today is simply to extend the provisions 
of the retirement savings law that was passed by this Congress last 
year. Congress just took up legislation to deal with the post-Enron 
pension issues, and we passed that on a bipartisan basis. Congress just 
took up recently corporate governance issues related to Enron. We 
passed those on a bipartisan basis. We can revisit those, we can go 
back, maybe we should do different things, but this is not what we are 
about today. We are talking about the pension changes.
  Again, the gentleman from California, it is good theater, but he is 
not talking about the facts. I am happy to go into the lifeboat with 
the people we are talking about helping.

[[Page H3787]]

  Let me give you some actual statistics rather than just rhetoric. Of 
those people who are involved in pensions, 77 percent make less than 
$50,000 a year. These are middle-income workers. These are lower-income 
workers. Let me give you another statistic. There was a recent study 
showing that those who benefit most from retirement plans earn between 
$15,000 and $50,000 a year. Those same families pay slightly more than 
one-third of all Federal income taxes. They receive two-thirds of the 
pension accruals in this country. Those are the folks we are trying to 
help.
  Beyond that, we are trying to expand these pensions to people who do 
not have them now. Who are they? They are primarily middle- and lower-
income workers. I am not worried about the high-income workers. They 
have nonqualified plans, meaning they are not even in the pension 
system. Those are increasing rapidly because we are not doing enough to 
help free up the pension system. That is what the legislation was about 
last year. That is why 400 Members of this House supported it.
  I am happy to get in the lifeboat with those folks. I would hope my 
colleagues would be as well.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat confused by some of the debate that we 
have heard on this rule. I would think that all Members would want to 
support the rule. First of all, it allows the Democratic substitute to 
be offered that deals with the issues that the gentlewoman from New 
York raised. These are very valid issues. It gives us a chance to 
debate on the floor today, or when this bill comes up, corporate 
governance issues. They are important issues. I agree with a lot of 
what the gentlewoman said, and the rule makes that in order.
  The second thing the rule does is allow us to make permanent the 
provisions in the pension bill of last year. I strongly support that, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Some of my colleagues have talked about the fact that this was truly 
a bipartisan bill. I think that is difficult for some people to 
understand, but it did go through the normal, regular legislative 
process. It was developed in a bipartisan way. It was developed by 
Congress. It was not part of the President's tax proposals. It came 
into the President's tax proposals because we had bipartisan support in 
this House and in the other body. It was well vetted.
  My friend from California brings forward a letter from someone from 
Georgia. We have had congressional hearings on every one of the 
provisions in that bill. People were invited. In fact, my recollection 
is at one hearing we could not get anyone to testify against the bill; 
that everyone who testified said the provisions in the bill were well 
founded.
  Let us talk about the specific provisions, and I think you will find 
that every one of them advances the issues of people having more 
opportunity to provide for their retirement. That is why the underlying 
legislation was supported by organized labor. That is why the 
underlying legislation was supported by small business. It provides 
more opportunities.
  In all due respect, Mr. Speaker, Ken Lay's retirement security is not 
based upon increasing the IRAs from $2,000 to $5,000 a year. That is 
not the type of people who benefit from the changes that are in the 
underlying bill. We make modest adjustments in the 401(k) and defined 
contribution limits. We do not even keep up with inflation. These are 
very modest changes that affect middle-income people, not the wealthy. 
That is why the cost of this bill is extremely modest. It does not 
affect the overall fiscal condition of this country. It is $6 billion 
over 10 years. The Democratic substitute, which does some things that I 
happen to like as far as the small savers credit, costs $30 billion, or 
five times more than the underlying bill. I just bring that up because 
I think the underlying bill is a good bill, and it is worthy of 
continued support.
  Many of the people who have talked against it have consistently been 
against it. I understand that. But 185 Democrats joined a large number 
of Republicans with over 400 votes in favor of this bill on three 
separate occasions. There was good reason as to why Democrats and 
Republicans have worked together on this issue. Retirement security is 
an important issue for middle-income people. You cannot do it on Social 
Security alone. We need private savings. We need private retirement. 
The underlying bill helps advance those issues.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and 
opposition to a very good bill. The gentleman from Ohio and the 
gentleman from Maryland have stated factually the bill. My problem is 
with the plan that this bill is included in.
  We are completely ignoring that last month, May, with a 20 percent 
increase in spending, a 19 percent drop in tax receipts, combined to 
result in a larger-than-expected budget deficit of $80.6 billion for 
the month. That eclipses last year's $27.9 billion shortfall and puts 
the government on course for a $200 billion deficit.
  The economic game plan that we are under, that some of us would like 
to work with our friends on the other side of the aisle to change, has 
got us on course to where next week you must vote to borrow an 
additional X number of billion dollars, the Secretary of Treasury has 
asked for $750 billion, borrow that money, without first fixing Social 
Security and Medicare. That is inexcusable. It is inexcusable for this 
body to continue to have our dessert without being willing to deal with 
the spinach problems of this country.
  It has been over six months since Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill 
first wrote to Congress to request an increase in the statutory debt 
limit. Secretary O'Neill warned Congress that the Federal Government 
would be unable to meet its commitments and at risk of default if an 
increase in the statutory debt limit was not approved before June 28th.
  Despite these warnings, the House Leadership has been unwilling to 
take responsibility for dealing with this issue.
  The Republican leadership is trying to blame Democrats for the 
failure to increase the debt limit. The rhetoric blaming Democrats for 
inaction on the debt limit doesn't bear any resemblance to reality.
  We repeatedly have offered to provide bipartisan support for a modest 
increase in the debt limit in order to avoid a default. The Republican 
leadership has rejected all of our offers and prevented us from even 
offering amendments which would provide for an increase in the debt 
limit linked to action on a responsible budget plan.
  What we have refused to support is the administration's request for a 
$750 billion increase in the debt limit without a plan to put us back 
on a path toward a balanced budget.
  We will not vote for any increase in the debt limit without a 
commitment to a plan to bring the budget back into balance.
  Dennis Moore and I went to the Rules Committee again this week to ask 
that we be allowed to offer an amendment today which would deal with 
the debt limit in a responsible manner.
  The amendment would provide an immediate increase in the statutory 
debt limit of $150 billion but limit future increase in the debt limit 
until the President and Congress agree on a plan to place our budget on 
the path to on-budget balance by FY 2007.
  Unfortunately, the Rules Committee did not make our amendment in 
order.
  The need to raise the debt limit should compel us to re-examine our 
ability to afford current tax and spending policies, just as credit 
card spending limits serve as tools to force families to examine their 
household budgets.
  Congress and the President need to sit down, roll up our sleeves and 
have an honest discussion about what we need to do to put the budget 
back in order, with everything on the table.
  But instead of figuring out how we are going to stop the tide of red 
ink and stop spending Social Security surplus dollars, the House 
leadership continues to bring to the floor legislation that will put us 
deeper into debt.
  I do not understand the philosophy of folks who don't have a problem 
with leaving our children and grandchildren with a large debt just so 
we can have a tax cut or more spending today.

[[Page H3788]]

  I hope that the members who are once again coming to the floor 
proudly supporting yet another tax cut will be willing to come to the 
floor next week and show just as much enthusiasm when the vote to 
borrow the money to pay for their policies by raising the debt limit.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, back to the issue at hand, I rise 
today in support of this underlying bill to make permanent the pension 
reforms in the tax relief act. Before I do that, I want to congratulate 
my colleagues from the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for 
their leadership on this.
  Mr. Speaker, while this legislation would make permanent many good 
pension reforms we enacted last year, I would like to highlight one 
particular aspect of it. Many States, including Texas, have favorable 
laws that encourage pension portability, the ability to take your 
pension with you when you move jobs, especially for teachers and other 
public employees.
  However, before the President's tax relief plan, Federal law really 
frustrated what were very helpful State laws. Virtually every State 
authorizes teachers and other public employees to purchase service 
credit, their work performed, for the years in which they were not 
eligible for pension.
  For example, suppose you have a teacher that works 2 years in a 
State, moves to another that requires her to work 30 years. She works 
28 and then goes back and purchases from the other State the 2 years 
that she worked. That way she has that pension. The problem is that 
purchasing back that service, those years, is very expensive. It can be 
up to $20,000. Most employees do not have that sitting around, but many 
do in a savings plan, their 403(b) tax sheltered annuity, or 457 
deferred compensation plan, that they could use to buy back those 
years.
  However, before the bill was put in place, they are prohibited from 
transferring this money to purchase service; and because of the quirk 
in the tax law, they could not do it pre-tax. Well, the tax relief 
bill, thanks to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), solved this problem by allowing our 
teachers and our other public employees to use this money to purchase 
service credit on a pre-tax basis, which is far more affordable. It 
also makes other changes in the enhanced pension portability.
  If these provisions are not made permanent, which this bill does in a 
very commonsense way, these options for our teachers and workers will 
go away.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, the arguments of my 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), need to be 
emphasized, because before voting on this or any other matter, no 
matter how worthy, we need to consider the fiscal consequences.
  I think another way of putting it is that we have to evaluate each of 
these pieces of legislation, like the one in front of us, to decide 
whether we think it is so vital to spend that money that we are willing 
to borrow payroll taxes paid in for Medicare and Social Security and 
use them for a different purpose. That is a pretty heavy test to meet, 
and I do not believe this piece of legislation meets it.
  Let me say, I think there are some very good provisions in the law 
that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman) sponsored last year. That is why I voted for it. I 
was among the many Members of this body who felt that adding a little 
money to IRAs and 401(k)s, the portability provisions that let workers 
take these pensions from one place to another, were sound provisions. 
They were the highly publicized provisions by which this bill won the 
support of many people here and in the United States Senate.
  The less publicized provisions, the fine print of that bill, contain 
the problems. It allowed more discrimination by the people at the top 
of pension plans against those at the bottom, the people who need 
retirement security assistance the most and who have done the least 
retirement planning. The fine print in that bill allowed some companies 
to stuff retirement plans with their own stock. And as if not enough of 
that were happening already, like at Enron, it actually provided them a 
tax subsidy to overfill plans. Those less publicized provisions are 
problematic and troublesome, and I wish I had been able to vote for a 
bill that did not have these problems, and I do not want to make those 
misguided provisions permanent.
  But even if you think those bad provisions are good and you like the 
Portman-Cardin legislation exactly as it was passed last year, what do 
you think will happen if today's bill is defeated? Absolutely nothing. 
Those provisions will be the law of these United States until New 
Year's Eve 2010.
  The reason that we are taking up a bill today to affect something 
that will not make a bit of difference, however you feel about this 
bill, until New Year's Eve on 2010, is because this Congress has little 
or no interest in standing up to special interests and doing anything 
about real retirement security.
  We know that one executive after another is walking off with not a 
golden, but a platinum, parachute; meanwhile, many other people without 
a retirement plan are left to take the fall.
  This bill that passed last year did something for those people. It 
gave them a small ``Saver's Tax Credit.'' This credit expires on New 
Year's Eve 2006. Is the benefit for the average worker extended? Is it 
made permanent in this bill? No. We had to extend the provisions that 
help those at the top that expire in 2010, but we are not extending 
those that expire in 2006.
  If you look at this piece of legislation and you ask, ``will it do 
anything to protect retirement security and prevent more employees 
being victimized, just like those were at Enron?''--the answer is ``it 
does absolutely nothing.''
  It ought to be rejected. It is fiscally irresponsible, and it does 
not improve retirement security for those who need it the most.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) has 12 minutes remaining and the time of the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Slaughter) has expired.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I presume the gentleman who just spoke from Texas will 
be happily voting on the Democrat substitute, which is spending five or 
six times as much as this bill, but that will not be considered 
fiscally irresponsible.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule so we can get 
on with the underlying bill, which is a good bill and will pass.
  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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 344, 
nays 52, not voting 38, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 245]

                               YEAS--344

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)

[[Page H3789]]


     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Nussle
     Obey
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--52

     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Green (TX)
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lee
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McNulty
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sherman
     Shows
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--38

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baker
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (FL)
     Callahan
     Carson (IN)
     Cox
     Coyne
     DeGette
     Dingell
     Everett
     Ganske
     Gillmor
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Keller
     LaHood
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Miller, Dan
     Murtha
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Riley
     Roukema
     Smith (WA)
     Traficant
     Weiner

                              {time}  1120

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio and Mr. MOLLOHAN changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. WATKINS of Oklahoma 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.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 451, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4931) to provide that the pension and individual 
retirement arrangement provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall be permanent, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
451, the bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 4931 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4931

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Retirement Savings Security 
     Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. PENSIONS AND INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ARRANGEMENT 
                   PROVISIONS MADE PERMANENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Exception.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply 
     to the provisions of, and amendments made by, subtitles (A) 
     through (F) of title VI (relating to pension and individual 
     retirement arrangement provisions).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 901(b) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974'' in the text, and
       (2) by striking ``of Certain Laws'' in the heading.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall 
be in order to consider an amendment printed in House Report 107-522, 
if offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) or his 
designee, which shall be considered read, and shall be debatable for 1 
hour, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the 
bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in our debate on previous portions of the tax package 
that became a law last year in which we have attempted to make 
particular provisions permanent, the argument has been made that we do 
not need to do it now. In fact, that argument was made as recently as 
the rule on this bill.
  While there may have been some kernel of truth somewhere in the 
debates over the permanent repeal of the death or estate tax because we 
cannot control, in normal circumstances, the time of our death, that 
same argument made against this piece of legislation is an argument 
that is totally cynical and totally political.
  Why? Because this is a provision to make permanent that portion of 
the tax bill that allows people to plan for retirement. Retirement is a 
voluntary decision, and the voluntariness of it depends to a degree on 
our ability to have effectively planned ahead of time.
  The section that is probably most unfair to most Americans is the 
fact that we are going to keep them in doubt about what they can do 
with their own money to plan for their retirement.
  Mr. Speaker, the argument that we do not need to make this permanent 
when we are dealing with the question of retirement is to basically 
tell those people who are in their last decade of work, who are around 
50 years of age, and especially those who, in their forties, are going 
to be making their most significant retirement decisions, that we do 
not care. For what must be pure partisan reasons, we are not going to 
let them have that certainty.
  And why do I say for pure partisan reasons? For a very simple reason. 
This bill passed the House as H.R. 10 by a vote of 407 to 24. I know 
that is not unanimous, but around here that is pretty overwhelming. So 
it is not the desire to implement the underlying provision, and perhaps 
the argument is, well, the budget situation has changed since that vote 
was recorded. We will accept that argument. Obviously we would not want 
to be voting out of here a budget-busting bill that we do not have to 
really deal with from a political point of view for 10 years, but from 
a personal financial-planning point of view, we desperately need this 
certainty.
  Well, if one investigates, this bill only costs $6 billion over 10 
years; and I know when I say only $6 billion, people would tend to 
relax, but I have to tell everyone, for the investment in the

[[Page H3790]]

comfort, in the belief in security of those Americans within a decade 
of retiring, $6 billion is a very, very worthwhile investment.
  Then we heard the argument under the rule that why are we doing this 
today? We have other really important things we need to do. This is not 
going to become law anyway. Well, we also heard that argument about a 
stimulus package that was before this House in March. Why are we doing 
this? It is not going to become law anyway. That measure passed the 
House with 417 votes, and the Senate moved it on to the President and 
it became law. If the 197 Democrats who voted for this measure last 
year vote for it this year, it will become law. And if they are going 
to hide behind the $6 billion price tag for 10 years, if they are going 
to argue one does not need to have this kind of knowledge to plan one's 
retirement, then we need to understand it is politics. I find it ironic 
that we are going to see criticism of the cost that this somehow is for 
fat cats when in fact the Democrat substitute costs five times as much 
as this one.
  So as we listen to the debate today, just keep a couple of things in 
mind. This portion of the tax bill that became law is not like the 
other portions. People can with certainty plan. It is extremely 
difficult to plan without certainty. The Democrats almost gleefully 
announce they are going to deny those people who are within a decade of 
retiring some certainty about the way in which they can manage their 
financial affairs so that in their retirement years they can live a 
little bit comfortably; and if this measure does not pass and if it 
does not become law, I want every American who cannot plan the way they 
should be able to plan to remember there were certain people here who 
thought it was more important in a political game of chess to try to 
advance a pawn in their goal to reclaim the majority of the House by 
playing stunts with this measure than it was to assure seniors and 
near-seniors of certainty for their retirement.
  That is what this vote is all about. It is the ability to plan or the 
denial of the ability to plan. A ``yes'' vote lets Americans plan; a 
``no'' vote denies them that opportunity. Let us see who will not let 
Americans plan their own futures.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes 
to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), my colleague on the 
Committee on Ways and Means, and that he be allowed to yield said time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I might just say at a time when we have a crisis in 
corporate America, one of the reasons the stock market is not doing too 
well, very sluggish, is because basically investors are not sure what 
companies are doing well and what companies are not, because we cannot 
get it any longer from the books because obviously after Enron, Global 
Crossing and a number of other corporations, we just do not know any 
longer what these books really mean because each individual accounting 
office like Arthur Andersen might decide on their own how to manipulate 
these accounts.
  Business Week had a story Crisis in Corporate Governance, Special 
Report. Last week they had Restoring Trust in Corporate America, same 
Business Week. Fortune magazine this week talked about a System Failure 
in Corporate America. At a time when we should be talking about how we 
make sure that Stanley Corporation up in Connecticut does not move to 
Bermuda and open up a post office box basically to save $30 million in 
taxes, somewhat unpatriotically, at a time when 120 management 
employees of Enron Corporation were able to take $330 million in terms 
of retirement benefits right before they decided to file bankruptcy and 
gave nothing to their thousands and thousands of employees, it would 
only seem logical that we would try to deal in some fashion with those 
issues instead of dealing with extending a pension bill that is fatally 
flawed and will hurt the ordinary worker, not now, but will not take 
effect until 2011.
  We need to really understand this bill that is on the floor now will 
not take until the year 2011. One must ask what is the House of 
Representatives, this august, wonderful body, doing talking about 
something that is 9 years away and not dealing with the fundamental 
problems of corporate governance, corporate responsibility, and the 
need to make sure that in a flagging democracy such as ours with the 
kind of marketplace economy, when there is no confidence in the 
fundamental stock market, why are we doing something with 9 years away 
instead of dealing with some of the major issues that are facing 
America today?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Did my colleagues hear it? Why are we dealing with something that is 
9 years away? For someone who has worked 40 years, what is 9 years in 
terms of planning? It may be everything.
  The cynicism with which they simply disregard someone's few dollars, 
trying to be planned most efficiently for the time, value of money, so 
they can have a marginally better retirement, does not mean a darn 
thing. It does not mean anything to these people.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I want to publicly, if it does not do him 
too much damage, compliment my friend and colleague from Maryland. I 
have worked with the gentleman on the Committee on Ways and Means with 
some of the original preventive and wellness provisions that went into 
the Medicare bill. I have worked with him in a number of other very 
difficult and politically sensitive areas. Very much enjoyed the 
working relationship with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) on our 
side of the line.
  The proof of the product was that people have accepted their work 
product in a nonpartisan, nongimmicky environment by more than 400 
votes, and with great difficulty, and with enormous courage, the 
gentleman from Maryland is supporting a position he knows to be right.
  I do hope there will be no permanent political damage done because I 
know his own leadership has changed the rules of the game to create 
significant pressure on him, and I just want to say it publicly that I 
admire someone who stands up on the floor and speaks with what they 
truly believe is right, rather than simply mouthing comments that are 
designed to advance a cynical, purely partisan position.
  I want to say I am extremely proud of two Members of the House of 
Representatives, one on our side of the aisle and one on the other side 
of the aisle, who want to make sure that those who want to plan for a 
retirement with dignity have those 9 years that some folks think are 
not worth anything.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman), and ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
control the remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the Chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding me the time and for the 
work he has done to get us to this point.
  This is a very important debate we are having today because it is 
about extending legislation this House passed last year on a totally 
bipartisan basis by over 400 votes, which is very important, as the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has said, to the retirement 
planning needs of America's workers.
  Let me just talk for a moment about what we are doing here. Last 
year, as part of the overall tax relief measure, Congress passed this 
legislation which makes it easier for people to set more aside for 
their retirement. It increases contribution levels for IRAs, for 
401(k)s, for other defined contribution plans. It increases the levels 
of benefits for defined benefit plans. It also simplifies the pension 
laws, takes away some of the costs, the burdens, the liabilities to 
enable small businesses to offer more plans, and it allows for 
portability so that people can move in a defined contribution context 
from job to

[[Page H3791]]

job without having to cash out on their pensions.
  The need for these provisions is great. Right now, we know there are 
70 million Americans, over half the work force, who have no retirement 
savings whatsoever through their employer, no pension plan of any kind. 
That is something that is even worse among small businesses, which is 
where a lot of lower-income, middle-income workers are.
  Among smaller businesses, those with 25 or fewer employees, only 20 
percent offer any kind of pension plan whatsoever. Unbelievably, there 
has been virtually no growth in pension plan coverage over the past 
couple of decades. At the same time, the baby boom generation, of which 
I am part and a lot in this House are, is beginning to retire, and we 
are finding that those baby boomers do not have adequate savings to be 
able to live a comfortable retirement, to have that kind of peace of 
mind and security that comes with having what someone needs through 
their retirement. In fact, baby boomers have put less than 40 percent 
aside of what they will need for a good retirement.
  A major reason for this is because of what this Congress has done 
over the past couple of decades. Instead of responding to this by 
helping people save more for their retirement, Congress instead over 
the past 20 years has made pensions less generous by lowering 
contribution and benefit levels while making pensions more costly by 
increasing the burdens, costs and regulations. That has had a very bad 
impact. Let me give you a specific example.
  From 1982 to 1994, limits on defined benefit plans were greatly 
reduced by Congress, and new restrictions were added, primarily for the 
purpose of generating more revenue, dealing with the deficit, not for 
pension policy. The effect of that was, as those cutbacks took effect, 
the number of traditional benefit plans ensured by the PBGC dropped 
from 114,000 in 1987 to only 38,000 in the year 2000.
  Anyway that is what this body tried to do last year was to take some 
steps, some steps, not as big as some would have liked, but some steps 
in the right direction to begin to reverse these trends and begin to 
let people save more for their retirement.
  First, again, we allowed people to put more aside in their own 
retirement plans, put more aside in their union multiemployer plans, 
their defined plans, other pensions, IRAs. We moved the IRA 
contribution, for instance, from $2,000 to $5,000 per year. This year 
alone you can put another $1,000 in, another 50 percent, $3,000. By the 
way, the average income of somebody who does an IRA is less than 
$30,000 a year.

  So as my colleagues hear the other side today, some Members of the 
other side talking about how this is primarily going to benefit the 
rich, remember that statistic. The biggest increase we have is in IRAs. 
Those who have IRAs on average have less than $30,000 a year in income.
  We also did a lot in terms of 401(k)s, moving those limits from 
$10,500 a year to $15,000 a year by 2006. By the way, these provisions 
only restore the limits to where they would have been back in the 1980s 
in terms of IRAs if it is adjusted for inflation, or in the case of 
401(k)s, we only adjust it back to where they were back in the 1980s, 
when, incidentally, Republicans were not in control of this House.
  Secondly, we created these catch-up contributions. It helps workers 
over 50 to set aside more for their retirement. If someone is 50, we 
say they should be able to put more aside in their IRA, but, 
significantly, in their 401(k). This is because we know there are a lot 
of people out there, again, baby boomers, particularly women who have 
taken time off to take care of their families, raise their kids, coming 
back in the work force, who just do not have enough in that retirement 
security nest egg. We want to encourage them to save more, so we allow 
for this catch-up.
  We modernized the pension laws to adapt what we have learned of the 
realities of an increasingly mobile work force. That is a reality in 
our country. People move jobs quickly. The old defined benefit model 
does not work as well as it used to because people do not stay long 
enough to get the benefit of that.
  We decreased the vesting from 5 years to 3 years. This is extremely 
important and already having an enormous impact out there. We had some 
testimony in the Committee on Ways and Means yesterday at one of our 
subcommittees about this very fact, that just by changing that vesting 
helps a lot because a lot of people do not stay around for those 5 
years to get vested, but now they stay around for 3 years, they get the 
benefits of the pension.
  We also allowed for people to roll over from job to job, plan to 
plan. For instance, someone is a school teacher and they go into the 
private sector or vice versa, if someone is a government employee and 
they go into the private sector. Under the old law, a person could not 
roll over their defined contribution plan, the 403(b), their 457, 
401(k) and vice versa. We allow for that. It is seamless. The gentleman 
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) who is here on the floor with us is 
really the author of that part of the legislation, worked hard on that 
over the years. It has been bipartisan, even nonpartisan.
  Finally, we made it easier for employers, particularly small 
businesses, to be able to establish and maintain pension plans, again, 
by reducing these costs, burdens and liabilities. We did not do 
everything the small business community wanted. They wanted to get rid 
of the so-called top-heavy rules altogether, which incidentally 
President Clinton's Labor Department advisory group on this said we 
ought to get rid of altogether. They said it is like suspenders and 
belts, we already have the nondiscrimination testing in place, why do 
we need the top-heavy rules on top of that. We did not do that. We kept 
the top-heavy rules in place. We did simplify them somewhat to make it 
a little bit easier for small business to get into this game.
  Again, think about the fact here that small businesses are not in 
this game in the way they should be. Only 20 percent of them are 
offering pensions now. We know from all the surveys that have been 
done, it is costs, it is burdens, it is liabilities that they are 
worried about. So we tried to address this in a way to be able to help 
people get more pension coverage, and we are seeing benefits. It has 
only happened this year. So we do not have the data from year end yet, 
but we do have anecdotal evidence, again as recently as yesterday in 
the Committee on Ways and Means.

  We also modernized our pension laws by section 415 of the Tax Code. 
This is very important to people who are multiemployer plans, including 
union members who have worked hard. They have come to the point in 
their career where they need to retire, they suddenly find out that 
this 100 percent of compensation limit came into effect and kept them 
from getting the benefits that they deserved. We removed the section 
415 limitation. This is extremely important, and it is fair because the 
way multiemployer plans adjust and calculate when they receive their 
pension benefits, the rule did not apply fairly to them. So we got rid 
of 100 percent of comp limit, which is very important.
  We also got rid of something very important called aggregation 
limits. We also allowed for early retirement benefits. This is part of 
our modernization effort. It was consistent with what we did all 
through the bill, rolling up our sleeves, looking at these plans, 
trying to simplify them, trying to make more sense for the modern work 
force, and these provisions are helping working Americans.
  Seventy-two percent of those making contributions to IRAs again have 
an income of below $50,000. The average is below $30,000; 77 percent of 
American workers participating in a pension plan make less than $50,000 
a year, and when we expand retirement savings options, we help those 
workers who need it the most. Again, it passed the House already on a 
number of occasions, most recently with 407 votes.
  So if we already passed this bill, why are we on the floor today? Why 
did I just talk all about all these great benefits that we have already 
passed into law? Because of the arcane rule in the United States 
Senate, all of this goes away. Nine years from now it disappears. What 
would happen if that were to take place?
  For starters, it make it very difficult, again, for people to plan 
for their retirement. For example, looking

[[Page H3792]]

at the chart here, workers can now save, under our IRA provisions, 
$3,000 a year on their IRA. Under the old law it was $2,000 a year. By 
2010, we go up to $5,000 a person can save on their IRA. Remember, 
these are the lower- and middle-income workers who really need this for 
their retirement savings. In the year 2011, it would go back to $2,000 
a year if we do not extend this permanently. Does that make sense?
  Who would want to do that in terms of 401(k)s? In 2002, we go from 
$10,500 to $11,000 a year people can set aside in their 401(k) plan. By 
the year 2010 it will go to $15,000. Actually, it starts in 2006, but 
in 2010 it will be $15,000 a year. In 2011 it would go back to $10,500 
a year. Again, these limits are not dramatic increases. They barely 
keep up with inflation the way we do it, and they do not keep up with 
the limits that were in place back in the 1980s when my friends on the 
other side of the aisle controlled the Committee on Ways and Means. 
When they controlled this Congress, they had higher limits than this 
and reduced them because they wanted to reduce the deficit, and they 
took it out of pensions.
  So this is what is going to happen if we do not extend it. Does that 
make any sense? The catch-up contributions we talked about earlier, 
again, under the IRAs this year a person gets $500 more to put away if 
they are over 50. By 2010 they get $1,000 more. In the year 2011, 
nothing, no catch-up, zero, zip. It is repealed. In 401(k)s, a person 
gets $1,000 more this year; they get $5,000 more by 2010. If this 
legislation is not passed, do not extend it, 2011, zero, zip.
  Very important for people to be able to plan. Very important for 
small businesses to be able to plan so they can put together something 
that works for their employees. We will have some data later if people 
are interested about what small businesses are doing. They are taking 
advantage of these increases. They are changing their plans to allow 
people to save more for their retirement. They are doing it because 
they assume the Congress is going to do this indefinitely.

                              {time}  1145

  Now they are finding, because of this quirk in the Senate procedures, 
it may be stopped in 9 years. It does not make any sense. The 
expiration date, of course, will hit hardest on oldest workers because 
of these catch-up provisions. So these oldest workers, getting right up 
to retirement, are suddenly going to find they cannot do the catch-ups. 
If we fail to act as a Congress, these improvements simply will 
disappear and people will not have the peace of mind they need for 
their retirement.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what the debate is about today. I know the 
Democrats have a substitute that deals with some other very important 
issues. I hope we will have a full debate on that when we talk about 
the substitute. I understand these are important issues on corporate 
governance, on executive pay; but let us be sure, as a Congress, we 
stick together on a bipartisan basis to move forward with what we 
started last year, to reverse this trend in Congress that was 
encouraging people to get out of the pension business and instead to 
get people into it so all Americans can save more for their retirement.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the amount of 
time each of us has at this time. I understand the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) still has 10 minutes remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) has 9 minutes remaining, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui) has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin) has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), the sponsor of many of the 
provisions in the underlying bill, including the portability.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Sometimes in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, we spend so much time talking 
about where we disagree, and we disagree on a lot, that we do not get 
around to evaluating where we agree and where we can agree.
  We have just heard a very informed, technically adept exposition of 
the terms of this bill and why they were in the bill by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Portman). I certainly would like to commend him for his 
leadership in this area. It takes a lot of time to get that kind of 
command of the technical demands of this subject area; and the 
gentleman from Ohio, along with his colleague from the other side of 
the aisle, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), have each, I 
think, represented the best of what this Chamber can bring forward by 
way of making national policy as they have applied themselves over the 
years in understanding retirement savings as a major national priority 
and then even getting deeper into the technical details of how to get 
it done.
  There are some areas where we disagree, and we are going to be able 
to talk about them in the context of the substitute. I do believe it is 
very important we have the discussion on the range of what might be 
appropriate and needed policy responses to the troubled corporate 
governance issues that we have read so much about in the newspapers 
recently. What I worry about a little is that some of the debate on the 
substitute may spill over and taint our evaluation of the underlying 
bill.
  I want to tell my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, I 
believe the underlying bill is solid, bipartisan, constructive 
advancing of retirement policy; and I hope once the substitute vote is 
taken, we will be able to give this the kind of rousing endorsement 
that it got as we passed it when it was first considered.
  There is a provision in the bill I would like to speak to which I 
think illustrates in a real way how this matters. We have a variety of 
defined contribution plans allowed under the Tax Code, 401(k) is the 
best known. Virtually identical, but a different structure, 403(b)s for 
those working in the nonprofit sector, and 457 plans for those working 
for State and local governments. As one goes through the workforce, you 
cannot roll your account from one into another, even though they are 
all defined contribution plans; they just have their basis in different 
provisions in the Tax Code.
  It is important we give workers this kind of retirement account 
portability so that rather than getting the lump sum and spending it, 
they roll it into their retirement savings at their new place of work. 
Studies show pretty convincingly that the larger amount in the 
retirement account, the less likely it is to be spent on nonretirement 
purposes. As we help the American workers save for retirement, it is 
important we facilitate this portability and allow them, in fact 
encourage our workers, to leave the money there for retirement 
purposes.
  Also in the bill, as was mentioned by the preceding speaker, moving 
vesting in defined contribution plans from 5 years to 3 years is a very 
big deal. This is a win that on its face we can all understand is 
important to those in a mobile society; that if they leave after 3 
years, presently they do not acquire necessarily any benefit. These are 
provisions that ought to be endorsed and advanced, and I urge adoption 
of the underlying legislation.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this vital legislation 
to provide certainty and predictability in pension retirement benefits 
for the people I represent at home in Washington State.
  I want to compliment my two colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for taking 
leadership to help all women who are being very diligent in their 
effort to become independent as they plan for their retirement years. 
This bill enables millions of women to devote more money to retirement 
savings, to accumulate assets more quickly, and to maintain their 
benefits in one retirement plan as they go from job to job.
  Women choose to leave the workforce for many reasons, including to 
raise a family or care for ailing parents. Often during those years 
they are unable to

[[Page H3793]]

 take full advantage of employer-sponsored pension funds. The 
retirement protections in our bill allow women to make catch-up 
contributions to their pension plans to make up for the time they spend 
away from the workforce.
  Before Portman-Cardin, it was very difficult to consolidate 
retirement funds from different plans into one plan. We took away these 
restrictions in our legislation to reflect the changing employment 
market. Today, we have more women working who tend to change jobs more 
frequently than do men. By enhancing portability, we ensure the 
retirement benefits follow the employee as she changes jobs.
  With more women working outside the home, Mr. Speaker, we have to 
modernize our retirement laws to take into account a more diverse 
workforce. We have now, for example, 70 percent of young mothers with 
young children still in the home in the workforce. It is about time we 
make up for them and create for them a further opportunity to gain 
self-reliance during retirement.
  So I do not think we can afford the effort that is being made by some 
of our opponents to turn back the clock in 2011, and I encourage my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I find it kind of interesting because I have a letter from Norman P. 
Stein, a professor of law at the University of Alabama, not the most 
liberal institution in the America, dated June 20, 2002. He basically 
says, and I will quote: ``Many in Congress uncritically accepted the 
lofty expectations of Representatives Portman and Cardin and industry 
lobbyists, and persuaded themselves that they were voting for a bill 
that would increase retirement security for middle-class Americans and 
in particular women,'' as the gentlewoman from Washington State says.
  However, he states in the next paragraph: ``There is no evidence that 
the bill has done any of that, but there is evidence that many of the 
technical provisions are being manipulated by pension planners to allow 
the most affluent Americans to greatly reduce their taxes and to reduce 
the retirement benefits for middle-class workers.''
  So I really question whether or not women are going to be helped. In 
fact, I really believe strongly women are going to be harmed by this. 
So what is the hurry about extending this package from 2010 to 2011 and 
beyond? This bill is in effect now. It has no impact for the next 8 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from the State of New York, (Mr. Hinchey), a member of the House 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, when the specific provisions contained in 
this bill as before us this morning first came before the House in the 
106th Congress, there were only a handful of us who voted against it, 
in spite of the fact that the bill was enormously complex, incredibly 
detailed, and hardly anyone, other than staff members, had any real 
idea of what was in it.
  We voted against it because we thought that the bill would harm the 
retirement circumstances for the vast majority of Americans, while, at 
the same time, it would provide ways in which those who were in charge 
of the retirement systems in individual companies could manipulate 
those systems in ways that would benefit them specifically and injure 
the vast majority of their employees.
  When the bill came back last year, a larger number of people voted 
against it. It was contained in a larger bill. Why? Because I think 
people are beginning to realize very clearly what is going on here. The 
whole pension program in this country is under change; and in fact, the 
pensions of the vast majority of Americans are under assault.
  The previously popular defined benefit plans, which most corporations 
had for most of their employees, have now essentially gone out the 
window. We have flexible plans, plans that are undefined, plans that 
are not clear as to what the benefits will be. And the enormous amounts 
of money, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, in some cases 
billions, of dollars that are tied up in pension programs in various 
places and in corporations around the country are being manipulated by 
the corporate executives for their own advantage, for their retirement 
situation, for their golden parachutes, for their specific needs, to 
the detriment of the vast majority of employees.
  Now, what do we have in this bill that is before us this morning? In 
spite of the experience of the last several years, the Enrons, the 
Global Crossings, and on and on and on, in spite of all that experience 
recently, now we have a bill coming before us that would make permanent 
the most egregious provisions of the bill that was passed previously 
and does nothing whatsoever to make permanent the single provision in 
the original bill that benefited low-income, middle-income employees, 
the vast majority of people who work for these corporations.
  This bill is bad. We need to support the substitute and defeat the 
bill in chief.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I am somewhat perplexed by the argument because most of the 
provisions, almost 100 percent of the provisions that are in the 
underlying bill, are in the Democratic substitute. So I am not sure 
what the arguments being made against the underlying bill are really 
about.
  There is a very small difference, and we will get the chance to talk 
about that as it relates to the highly compensated test that really 
helps companies provide matches for their employees, which help modest-
income people. The overwhelming amount of dollars in the bill go to the 
same provisions that are in both the Democratic substitute and in the 
underlying bill.
  As I pointed out earlier, the Democratic substitute costs six times 
as much as the underlying bill. So I think the arguments being made may 
be reserved for the substitute, where there is a major difference 
between the Democrats and the Republicans and it is worthy of debate. 
But on the underlying bill and the importance of increasing the limits 
and increasing portability, helping women with the catch-up 
contributions, I am pleased to see that Democrats have incorporated in 
their substitute the same provisions as the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I might just say that when the substitute is offered, actually by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), he will outline the bill. Much 
of the provisions, such as the IRA expansion, the 401(k) expansion, 
they are in the main bill and also in the substitute as well.
  We have one thing in our substitute that is in current law that the 
underlying bill, the Republican bill, does not have, and that is the 
tax credit for small savers, the nonrefundable tax credit for small 
savers. Why that was taken out remains to be seen, because that was 
probably the only thing for the average worker in that legislation last 
year. But, nevertheless, we have it in our bill and they do not have it 
in their bill.
  I might just also say, Mr. Speaker, there are some provisions in the 
bill that we do not have in ours, that is, that are in the Republican 
bill that we do not have in ours, and that is the fine print. They are 
the provisions that will really give high-management, top-management 
employees greater benefits than the average worker. We will be talking 
about those during the motion on the substitute itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), from the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I support the Retirement Savings Security Act, 
which has been introduced by my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and 
Means, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  The pension measures contained in the original Economic Growth and 
Tax Relief Act include many long- sought provisions for our Nation's 
public sector employees and their State and local government-sponsored 
retirement plans. Twenty-eight national associations, representing 
State and local governments, government officials, and

[[Page H3794]]

public employee unions have sent letters supporting the public pension 
provisions in this act.

                              {time}  1200

  They all urged us to retain and enact these much-needed provisions. 
It is rare to see groups like the National Governors Association, the 
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the 
Fraternal Order of Police, the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the 
United States Conference of Mayors, the American Federation of 
Teachers, the National League of Cities all virtually agreeing together 
on any policy, and they agree on this.
  They came to support these public pension provisions that will help 
the nearly 16 million public sector employees. The public pension 
provisions in this bill are really modest in cost and would apply to 
middle-income workers. In the bill is the enhancement of pension 
portability. Public employees are given greater opportunities to 
purchase credit for time served, such as time in the military or 
maternity leave, and they are also allowed to roll over their 
retirement assets between and among various types of account plans and 
jobs.
  These portability provisions assist employees in building their 
retirement savings, especially those who have worked in various public 
and nonprofit institutions.
  The act also provided assistance to governmental deferred 
compensation plans, and many State and local government entities 
sponsors these arrangements to allow participants to defer some portion 
of their salary to strengthen their individual retirement savings.
  However, the administration of these plans and the ability of public 
employees to take advantage of them was often hampered by complex rules 
and lower contribution limits and other options that were in place 
prior to the passage of this act. But I think greater clarity and 
flexibility, which will now be provided under this bill, will help.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill also addressed Federal limits that had an 
adverse effect on the administration of these plans, improvement of 
benefits and the ability of individuals to effectively contribute to 
their retirements savings. So for individuals who have been unable to 
take advantage throughout their career, the catch-up provisions will 
really provide an opportunity to help catch up with past contributions. 
These provisions will enhance the ability for people to save for their 
retirement. I urge support of this bipartisan, comprehensive approach.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, various Members who have spoken on this 
bill have talked about the fact that there are things that we agree 
with. I think all Members of Congress like the idea that we can put 
another thousand dollars in our IRA. Some of us who are over 50 can add 
an extra $500, if we did not do it before. Those benefits that benefit 
us, we certainly like them, and they are in the bill, and we like them. 
Nobody should want to hide that.
  But what is peculiar about this issue, and I think that somebody has 
to sometime explain to me the equity questions here, if 77 percent of 
the benefits go to people in the top 20 percent in this country, and 42 
percent go to the top 5 percent in this country, where is the equity 
when we bring the bill to make it permanent and leave out the one piece 
that was there for the small savers?
  Now, for the life of me, why for PR purposes would we want to give 
more to people at the top, and the little bit that we were giving to 
people that expires in 2006, it does not even make it to 2010, but they 
took it away. They took it away. They said, we do not need those folks. 
Now, last year's bill, let me be specific, included a nonrefundable tax 
credit for low- and middle-income workers who elect to contribute to 
either an employer-sponsored program, like a 401(k) at the Enron 
company, or an IRA. The maximum credit of $1,000 was available to 
taxpayers filing a joint return with an income up to $30,000, we are 
not talking about rich people here, $30,000 is below the average income 
in this country, that is all they have, or single filers up to $15,000.
  Now, these would seem to me to be the people that the other side of 
the aisle would want to save. We would want to give them an incentive. 
We do not need to encourage people who have a lot of money to save 
money. They have got it already; but they save some more, that is nice, 
and get it tax free.
  But the people on the bottom, a husband and a wife making $15,000 
apiece, that is a little over $1,000 a month, which means about $250, 
$300 a week. So they are not cleaning up. But the other side of the 
aisle has that provision, and it goes out to 2006, and then it is 
dropped. They are now going to make things permanent, and they now say, 
well, we have evaluated the impact of this, and we do not think the 
small savers are doing much anyway, so let us take away their tax 
benefit, but let us make sure that the taxpayers in the upper 5 percent 
get theirs.
  Now, I think when we think about this country, the questions of 
equity and the division between the rich and the poor in this country 
is getting wider and wider, and we are creating more and more tension. 
My question to the other side of the aisle is: Why was that taken out? 
I would love to hear the explanation. We could actually have a debate, 
and I can see the other side is eager to respond. Finally, we are going 
to get them the other side of the aisle to discuss why they took out 
the small saver.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree at least in part with the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott). I think we should be doing more for low-
income workers, and we need to improve, not only extend, the low-income 
credit for workers, but it is going to take some more hearings and some 
more work. We have 5 years to get that into place.
  But let me just disagree with the numbers of the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott). This is both in the underlying bill and in 
the Democratic substitute which deals with increasing the amount of 
money that individuals can put in their IRAs and 401(k)s. More than 69 
percent of those people contributing to traditional IRAs contribute the 
full $2,000, and 61 percent of those have incomes under $50,000. Over 
half the cost of the bill is in the IRAs. The gentleman's numbers do 
not add up. The underlying bill helps the average worker. It does not 
help the individuals the gentleman is referring to. This is a good 
bill, and I urge Members to support it.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the gentleman from Maryland just said, 
that the numbers of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) are 
simply wrong. I do not know where he comes up with them. He does not 
cite where the numbers are from. We discussed this earlier, 77 percent 
of those involved in pension plans make less than $50,000 a year. Those 
who benefit the most make between $15,000 and $50,000. They pay one-
third of all Federal income taxes. They get about two-thirds of the 
benefits under pensions. That is the reality, and that is what we are 
dealing with.
  In terms of the so-called small savers provision, the low-income 
saver provision, the gentleman wants an answer why we took it out. We 
are not taking anything out. That was not in the bill that was passed 
by over 400 votes here in the House. It was added by the Senate. Those 
of us in the House accepted that issue. We believe we ought to try this 
on an experimental basis to see if we can get more low-income people in 
through what will be a relatively complicated, but an interesting 
experiment to see if it works. We set it for 5 years. We keep it in the 
underlying bill. We do not take it out. It stays in the legislation 
exactly as it was passed in the House after coming over from the 
Senate.
  The gentleman used the phrase ``take out.'' Nothing is taken out 
here. We put this in the bill for 5 years for a specific reason. Look 
at the legislative history in the House and Senate. We want to see how 
it works. We do not have the history on it yet.

[[Page H3795]]

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott) to respond.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that they have an 
answer, although it seems inadequate to me that we ought to have more 
hearings on the poor folks, but we do not need any more hearings on the 
people on the top. No, that is perfect.
  The gentleman questions my number. The Institute for Taxation and 
Economic Policy says 66.9 percent goes to the top 20 percent, 42 
percent goes to the top 5 percent. That comes out in the Joint Tax 
Committee the same. The Joint Tax Committee has talked about income 
distribution over and over again. They are saying that 75 or more 
percent goes to the top of the scale.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I respond to the gentleman regarding where 
that data comes from for two reasons: One, as the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the other side of the aisle has just said, 
most of the money in this bill actually goes in the IRAs. People on 
average make less than $30,000 a year, so the numbers could not be 
right.
  Second, the gentleman does not understand the purpose of this bill if 
the gentleman thinks it is all about doing an income distribution. This 
is about expanding pension savings for low- and moderate-income 
Americans.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of this legislation is to try to 
expand for those 76 million Americans who have no retirement savings at 
all right now, including those who work in small businesses where fewer 
than 20 percent of businesses offer a plan, to get them to offer plans. 
How do we do it? Yes, by increasing limits; but, very importantly, by 
simplifying the plans, taking out some of the costs and taking out some 
of the burdens. That is what is going to expand coverage for low- and 
moderate-income Americans. That is the point of the bill. None of the 
income analysis of the gentleman is taking that into account.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is misstating what 
the point of the bill is. The point of the bill is to give people at 
the top more ways to save more money.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I should know what the 
point of the bill is since on a bipartisan basis we have spent 5 years 
putting it together, fully vetted by all committees of Congress, 
including the Committee on Ways and Means that had jurisdiction.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, under current law, Ken Lay and 109 others from Enron 
Corporation were able to give themselves pension benefits of $330 
million. This is under current law. Basically what this legislation 
does is loosens it. Obviously, the high-income people are going to get 
more money. The top 5 percent are going to get 42 percent, and the top 
20 percent are going to get 77 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is said that a rising tide lifts all 
boats. Certainly this tide lifts some boats. The yachts do pretty well. 
Over three-fourths of the tax reductions in this bill go to the 
wealthiest 20 percent of Americans. Almost half of the tax breaks go to 
the wealthiest 5 percent. The other 95 percent, most of whom are in 
rowboats, they remain anchored at the bottom.
  The ``Savers' Credit,'' targeted at low-income workers and the 
working poor who earned $30,000 or less, is the only provision that 
will not be permanently extended. It expires on New Year's Eve of 2006, 
sooner than the provisions that are being extended. But for some 
unknown reason, we are told we need to study the working poor who lack 
retirement security now and do not have adequate retirement savings. We 
are going to study that and not extend it, but the yachts at the top, 
they get their benefits made permanent.
  Under this bill, companies even get a tax incentive. That is right. 
Uncle Sam helps them with their taxes if they stuff their retirement 
plans with more company stock, the kind of problem that capsized the 
Enron employees. As if there were not already enough incentives for 
companies to put their stock into company plans, they get more in this 
bill.
  What happens to the 95 percent who are anchored in the rowboats in a 
rising tide? Well, they get swamped; and it is the richest who already 
have some retirement plans who get to bailout. There is a word for 
this, and it has multiple meanings in this context. It is ``dinghy,'' 
and this is ``dinghy'' to extend this program on a permanent basis.
  There are good provisions in this bill. There are so many such 
provisions in the bill that I voted for it when it was up for 
consideration in the last Congress. Some of the provisions that were 
less publicized and never noted in debate in the fine print of this 
extended bill, like the tax incentive for companies to put more of 
their own company stock into the company plan, were not publicized and 
were not well known, and a vote in favor of them is certainly not a 
vote to be proud of.

                              {time}  1215

  But I do not know many people that are now planning their New Year's 
Eve party for this coming year. Yet the sponsors of this legislation, 
they are already thinking about New Year's Eve in 2010, because if we 
take no action today, on New Year's Eve of 2010, all of these benefits 
will be gone.
  Of course there are a few Congresses that meet between now and 2010. 
And there are some problems that exist right now that cannot wait until 
2010. There is the Enron problem where the people at the top are 
selling their stock through their stock options while at the same time 
they are telling the employees to keep the company stock and put more 
of it into the plan. That is what happened at Enron. What does this 
bill, or anything else this Congress has done, do to remedy that? 
Absolutely nothing. There is the problem of three out of four people in 
this country who earn less than $25,000 according to the Consumer 
Federation who do not have an adequate retirement. Yet this bill 
refuses to continue permanently their benefits.
  Today is the longest day of summer, and the lobbyists are here 
telling us that they want to ensure that the sun never sets on the 
privileges they gained in this bill, but they do not care, about 
extending benefits to the people earning under $30,000. Do not be 
fooled. This is not about sunshine. The Members have been left in the 
dark about many features of this bill. It ought to be rejected.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague that he 
voted for this legislation three times without any low-income saver 
provision in it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I am one of the people who voted for the underlying bill. I think 
it is excellent in many ways. I agree with the gentleman from 
Maryland's analysis and the gentleman from Ohio's analysis of the 
underlying bill. But I am not going to vote for this extension today, 
and I would adopt the reasoning that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) put forward just a few minutes ago.
  Right now for every $100 that we are spending to run our government, 
we are bringing in $80 worth of revenue. We are borrowing the other 
$20. We are borrowing about half of it from the Social Security trust 
fund, and we are going to borrow the other half from the private 
capital markets. I have come to the floor in the last several weeks and 
voted against a lot of things which I would like to see happen. I would 
like to see more aid to our exporters, but I voted against the Export-
Import Bank reauthorization. I would like to see the marriage penalty 
permanently done

[[Page H3796]]

away with, but I voted against the permanent cessation of it. I am one 
who favors the permanent repeal of the estate tax, but I did not vote 
for the permanent repeal of the estate tax. And as strongly as I feel 
about the merits of this underlying bill, and they are very 
meritorious, I think the principle of doing anything that reduces 
revenue by borrowing from the Social Security trust fund and from the 
private capital markets that fuel our economy is a mistake.
  It is painful to oppose things that one embraces, and I embrace 
these; and I certainly do not mean to imply that the supporters of this 
bill are fiscally irresponsible. They are not. But it is my judgment 
that the highest priority of this country at this time is to get back 
into the black. The highest priority, therefore, will lead me to oppose 
the bill.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as we have been getting into this debate, a lot of the 
issues that have been talked about on corporate governance will be 
debated when we get to the Democratic substitute. I appreciate the fact 
we may have different views on that. I am somewhat perplexed, as I have 
said before, on the underlying bill because there is not much 
difference between the Democratic substitute and the underlying bill on 
almost all of the provisions in the underlying bill. There is good 
reason for that. This bill was developed in a very bipartisan way. We 
had hearings. We in Congress initiated these changes. It did not come 
from the President. We made modifications as the bill worked its way 
through Congress on several occasions. We worked with Senators in the 
other body, both Democrats and Republicans. It was truly a bipartisan 
effort.
  As a result, we have done some things that I think are important for 
this Nation. We have increased the amount of money individuals can put 
away in their IRA accounts. We have increased the amount of money that 
people can put away in their 401(k) plans. We have dealt with 
portability, knowing full well that people change jobs regularly. Now 
individuals will be able to combine those accounts and keep them in 
retirement. That is an important provision. These provisions should be 
permanent. They should be permanent. We may have different views as to 
how we should handle Social Security and the protection of Social 
Security, but there should be no disagreement about the need to 
strengthen private retirement and savings.
  The savings ratio in this country is deplorable. Just 10 years ago, 
it was approximately 9 percent. We have actually had negative quarters. 
We are the lowest industrial nation in the world in the money that we 
put away for savings. We need to do a better job. We need to encourage, 
not discourage, employers to put money into retirement plans for their 
employees.
  I have heard arguments about, well, there are differences in the 
underlying bill. None of those differences go to the cost issue, 
though. We talk about the simplification provisions. I am going to talk 
about one, because I may not have a chance later, that deals with a 
subject that may seem controversial, highly compensated employees. But 
look at the underlying provision and why it was not controversial in 
this body, because it took away a penalty that employers suffered if 
they provided a match to their employees. We should be encouraging 
employers to provide matches to their employees. So we took away a 
penalty that was in the bill that will encourage more employers to get 
involved in matches for their employees. That is why we put that 
provision in the bill. That is why it was not controversial. It was 
never raised in controversy as it was considered.
  We have heard who benefits from the bill. Most of the money goes into 
the IRAs. IRAs are used by modest-income people. We keep hearing the 20 
percent figure. You know, 20 percent is $68,000. I do not happen to 
think that someone who makes $68,000 is particularly wealthy. It is not 
the Ken Lays of the world. They are not the people who benefit from the 
401(k)s and from the IRAs that we make more available under the bill 
before us.
  Mr. Speaker, there may be disagreements among our parties on some of 
the underlying issues concerning what happened in Enron, but there 
should be no disagreement as to the need to make permanent the pension 
provisions. I want to thank my friends on the other side, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), 
and others who gave us an opportunity, Democrats and Republicans, many 
of us, to work on ways that we could help Americans save for their 
retirement. This bill is one part of that. The reason it enjoyed such 
an overwhelming vote was because the process was fair.
  We are going to certainly get into a debate on the substitute, but I 
would hope after we debate the substitute that we come back together 
and proudly support the underlying bill that will help Americans save 
for their future.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and 
Means and also chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee 
Relations of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the pension legislation 
enacted last year needs to be permanent. That will help Americans plan 
and save for a more secure retirement.
  One year has barely passed since enactment, and our dear colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle are ready to regulate and strangulate 
pension plans. The people who oppose making these provisions permanent 
only want to play politics, and they are doing so to the detriment of 
the retirement system.
  Yesterday at the House Committee on Ways and Means, we held a hearing 
on defined benefit pension plans. We heard the testimony about the 
decline of these pension plans which provide retirees guaranteed 
income. The number of plans peaked in 1985 at 114,000. At that point, 
Congress began tinkering with the pension plans. Congress so loved 
defined benefit plans and made them so safe that by 2001 the number of 
plans dropped from 114,000 to 35,000, a decline of almost 70 percent.
  Congress has legislated pension plans to death. Last year by a vote 
of 407-24, we took some important steps to begin to roll back some of 
this red tape. What do the proponents of Big Government red tape want 
to do? Roll back these reforms. They cannot stand the fact that we took 
a hedge trimmer and began to cut away at the kudzu they had grown. They 
actually want to go back in time and put more regulations on these 
plans which have been pushed nearly to extinction.
  By trying to pick apart this bill today, opponents are asking to 
undermine the whole law and undermine confidence in the portability and 
vesting rules that we tried so hard to achieve. Those who oppose making 
these provisions of law permanent do not seem to understand that 
pension plans require stability. It is all just a game to them and for 
the people who originally required these provisions to sunset in the 
first place. What a shame.
  I want to see this law made permanent so all Americans can know their 
retirement is safe and secure.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, for closing debate on general debate at this particular 
time, I just have to say that many of my colleagues have said, well, 
many of the Members, 400 Members, voted for this when it was up 2 years 
ago. One of the problems with pension legislation is it is extremely 
complex. I think we all know that. The gentleman from Maryland said 
that 90 percent of the bill, or more perhaps, is the same as our 
substitute. That is correct as well. We support the IRAs, we support 
the 401(k)s, we want to make sure we have an extension of the 415 
multiemployer program to allow portability. All these things we 
support. That is in our substitute.
  But the real dangerous part of this piece of legislation, that is, 
the Portman-Cardin legislation, is the fine print. Many of us did not 
spend time understanding the fine print. It deals with the top-heavy 
rules. As the gentleman from Maryland said, it basically eliminates the 
penalty, because if you put it in a match, then you get credit for it. 
That basically means that

[[Page H3797]]

top-management employees, who today could get 60 percent of the 
benefits and the workers only 40 percent of the benefits, that is under 
current law, they can get 70, 80, 90 percent and not pay a penalty as 
long as they paid the match.
  So you could have a situation where top management gets 90 percent of 
the benefits, average workers get 10 percent of the benefits, it could 
be 15 of the top management people and 200 of the workers getting 15 
percent to 85 percent, or 90 percent to 10 percent. That is what is 
really dangerous about this legislation. It does not cost the 
government any money, but I can sure assure you it will cost the 
American workers their retirement benefits. That is what is dangerous 
about this bill.
  What is really odd, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it is in effect. It 
has only been in effect a year. What we really ought to do is not 
extend it and make it in perpetuity. What we ought to do is make sure 
that we correct some of the flaws in it. We will find flaws in this 
legislation. A GAO report will be done. We are going to do a lot of 
things to find out about this bill. We do not want to be embarrassed. 
We should not put ourselves in a position where we do not have to do 
something and we do extend it from 2010 onwards. We do not need to do 
this now. We need to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and we need to 
vote ``yes'' on the substitute when we have an opportunity.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, closing out the first part of this, which is talking 
about the underlying bill, I would encourage my friend from California 
to read the fine print again because he is inaccurate with regard to 
how the top-heavy rules work in this legislation. It keeps the top-
heavy rules in place. It does encourage more matching contributions, 
which is a good thing.
  Look, this was done over a 5-year period on a bipartisan basis from 
the start, fully vetted by the committees of Congress. It allows people 
to save more for their own retirement. It allows for portability. It 
allows us to simplify the rules so that people can offer more pension 
plans, particularly small businesses. It is supported by a broad 
spectrum, including the United States Chamber of Commerce, which will 
key vote this today, including by the Brotherhood of Carpenters, 
including by the Building and Trades Council of the AFL-CIO.
  I encourage all my colleagues to support final passage and extend 
this good law.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as a result of our arcane 
and complicated pension laws, 70 million workers have no pension plan. 
Unfortunately, Americans who work in small businesses are much less 
likely to have pension coverage than those who work for larger 
companies. Among companies with fewer than 100 employees, as many as 
80% of the workforce have no retirement savings plan available to them.
  The primary cause: small business owners find the cost and complexity 
of setting up and maintaining retirement plans to be overwhelming.
  So last year, Congress passed the Portman-Cardin pension reforms to 
help workers save for their future and enable small businesses to offer 
pension plans to their employees. The changes we made streamline and 
simplify the complex rules governing our pension system to ensure 
meaningful coverage of small business employees. They will reduce the 
administrative burden on small businesses and provide incentives to 
help them establish plans for their workers, including cutting the IRS 
user fee small businesses have to pay to establish a pension plan and 
lowering premiums small businesses pay for their defined benefit plans 
to make that option more attractive.
  Several years ago we adopted ``SIMPLE'' pension plans. That has 
enabled numerous small companies in my district to offer plans to their 
employees. This modernization of our basic pension law will expand and 
improve retirement options dramatically, which in the long run, means 
more working Americans will enjoy financial security in their 
retirement years. I urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is getting harder to vote for tax 
legislation, even provisions that I actually strongly support. This 
bill misses the mark because it eliminates provisions for small savers 
and it continues an incremental approach to making permanent the 
massive tax cut of last year despite the changed economic and national 
security situation. Most troubling, is that we continue to ignore the 
major issues that demand our attention in reforming the tax structure.
  This bill does not speak to the highest priorities of the American 
public. It does not move us towards a fiscal framework that is 
necessarily sustainable and it is certainly not done in a context of 
long-term consequence. Congress must begin to address the most critical 
unresolved tax issues that will create fairness and fiscal stability.
  Alternative Minimum Tax--Increasingly burdensome, this tax now 
affects millions of taxpayers to whom it was never intended to apply. 
In a few short years tens of millions of taxpayers will be penalized by 
additional taxes and more burdensome tax preparation.
  Estate Tax--It is time to stop playing politics. The estate tax can 
be reformed to be fair and equitable by removing family-owned farms and 
businesses from its scope, raising exemption levels, changing the 
marginal rates, and indexing for inflation.
  State Tax Consequences--Future changes should be in the form of 
specific credits that will not penalize state tax systems that are tied 
to the federal code.
  Payroll Taxes for Medicare--Currently the Medicare system is 
dramatically shortchanging Oregon and other states billions of dollars 
a year. Until the federal government stops penalizing Oregon and other 
low-cost states for being efficient, the tax should be reduced.
  It will be increasingly difficult to vote for any tax adjustment that 
does not speak to these larger needs. I reluctantly vote yes because 
this is something I have long supported, is not particularly expensive, 
and is an important signal in times of economic uncertainty.
  Mr. KIND, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Retirement Savings 
Security Act (H.R. 4931) to ensure that working Americans will continue 
to have the opportunity to save for a financially secure retirement. 
Retirement benefits are critical to ensuring that older Americans have 
the income to live out their Golden Years.
  According to the Social Security Administration, many retirees 
received 19 percent of their income from employer provided pensions. 
However, half of private sector workers have no pension coverage at 
all. Further, only 20 percent of small businesses offer pension plans.
  My colleagues, Representatives Rob Portman and Ben Cardin, have 
worked tirelessly to correct these problems and assist more worker is 
in saving for their retirement. Provisions from the original Portman-
Cardin pension reform bill, which I supported, were included in the 
large tax bill last year. I am pleased that the House has the 
opportunity today to make these provisions permanent.
  H.R. 4931 permanently expands pension coverage and will encourage 
companies to provide retirement plans for those workers who are 
currently without coverage. It also increases the amount an individual 
can contribute to an Individual Retirement Account form the current 
limit of $2000 to $5000 and allows individuals 50 and older to make 
``catch-up'' contributions to ensure they have a secure retirement.
  In addition to H.R. 4931, I also support the Democratic alternative. 
Not only does the Democratic alternative repeal the sunset provision, 
but it also includes corporate governance measures that will ensure 
that executives are held accountable and live by the same rules as 
rank-in-file workers. Specifically, executives should not be rewarded 
for moving their company overseas to avoid paying taxes when the nation 
is engaged in a war against terrorism. The Democratic substitute would 
ensure that corporate executives of expatriate companies pay their fair 
share.
  In addition, the Democratic substitute provides pension security for 
all workers. In specific, the substitute permanently extends the tax 
credit for low- and moderate-income individuals in order to help them 
make contributions to their own retirement savings.
  In the next 15 years, 76 million Boomers will retire. It is time that 
Congress repeal the sunset and pass permanent legislation that will 
encourage retirement and pension savings for all workers. With the 
Social Security Trust Fund expected to be exhausted by 2037, we must 
act now to ensure the financial security of our future generations. 
H.R. 4931 is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have been in a Medicare and 
prescription drug markup for the last two days trying to give our 
nation's seniors a meaningful health coverage. Every Democratic 
amendment to improve seniors access to cheaper prescription drugs has 
been blocked by the Majority. The reason they give is that it costs too 
much.
  I find it amazing than that we are here today once again giving the 
richest people in this country another break. Over the next 10 years, 
millions of Americans will benefit from the increased pension 
contribution allowances this body passed last year.
  I support all Americans saving for their retirement and believe over 
the next ten years they should do just that. However, by permanently 
extending these pension reforms so early, these same people may be 
devastated

[[Page H3798]]

by astronomical health care costs when they retire. We do not have to 
make the decision on this legislation today. Ten years from now our 
elderly population is going to explode and we will have no wiggle room 
to ease their financial burden.
  In addition, the huge budget deficit being run up by the federal 
government will only compound the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, for upper-income Americans, this legislation will be a 
real bonanza and over the next ten years I hope everyone is able to 
enjoy the benefits, but we all know everyone will not. We have once 
again pulled out the government credit card and are back to the ``buy 
now pay later'' approach. I just want everyone here today to know that 
we will not feel the effects of this bill for ten years, but when we do 
it is going to be very bad.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4931, the 
Retirement Savings Security Act of 2002. I urge my colleagues to join 
in backing this appropriate measure.
  Last year, the House passed sweeping tax reduction legislation. In 
addition to various tax repeal provisions, that bill also contained a 
number of improvements designed to strengthen both pensions and 
individual retirement accounts.
  Those provisions included: Increasing the $2,000 IRA contribution 
limit, for both traditional and Roth IRA, to $5,000 by 2008, increasing 
annual individual contributions to 401(k) plans to $15,000 by 2006. The 
inclusion of ``catch-up'' contributions for workers aged 50 and over 
for certain types of 401(k)s and IRA, and a number of provisions to 
facilitate faster vesting of pensions and pension portability between 
jobs.
  Those provisions in the tax reduction legislation were intended to 
make it easier for more Americans to save for retirement. It has been 
estimated that almost 70 million workers, which is nearly half the 
nation's workforce, have no pension plan. Many of these people work for 
small businesses, which frequently have found the cost and red tape 
involved in setting up such a plan prohibitive. In acting last year, 
Congress sought to reduce some of those barriers and subsequently 
encouraged more companies to set up pension plans and 401(k)s.
  Regrettably, an arcane budgetary rule in the Senate required that all 
of these beneficial provisions sunset after ten years. The House has 
moved this year to repeal the sunset provisions on the estate tax, 
marriage penalty and reduction in marginal rates.
  This legislation follows the same line of reasoning as its 
predecessors which repealed the aforementioned sunset provisions. It 
provides stability and helps individuals and companies better plan for 
the future. For these reasons I support its passage.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the permanent extension 
of the retirement provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001. Within the next 15 years, more than 76 
million baby boomers will retire. Studies have shown that older baby 
boomers have less than 40 percent of the savings they will need to 
maintain their standard of living in retirement. Last year, Congress 
took action to remedy this situation by including the provisions of 
H.R. 10, the Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act 
of 2001, in the tax relief bill. I supported this action and believe 
that the increase in personal retirement savings it will bring about in 
the coming years will benefit millions of Americans.
  The Department of Labor estimates that less than one in every three 
women are covered by a retirement pension plan. These plans are proven 
to pay out greater benefits than Social Security, yet they are not 
readily available to most women and employees of small businesses. Last 
year's bill addressed this concern by providing an immediate benefit--
the ``catch up'' provisions--for working women and individuals age 50 
and above. These provisions allow women reentering the workforce, 
presumably after raising children, to contribute an additional $5,000 
to their IRA. This will allow those approaching retirement age to save 
the extra money they need, while also allowing women who work 
intermittently to ``catch up'' for money not contributed because of 
time off. This is particularly helpful for working mothers who need to 
raise children and put them through college.
  With the unfunded liability of many government retirement systems the 
need for increased personal retirement savings is greater than ever. By 
increasing the contribution limits for and portability of qualified 
401(k) plans and pensions, the Portman-Cardin legislation will help 
Americans build assets to supplement their Social Security income in 
retirement. This will improve the quality of life for retirees and 
ensure that they have the financial resources needed to address any 
challenge that may emerge.
  Congress would do the nation a great disservice by allowing these 
important reforms to expire. The need for greater personal retirement 
savings will not expire, and future generations should enjoy the same 
opportunity to save that the Portman-Cardin bill envisioned. 
Permanently extending these provisions is the responsible thing to do.


    Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Neal of 
                             Massachusetts

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is the gentleman from 
Massachusetts the designee of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui)?
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Retirement Savings Security 
     Act of 2002''.

                    TITLE I--PENSION PLAN PROVISIONS

     SEC. 101. PENSIONS AND INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ARRANGEMENT 
                   PROVISIONS MADE PERMANENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Exception.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply 
     to the provisions of, and amendments made by, subtitles (A) 
     through (F) of title VI (relating to pension and individual 
     retirement arrangement provisions).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 901(b) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and the Employee Retirement Income 
     Security Act of 1974'' in the text, and
       (2) by striking ``of Certain Laws'' in the heading.

     SEC. 102. CREDIT FOR RETIREMENT SAVINGS OF CERTAIN 
                   INDIVIDUALS MADE PERMANENT.

       Section 25B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to elective deferrals and IRA contributions of certain 
     individuals) is amended by striking subsection (h).

     SEC. 103. INCREASED COMPENSATION LIMIT NOT TO RESULT IN 
                   REDUCED BENEFITS FOR THE NONHIGHLY COMPENSATED.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (17) of section 401(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Benefits may not decrease.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) 
     shall be applied by substituting `$150,000' for `$200,000' 
     with respect to a plan for any year if any employee's benefit 
     under the plan would decrease were the $200,000 amount used 
     by the plan instead of the $150,000 amount.''
       (b) Deduction Limitation.--Subsection (l) of section 404 of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     sentence: ``The preceding sentences of this subsection shall 
     be applied by substituting `$150,000' for `$200,000' with 
     respect to a plan for any year if any employee's benefit 
     under the plan would decrease were the $200,000 amount used 
     by the plan instead of the $150,000 amount.''
       (c) Simplified Employee Pensions.--Subsection (k) of 
     section 408 of such Code is amended by redesignating 
     paragraph (9) as paragraph (10) and by inserting after 
     paragraph (8) the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) Lower compensation limitation if benefits decrease.--
     Paragraphs (3)(C) and (6)(D) shall be applied by substituting 
     `$150,000' for `$200,000' with respect to a plan for any year 
     if any employee's benefit under the plan would decrease were 
     the $200,000 amount used by the plan instead of the $150,000 
     amount.''
       (d) Certain Tax-Exempt Organizations.--Paragraph (7) of 
     section 505(b) of such Code is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new sentence: ``The preceding sentences of this 
     subsection shall be applied by substituting `$150,000' for 
     `$200,000' with respect to a plan for any year if any 
     employee's benefit under the plan would decrease were the 
     $200,000 amount used by the plan instead of the $150,000 
     amount.''
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 104. MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR 
                   MINIMUM CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER TOP-
                   HEAVY PLAN RULES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 416(c)(2) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking the 
     last sentence.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

               TITLE II--RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

     SEC. 201. PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPENSATION EXCEPTION TO 
                   $1,000,000 LIMITATION ON DEDUCTIBLE 
                   COMPENSATION NOT TO APPLY IN CERTAIN CASES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 162(m) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraph:

[[Page H3799]]

       ``(G) Certain factors not permitted to be taken into 
     account in determining whether performance goals are met.--
     Subparagraph (C) shall not apply if, in determining whether 
     the performance goals are met, any of the following are taken 
     into account:
       ``(i) Cost savings as a result of changes to any qualified 
     employer plan (as defined in section 4972(d)).
       ``(ii) Excess assets of such a plan or earnings thereon.
       ``(iii) Any excess of the amount assumed to be the return 
     on the assets of such a plan over the actual return on such 
     assets.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 202. INCLUSION IN GROSS INCOME OF FUNDED DEFERRED 
                   COMPENSATION OF CORPORATE INSIDERS IF 
                   CORPORATION FUNDS DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN 
                   WITH EMPLOYER STOCK.

       (a) In General.--Subpart A of part I of subchapter D of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 409A. DENIAL OF DEFERRAL FOR FUNDED DEFERRED 
                   COMPENSATION OF CORPORATE INSIDERS IF 
                   CORPORATION FUNDS DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN 
                   WITH EMPLOYER STOCK.

       ``(a) In General.--If an employer maintains a defined 
     contribution plan to which employer contributions are made in 
     the form of employer stock and such employer maintains a 
     funded deferred compensation plan--
       ``(1) compensation of any corporate insider which is 
     deferred under such funded deferred compensation plan shall 
     be included in the gross income of the insider or beneficiary 
     for the 1st taxable year in which there is no substantial 
     risk of forfeiture of the rights to such compensation, and
       ``(2) the tax treatment of any amount made available under 
     the plan to a corporate insider or beneficiary shall be 
     determined under section 72 (relating to annuities, etc.).
       ``(b) Funded Deferred Compensation Plan.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `funded deferred compensation 
     plan' means any plan providing for the deferral of 
     compensation unless--
       ``(A) the employee's rights to the compensation deferred 
     under the plan are no greater than the rights of a general 
     creditor of the employer, and
       ``(B) all amounts set aside (directly or indirectly) for 
     purposes of paying the deferred compensation, and all income 
     attributable to such amounts, remain (until made available to 
     the participant or other beneficiary) solely the property of 
     the employer (without being restricted to the provision of 
     benefits under the plan), and
       ``(C) the amounts referred to in subparagraph (B) are 
     available to satisfy the claims of the employer's general 
     creditors at all times (not merely after bankruptcy or 
     insolvency).

     Such term shall not include a qualified employer plan.
       ``(2) Special rules.--
       ``(A) Employee's rights.--A plan shall be treated as 
     failing to meet the requirements of paragraph (1)(A) unless--
       ``(i) the compensation deferred under the plan is paid only 
     upon separation from service, death, or at a specified time 
     (or pursuant to a fixed schedule), and
       ``(ii) the plan does not permit the acceleration of the 
     time such deferred compensation is paid by reason of any 
     event.
     If the employer and employee agree to a modification of the 
     plan that accelerates the time for payment of any deferred 
     compensation, then all compensation previously deferred under 
     the plan shall be includible in gross income for the taxable 
     year during which such modification takes effect and the 
     taxpayer shall pay interest at the underpayment rate on the 
     underpayments that would have occurred had the deferred 
     compensation been includible in gross income when deferred.
       ``(B) Creditor's rights.--A plan shall be treated as 
     failing to meet the requirements of paragraph (1)(B) with 
     respect to amounts set aside in a trust unless--
       ``(i) the employee has no beneficial interest in the trust,
       ``(ii) assets in the trust are available to satisfy claims 
     of general creditors at all times (not merely after 
     bankruptcy or insolvency), and
       ``(iii) there is no factor (such as the location of the 
     trust outside the United States) that would make it more 
     difficult for general creditors to reach the assets in the 
     trust than it would be if the trust assets were held directly 
     by the employer in the United States.
       ``(c) Corporate Insider.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `corporate insider' means, with respect to a 
     corporation, any individual who is subject to the 
     requirements of section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act 
     of 1934 with respect to such corporation.
       ``(d) Other definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Plan includes arrangements, etc.--The term `plan' 
     includes any agreement or arrangement.
       ``(2) Substantial risk of forfeiture.--The rights of a 
     person to compensation are subject to a substantial risk of 
     forfeiture if such person's rights to such compensation are 
     conditioned upon the future performance of substantial 
     services by any individual.''
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     subpart A is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:

``Sec. 409A. Denial of deferral for funded deferred compensation of 
              corporate insiders if corporation funds defined 
              contribution plan with employer stock.''

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts deferred after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 203. INCLUSION IN INCOME OF CERTAIN DEFERRED AMOUNTS OF 
                   INSIDERS OF CORPORATIONS WHICH EXPATRIATE TO 
                   AVOID UNITED STATES INCOME TAX.

       (a) In General.--Part II of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items 
     specifically included in gross income) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 91. UNREALIZED GAIN ON STOCK OPTIONS OF INSIDERS OF 
                   CORPORATIONS WHICH EXPATRIATE TO AVOID UNITED 
                   STATES INCOME TAX.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of a corporate insider of 
     any expatriate corporation, the gross income of such insider 
     (for the taxable year during which such corporation becomes 
     an expatriate corporation) shall include as ordinary income 
     the net unrealized built-in gain on options held by such 
     insider to acquire stock in such corporation or in any member 
     of the expanded affiliated group which includes such 
     corporation. Proper adjustments shall be made in the amount 
     of any gain or loss subsequently realized with respect to 
     such options for any amount included in gross income under 
     the preceding sentence.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Corporate insider.--The term `corporate insider' 
     means, with respect to a corporation, any individual who is 
     subject to the requirements of section 16(a) of the 
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to such 
     corporation.
       ``(2) Expatriate corporation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `expatriate corporation' means 
     the acquiring corporation in a corporate expatriation 
     transaction.
       ``(B) Corporate expatriation transaction.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `corporate expatriation 
     transaction' means any transaction if--

       ``(I) a nominally foreign corporation (referred to in this 
     subparagraph as the `acquiring corporation') acquires, as a 
     result of such transaction, directly or indirectly 
     substantially all of the properties held directly or 
     indirectly by a domestic corporation, and
       ``(II) immediately after the transaction, more than 80 
     percent of the stock (by vote or value) of the acquiring 
     corporation is held by former shareholders of the domestic 
     corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic 
     corporation.

       ``(ii) Lower stock ownership requirement in certain 
     cases.--Subclause (II) of clause (i) shall be applied by 
     substituting `50 percent' for `80 percent' with respect to 
     any nominally foreign corporation if--

       ``(I) such corporation does not have substantial business 
     activities (when compared to the total business activities of 
     the expanded affiliated group) in the foreign country in 
     which or under the law of which the corporation is created or 
     organized, and
       ``(II) the stock of the corporation is publicly traded and 
     the principal market for the public trading of such stock is 
     in the United States.

       ``(iii) Partnership transactions.--The term `corporate 
     expatriation transaction' includes any transaction if--

       ``(I) a nominally foreign corporation (referred to in this 
     paragraph as the `acquiring corporation') acquires, as a 
     result of such transaction, directly or indirectly properties 
     constituting a trade or business of a domestic partnership,
       ``(II) immediately after the transaction, more than 80 
     percent of the stock (by vote or value) of the acquiring 
     corporation is held by former partners of the domestic 
     partnership or related foreign partnerships (determined 
     without regard to stock of the acquiring corporation which is 
     sold in a public offering related to the transaction), and
       ``(III) the acquiring corporation meets the requirements of 
     subclauses (I) and (II) of clause (ii).

       ``(iv) Special rules.--For purposes of this subparagraph--

       ``(I) a series of related transactions shall be treated as 
     1 transaction, and
       ``(II) stock held by members of the expanded affiliated 
     group which includes the acquiring corporation shall not be 
     taken into account in determining ownership.

       ``(v) Nominally foreign corporation.--The term `nominally 
     foreign corporation' means any corporation which would (but 
     for this subparagraph) be treated as a foreign corporation.
       ``(3) Net realized built-in gain.--The term `net unrealized 
     built-in gain' means, with respect to options to acquire 
     stock in any corporation, the amount which would be required 
     to be included in gross income were such options exercised.
       ``(4) Expanded affiliated group.--The term `expanded 
     affiliated group' means an affiliated group (as defined in 
     section 1504(a) without regard to section 1504(b)).''
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such 
     part II is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     item:


[[Page H3800]]


``Sec. 91. Certain deferred amounts of insiders of corporations which 
              expatriate to avoid United States income tax.''

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to corporate expatriation 
     transactions completed after September 11, 2001, and to 
     taxable years ending after such date.

     SEC. 204. GOLDEN PARACHUTE EXCISE TAX TO APPLY TO DEFERRED 
                   COMPENSATION PAID BY CORPORATION AFTER MAJOR 
                   DECLINE IN STOCK VALUE OR CORPORATION DECLARES 
                   BANKRUPTCY.

       (a) In General.--Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to golden parachute payments) is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and by 
     inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Tax To Apply to Deferred Compensation Paid After 
     Major Stock Value Decline or Bankruptcy.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `excess parachute payment' includes severance pay, and any 
     other payment of deferred compensation, which is received by 
     a corporate insider after the date that the insider ceases to 
     be employed by the corporation if--
       ``(A) there is at least a 75-percent decline in the value 
     of the stock in such corporation during the 1-year period 
     ending on such date, or
       ``(B) such corporation becomes a debtor in a title 11 or 
     similar case (as defined in section 368(a)(3)(A)) during the 
     180-day period beginning 90 days before such date.
     Such term shall not include any payment from a qualified 
     employer plan.
       ``(2) Corporate insider.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the term `corporate insider' means, with respect to a 
     corporation, any individual who is subject to the 
     requirements of section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act 
     of 1934 with respect to such corporation.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to cessations of employment after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 451, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of our Democratic substitute and 
in opposition to H.R. 4931. This Congress should and can do more to 
help those workers who were practically left out of the pension bill 
last year. The gentleman from Ohio knows that my objections really have 
been fairly narrow largely based upon who is in and who is out of their 
proposal.
  While we are providing these important retirement incentives for the 
rank and file, we should also try to clean up some of the abuses that 
have come to light since the demise of Enron and other fallen corporate 
giants. That is why this Democratic substitute makes significant 
strides forward for corporate responsibility, which, in the end, by the 
way, only helps corporations, provisions that are absent in the 
Republican bill.
  Regarding our corporate governance provisions, we must address the 
issue of corporate expatriates who relocate offshore to avoid paying 
U.S. taxes. Currently when a company moves to Bermuda, shareholders are 
subject to a capital gains tax when they trade their U.S. shares for 
foreign shares. Corporate executives, such as Stanley's John Trani and 
Tyco's Dennis Koslowki, on the other hand, are not required to 
recognize accrued gain on their stock options. What our substitute does 
is to require that executives of corporate expatriates are taxed on the 
accrued gains on their stock options. It is only fair for these 
executives, who are picking the pockets of the American taxpayer to the 
tune of $4 billion, to feel some of the pinch.
  And what are the reasons that these changes have occurred for people 
at the low end of the spectrum, and why they do not receive the same 
benefits as the people at the top end are receiving? It is elementary. 
After the people at the top exhaust all of the money and set up loans 
for themselves, by the way, interest-free loans of millions and 
millions of dollars, there is no money left for the people at the 
bottom.
  How many more abuses can we read of, how many more times do we have 
to be witness to what is happening to the people at the bottom end of 
the pension rung? The reason we are trying to change, I am not saying 
we are trying to change, but the other side is trying to change these 
pension rules, is to give more to the people at the top. I ask, as I 
have repeatedly on this floor, can we, can we, can we in this Congress 
do anything more to help the wealthy? I tell you that when the closing 
days of this Congress occur, the slogan of this Congress is going to be 
``We are rich, and we are not going to take it anymore.''
  How many times can we come to the assistance of those at the top, 
even in the face of the headlines we read day after day after day? 
Homes on Nantucket the shareholders had no idea of, loans of $20 
million and $25 million that are interest free, and the boards of 
directors of these corporations respond by saying, ``I had no idea. I 
had no idea this was happening.'' Then the company goes under, the 
shareholders lose everything, and the board of directors have insurance 
to cover their problems.
  We look at Enron. We look at Enron in this institution, where 
employees are encouraged to buy stock, told by company rules they 
cannot unload the stock that they have, at the same time the heads of 
the corporation to the person sell off the stock. It is astounding what 
we witness here. It is as though it is amnesia when we move down the 
road on these topical challenges.
  What this substitute does today is to require that executives of 
corporate expatriates are taxed on the accrued gains of their stock 
options. It is only fair, and I know that is a word that we do not use 
around here, because who wants to be fair to these folks when we can be 
favorable to them? They are picking the pockets again of the American 
taxpayer to the tune of $4 billion. Is it not okay that they feel some 
of the pinch?
  Second, the substitute closes the loophole surrounding executives' 
non-qualified deferred compensation plans. These plans are specifically 
designed to be out of the reach of creditors during bankruptcy. During 
bankruptcy.
  What do we say to those people at Enron? Who covered them during 
bankruptcy, when they lost everything? But there is never any money 
left to take care of those people.
  One of the things I pride myself on, Mr. Speaker, is where I grew up. 
We were not into stock options, and we were not into pension plans and 
sophisticated tax planning. But you know what, Mr. Speaker? There is 
not one guy I grew up with that would have stood by and watched what 
happened at Enron. They had far too much honor. And we should not be 
defending those practices in this wonderful old House.
  Now, third, there are some executives who manipulate pension plans in 
order to create illusory cost savings. Well, we have all read about 
what these cost savings mean and how they are done. These phantom 
savings allow executives to meet performance goals which, by the way, 
they quickly retreat from, and then they receive large tax deductible 
bonuses. Tax deductible bonuses.

  Well, the Democratic substitute demands today accountability from 
these companies and their executives by ensuring that tax deductible 
bonus pay is not, not, based on pension plan manipulation.
  Finally, and I hope we can all listen to this, finally this week it 
was revealed that 100 Enron executives reaped $330 million in severance 
pay at the same time the employees saw their retirement plans, their 
job security, their investment plans wiped out. Their retirement plans 
are gone. And what do we want to do here today? More for the people at 
the top by this proposal that the Republicans are offering.
  These executives were rewarded for sinking the company and bad 
behavior. Well, the substitute that we offer today addresses this issue 
by applying an excise tax on the executives' golden parachutes when 
they have steered the company and the employees down with the 
Hindenburg.
  Now, let me, if I can, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) 
or anybody else may if they would like to say something, let me turn to 
some of the changes we have made to improve and reform the pension 
provisions in the underlying bill. That is really what we are trying to 
do, to improve the bill.
  First, the original bill included a saver's credit, which is a 
nonrefundable

[[Page H3801]]

tax credit, of up to $1,000 for lower-wage workers. For no apparent 
reason, this is the only provision, and, let me repeat, this is the 
only provision that will not be extended by the Republican bill. Why 
would we want to kill the only incentive for lower-wage workers before 
it even gets off the ground? The Democratic substitute today will make 
this essential provision for low- and moderate-income workers 
permanent, along with the rest of the bill.
  Second, the Republican bill, unfortunately, raised the compensation 
limit for pension contributions from $170,000 to $200,000. This allowed 
highly paid executives to secure their pensions while they were 
granting smaller company contributions to their employees.
  There has been some discussion over the last few years as to whether 
this provision and the next one harms average workers. I and many 
others believe they do. Because of that, the Democratic substitute 
today attempts to protect workers by preventing the higher compensation 
limit from lowering the benefits to rank and file workers.
  Third, the underlying legislation weakened the top-heavy rules. These 
commonsense rules ensure that a minimum benefit is contributed on 
behalf of the rank and file workers in order for executives to 
participate in their tax deferred plans.
  Why would we want to weaken these fairness rules? Our substitute 
reinstates these rules and closes loopholes by preventing companies 
from double counting contributions.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, when we get on a bit more in this debate this 
afternoon, I am going to provide an opportunity, the first of many, but 
I guarantee an opportunity, before this session closes, to have Members 
of this Congress vote on these companies that are moving to Bermuda so 
they can avoid paying American income taxes.
  We are going to have a chance once and for all to follow the lead of 
the Senate, when it is the House, by the way, that is supposed to lead 
on those issues, to take on the issue and put our fingerprints on the 
Bermuda question.
  We are going to sponsor a Bermuda Day here in the near future. We are 
going to get a vote on that issue before this session closes. In all 
the time, words and stories that we have generated on the issue of 
Bermuda, I wish to tell you I have received one letter against my 
position. One letter.
  I would lay down the same gauntlet that I have done in the past. Put 
our Bermuda bill on the floor, put a Bermuda bill on the floor, and I 
guarantee you 300 votes to do something about these companies moving to 
Bermuda to escape American taxes.
  At the same time that President Bush is rightly asking for a $38 
billion homeland security program, at the same time we are prepared to 
debate $48 billion more of defense spending, who is going to pay for 
it? We do not want to help these people with their pensions, but we 
want them to pay their taxes so they can support the defense buildup.
  The motion to recommit we are going to entertain later on, Mr. 
Speaker, is going to include the first vote on Bermuda. We are going to 
set aside ample opportunity during the course of the remaining days of 
this session for this House to be recorded on how people feel about 
Bermuda.
  I must tell you that in this debate, in this debate today, this is 
not an effort at any sort of class warfare as much as it is the 
essential argument over what constitutes fairness in American life, how 
we come to the aid of those kids that are over in Afghanistan, how we 
come to the assistance of those who sacrifice every day. If we are in a 
war, it is a question of national purpose, and we all rally around the 
challenge that is in front of us. My fondest hope is that wisdom will 
prevail in this institution and we will have an opportunity to vote on 
Bermuda.
  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 guess I rise primarily in opposition to it because it 
is not a substitute. The underlying bill has to do with extending these 
provisions of law that were passed by over 400 votes here in the U.S. 
Congress to allow people to save more for their retirement.
  The substitute strays far afield from pension policy. We just heard 
about it. It has to do with Bermuda, it has to do with executive 
compensation, it has to do with corporate governance. I would hope that 
we could stick to a debate over the pension issues, but I guess because 
that is not as partisan an issue as some of these other ones during an 
election year, we are going to get into this other stuff, and that is 
fine. But it is not a substitute to the underlying bill.
  Also it is important to note that the House has considered many of 
these issues already. I have heard three or four times now again that 
we have never considered this. We just passed a corporate governance 
bill on the floor of the House. Recently we passed a post-Enron pension 
bill, correcting many of the problems that were uncovered in the Enron 
situation and other situations, again on a bipartisan basis, in this 
House.
  Finally, these provisions that the gentleman just talked about are 
very far-reaching. Talk about complex, we spent 5 years, had a lot of 
hearings, a lot of vetting of the pension provisions that the gentleman 
and many Members are just now deciding they now understand and they are 
changing their minds on, but these have not been vetted. These have not 
been subject to hearings. These have not had the kind of time and 
effort into them that are very important to be sure we are not going to 
increase the number of companies that leave our shores, increase the 
number of companies that are leaving their workers behind, increase the 
number of companies removing good white collar jobs out of this 
country.
  That could happen with some of this if we are not careful about that, 
because under our international tax laws as they are currently 
constructed, there is a disadvantage to being a U.S. company. We need 
to change that to be sure these companies stay in the United States. We 
do not want to do something, although well intended and inadvertent, 
that could encourage more companies to go offshore, particularly to get 
bought out by foreign companies, as was the case with DaimlerChrysler.
  Now, there are a few provisions, three that I have been able to 
identify in looking at the substitute, that do relate to the underlying 
pension bill.

                              {time}  1245

  I will tell you this afternoon I believe that these provisions that 
relate to the complexity and to the burdens which have been discussed 
earlier will harm the very workers you say you want to help. Why do I 
say that? Because what we do in a very rational way, a very moderate 
way, is go into these rules and complexities and try to deal with some 
of the incredible burdens that small companies face when they are 
trying to put together a pension policy.
  The top-heavy rules are in addition to the nondiscrimination testing 
rules. Again, President Clinton's advisory group said repeal them. The 
small business community said repeal them. We said, no, we want to make 
sure that this bill is fair.
  Fairness is about providing retirement security to low-income 
workers. That is what this bill is all about. You want to go in here 
and add those burdens and regulations back on. You want to discourage 
matching contributions, which I do not get. Why would you not want 
workers to be able to get matching contributions from their own 
employer rather than just putting their own money into 401(k)s? I do 
not understand why you would want to go back to the bad old days.
  We talked about it earlier. For 20 years this Congress did all it 
could to discourage pensions by increasing burdens, costs and 
liabilities, and decreasing the benefits and the contribution levels. 
All we do in our legislation is go back to where we were in the 1980s 
when the Democrats controlled this House, where we had higher 
contribution levels, and we begin to give people some relief because 
what has happened is pension coverage, particularly defined benefit 
coverage, has been reduced dramatically through this combination of 
adding more burdens and decreasing the benefits in pension plans. I 
thought last year with a vote of more than 400 from this House we had 
finally decided to reverse this trend. Now you want to go back to the 
bad old days.
  So I encourage strongly my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
reject this substitute not because it is

[[Page H3802]]

not well-meaning, not because there are not very important issues being 
discussed here on corporate governance, on executive compensation, and 
so on, but because they are not related to this underlying bill, they 
have not been vetted as the underlying bill has been vetted.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader, is 
here, and I yield 2 minutes to her.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the substitute and 
commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for his leadership 
on this very important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, if we have learned anything from Enron, Arthur Andersen 
and others, it is that some corporations do not act in the best 
interest of investors, consumers, and even of their own employees. We 
certainly do not paint all businesses with the same brush, but we must 
act to restore confidence in our financial system and in the stock 
market.
  The Republican leadership has ignored the issue of corporate 
malfeasance. What little they have done to address the Enron crisis has 
actually weakened current law protecting employee pensions. The 
Democratic substitute on the floor today offers common-sense 
protections and reforms. It ends the practice of giving executives 
golden parachutes while workers in the companies they helped bankrupt 
are left to crash to the ground. The Democratic legislation would keep 
tax dollars from disappearing into the Bermuda Triangle by barring 
corporations from creating shell corporations in Bermuda or other 
offshore locations.
  Under the Democratic bill corporate executives could no longer be 
able to protect their retirement benefits while leaving employees with 
worthless stock, and the Democratic bill would help moderate and low-
income individuals plan for their futures by extending a tax credit 
that encourages retirement savings.
  Mr. Speaker, those who oppose reform claim that in reigning in 
corporate excess, we will stamp out the entrepreneurial spirit that 
makes this country great. Coming from California where the 
entrepreneurial spirit is in the air and in the water, I see that the 
spirit to innovate, originate, and invent will not be crushed by a ban 
on lying, cheating, and stealing.
  One of our Founding Fathers, James Madison, once noted that ``if all 
men were angels, no government would be necessary.'' Every day we see 
in the headlines that we are not angels. We in Congress have a 
responsibility to protect hard-working Americans. The Democratic 
substitute does just that, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to support this common-sense substitute and oppose the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Select Revenue Measures of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill that is on the floor today has everything to do 
with retirement planning, with the average employee of a company, 
whether it is a big company or a small company in this country, being 
able to plan with some certainty his retirement benefits. It has 
nothing, nothing to do with Enron, corporate inversions, companies 
moving to Bermuda; nothing.
  This bill that we are debating today and that we are trying to make 
permanent in the Tax Code is for the average worker in this country. We 
have heard the statistics today: Two-thirds of IRAs are held by people 
with incomes averaging less than $50,000 a year. We are not talking 
about fat cats, we are not talking about rich executives, we are 
talking about common people who are struggling to put aside something 
so that they will have some security in retirement.
  The underlying bill gives those average people some added tools to 
use to supply that security. That is what we should be really, frankly, 
not even debating; that is what we should be confirming with our votes 
today, just as this House did on a bipartisan basis several months ago 
with votes from this House of over 400 of our 435 Members. Really, this 
should be a rubber stamp today. We should just meet and say, gosh, that 
Senate rule that created this 10-year sunset is nuts, and we ought to 
say, Senate, use your 60 votes to overcome that silly rule, and let us 
make this good legislation that we passed on a bipartisan basis 
permanent.
  That is what we should be doing today, but instead, some are taking 
advantage of the generosity of the Committee on Rules in giving 60 
minutes of debate time to a substitute by the other side and then a 
motion to recommit. They are taking advantage of that generosity to 
highlight issues that they think are going to have some value from a 
political sense. That is fine. We are all in politics; we are in 
government, we are all politicians. But the audience, the public, 
whoever might be listening to this ought to know that is what is going 
on. It has nothing to do with the underlying bill. The underlying bill 
is good. Over 400 of us agree with that, and probably today, a lot of 
us, maybe not 400, but a lot on both sides, are going to vote to 
confirm that.
  But I am the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures 
of the Committee on Ways and Means. The chairman of the full committee, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), has asked me to work with 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and to work with the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), who is the ranking member of my 
subcommittee, to address some of the issues that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) has brought up in the substitute of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and I agree with the gentleman.
  I agree with the gentleman that there are problems in the Tax Code 
and in other parts of our Nation's laws with respect to those issues 
that he brought up. I want to work with him and others to solve some of 
those problems. We are going to have our first hearing on corporate 
inversions next week in my subcommittee. The gentleman is on my 
subcommittee, and I am glad he is on there. He has introduced some 
legislation which I think has some merit; it has also some problems, 
and those are the kinds of things we are going to discuss at a hearing 
setting, which is where we should do it, not on the floor of the House 
on an unrelated bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the underlying bill and rejection of 
the substitute.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would remind Members 
to refrain from inappropriate references to the Senate or its 
procedures.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I have great regard for the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery). 
He is a bright guy and a very capable guy here. But I must tell my 
colleagues this: In 14 years here I have not heard a substitute 
referred to as the ``generous spirit'' of the majority toward the 
minority. This is an elementary legislative courtesy that we are 
supposed to extend to each other. That is why the House is constructed 
the way it is, unlike the European system where they face each other. 
This is done so that we can look at each other and at the same time 
listen to each other. I hope that we are not at the point of in this 
session where getting a substitute is generosity.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I was an original cosponsor of the underlying bill, and 
I support the underlying bill. I think it makes a lot of sense. I think 
it is a bill about investment rather than consumption. While I have 
very deep concerns and opposed the 2001 tax cut, and I think it is 
undeniable that the reason we are back in deficits now and not paying 
down the national debt is because, in large part, of that tax cut. I 
happen to think that it is good public policy to extend it.

[[Page H3803]]

  But I am going to support the substitute that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts offers for one reason in particular. I want to reference 
what the gentleman from Louisiana just said.
  As a lot of Members know, I am not going to be on the ballot in 
November, so I do not have a political issue that I am particularly 
concerned about. I am concerned about good public policy. I am deeply 
concerned about what is going on in corporate America today and its 
impact on our general economy. Today in Bloomberg's Financial News, 
there is a story about global fund managers who are moving out of U.S. 
stocks and bonds and into European and Asian stocks and bonds. The 
principal reason for doing that is because they are concerned about the 
continuing crisis in corporate governance in America. I will read a 
quote from one of the bond managers who says, ``Post-Enron, investors 
are searching for simple businesses they can understand without 
aggressive accounting policies.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in some of the corporate 
governance bills, and I hope to be involved with them as we move 
forward, and I think there is a lot to do. I think the Congress is 
still playing catch-up to where the exchanges are, to where the New 
York Stock Exchange went the other week with the proposal that they put 
out, and I think we have to do a lot more to restore confidence in our 
markets.
  America has the most efficient, transparent, dynamic markets of 
anywhere in the world, but they are in trouble today, and, as a result, 
they are creating a malaise over our general economy, which means our 
recovery will be weak, which means our unemployment will stay high, and 
it means that shareholders, the American people, will be the ones that 
suffer.
  That is why I support the substitute of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts. It is the right thing for the Congress to make a 
statement on that today, and I hope that the House will follow suit and 
pass it.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 4931, deserves 
consideration by the House because of its potential benefit to the long 
term health of the economy. While I remain deeply concerned about the 
overall direction of the nation's fiscal policy and return of deficits, 
due in large part to the 2001 tax cut, the underlying bill, originally 
known as Portman-Cardin of which I was an original cosponsor, is aimed 
toward increasing savings which would have both fiscal and monetary 
benefits in the long run. Furthermore, while there is merit in the 
argument that the provisions contained in this bill will not be 
repealed for nine years providing ample time to consider an extension 
in conjunction with our complete fiscal policy, these provisions are 
about savings, not consumption and long term in nature. Retirement 
planning is planning for the long term and thus we should establish 
long term policy. That was our intent when the House adopted this 
legislation in 2000, long before the 2001 tax cut. Additionally, 
compared to the exorbitant costs of previous permanent extensions of 
the 2001 tax cut, this bill's long term cost is a mere $6 billion.
  The underlying focus of the Portman-Cardin bill was to increase 
incentives for Americans to save. For the past several years, our 
nation has had a net negative savings rate which curtails our ability 
to have long term economic growth. In addition, a low or negative 
savings rate means that most Americans are not fully prepared for 
retirement at the same time that we know Social Security is facing 
financial and demographic pressures. I truly believe we should 
establish policies which encourage increased long term savings by 
individuals. In particular, we should work to encourage such savings 
among middle and lower middle income Americans, who are less likely to 
do so because of less disposable income. Providing monetary incentives 
can result in greater savings among these groups. The bill as enacted 
dramatically increases the amounts individuals and families can save 
tax free in individual retirement accounts and thrift savings plans 
like 401(k) accounts. It eases transfers among public sector thrift 
savings plans to private sector plans and corrects deficiencies in 
labor union sponsored 415 plans.
  Portman-Cardin also included a provision authored by Representative 
Blunt and myself to increase the availability of thrift savings plans 
to small businesses employing 100 or less people and self employed 
individuals. Historically, employees of small businesses are less 
likely to have the benefit of an employer sponsored thrift savings 
plan. In fact, only 21 percent of all individuals employed by small 
businesses are likely to have an employee matching plan compared to 64 
percent of larger employers. Our bill, which was incorporated into 
Portman-Cardin, streamlined regulation and eased the creation of 
employer matching plans for employees. The bill allowed such employers 
to establish qualified small employer pension plans and requires 
employers to match employee contributions. While much has been said 
about the bill's repeal of ``top heavy'' rules limiting benefits to 
senior management, it remains our intent to ensure that such rules 
while well intentioned did not serve as an impediment for small 
employers to set up any plan at all. Furthermore, we should remember 
that under such qualified plans, the employer must match employee 
contributions.
  I also understand the concern posed by my colleagues that the bill 
before us today does not extend the small saver tax credit, which I 
strongly support. This provision was originally designed as a five year 
pilot and was not subject to sunset due to Senate rules as other 
provision of the 2001 tax cut were. So, while that was not the intent 
of the original bill, I am pleased that the Democratic substitute would 
extend this provision because I believe it will also yield increased 
savings among lower income Americans.

  Mr. Speaker, while I support the underlying bill, I intend to support 
the Democratic substitute offered by Mr. Neal because I believe the 
Congress needs to make a stronger statement on the conduct of corporate 
executives who have abused the trust of their employees and 
shareholders at the expense of market confidence. I don't think anyone 
doubts that our equity markets and economy are suffering in part from a 
malaise associated to the excesses of a number of high profile 
corporations and their leaders, be they Enron, Xerox, Tyco or Adelphia. 
Not a day goes by that another accounting restatement is issued or an 
SEC investigation commenced. As corporate executives are shown the door 
by their boards of directors, all too often they are leaving with a 
hefty sum, while stockholders and employees are left paying the till. 
Market confidence has been damaged in this country, and now we are 
beginning to see the signs that foreign investors too are becoming 
skeptical of investing in our public companies. Just this morning, 
Bloomberg Financial News reported that foreign investors are moving out 
investments in U.S. companies because of concern over corporate 
governance and accounting accuracy. Given the size of our current 
account deficit, a decline in foreign investment will have detrimental 
effects on our long term growth. As the world's strongest, most 
transparent and dynamic economy, we must not allow the acts of a few to 
wreak damage on us all. Yet if we fail to act, we will continue to 
suffer a loss of confidence which will be felt not just in the 
corporate board rooms but in pension plans and the general economy. I 
think that the substitute includes important provisions which hold 
corporate executives accountable, if not putting them on par with other 
shareholders and their employees. Given that the exchanges and major 
investors have already begun to take such steps, so too should the 
Congress.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support the substitute because of its 
statement on the need for improved corporate accountability. But, let 
me be clear to my colleagues, whereas I remain concerned about the 
budget busting effects of the 2001 tax cut and attempts to extend some 
of the more expensive items contained within it, without any real plan 
to bring the budget back into balance, I support the underlying bill 
because rather than increase deficits and consumption, it will have the 
effect of increasing savings, and ultimately growth in the economy.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller), a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the base bill, 
the Portman legislation, to make permanent the retirement savings 
provisions in what we call or label the Bush tax cut.
  I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are good things in the 
Bush tax cut to help working middle-class families save for retirement. 
We are going to hear some partisan rhetoric on the other side, but the 
bottom line is, the question before us is, do we make permanent the 
opportunity to set aside more in a voluntary way for retirement, 
particularly in your 401(k) and in your IRA, and, if you are a building 
trades person, to be able to get more in your pension fund.
  I would note in the legislation before us today that we increased the 
Bush tax cut from $2,000 to $5,000, the amount that one can set aside 
in an IRA. When this provision expires, we go back to $2,000. Also in 
the 401(k)s,

[[Page H3804]]

we increase from $11,000 to $15,000 the amount that can be set aside in 
the 401(k). If we fail to make it permanent, that is gone as well. 
Something that benefits those who I call the working moms or the empty-
nesters is that we allow those age 50 and older to make an extra 
contribution to their IRA or 401(k). Someone in a 401(k) can add an 
additional $5,000. So if one is returning to the workforce when the 
kids are out of college, and you have a little extra money, you can 
make up those missed contributions when your income was a little less 
and you had a lot of expenses.
  I also want to note that the building trades support making permanent 
the Bush tax cuts retirement savings provisions. They stand in support 
of this legislation. They have sent a letter to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman) endorsing making permanent the Bush tax cuts provisions 
on retirement savings. The reason is because there is a provision there 
which helps millions, almost 9 million working middle-class building 
trades people, members of building trade unions, carpenters and 
laborers and operating engineers, cement finishers and others, 
electricians, who, because of the leadership of the House Republican 
majority, saw an artificial cap removed that essentially, in many 
cases, in the case of a constituent of mine, cut in half the pension 
that they receive.

                              {time}  1300

  We remove that cap, and they get the full pension they qualify for. 
In the case of Lori and Larry Kohr, their pension goes from $20,000 to 
almost $40,000, doubling the amount they have; and it is what they 
deserve because of the hours they work.
  Let us make the Bush tax cuts and the retirement savings permanent, 
and set aside the partisan rhetoric. Let us vote in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4931 is made to help the rich get 
richer. Seventy-seven percent of the tax reductions in the bill will go 
to the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans. H.R. 4931 allows executives 
to be rewarded for cutting rank-and-file pension benefits. It continues 
to allow executives to evade taxes on stock options when the company 
moves overseas in order to avoid taxes. It permanently extends benefits 
for the well-to-do, but selectively allows the only provision that 
applies to low-income workers to expire. So much for helping average 
workers.
  Have the sponsors of H.R. 4931 learned nothing from the biggest 
bankruptcy in U.S. history that happened less than a year ago? Enron 
paid senior executives more than $744 million in cash and stock in the 
year up to the bankruptcy filing on September 2. Insider payments went 
to 140 top Enron managers. Enron set up a deferred compensation plan 
that allowed executives to contribute more, get guaranteed returns on 
their money, and get legal guarantees that these monies would be safe 
even if the company went bankrupt.
  The CEO of Enron has a pension that will pay $475,000 each year for 
the rest of his life, and a prepaid $12 million life insurance policy. 
What about the employees? No special benefits, and 6,000 Enron 
employees lost their jobs and pensions. They had to go to court to 
claim $4,600, their minimal severance pay, which is capped by law.
  The lack of a consistent set of rules between employees and 
executives is unfair, it is unjust, and it should be illegal. If 
executives faced the same risk as employees in their pension plan, they 
would have a vested interest in ensuring the plans are not empty during 
bankruptcy.
  Our substitute would encourage parity between executives and 
employees by taxing deferred compensation benefits if deferred 
compensation plans have special legal protections in the case of 
financial distress. H.R. 4931 does nothing for the average American. 
H.R. 4931 represents a massive transfer of wealth from the hardworking 
rank and file employees to self-serving executives. Vote for the Matsui 
substitute.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, today is an interesting day on the House 
floor, as the Democrats ladle hypocrisy from the caldron of cynicism 
and political rhetoric.
  They are talking about a lot of issues other than the underlying 
issue. They are bringing up names like Tyco and Enron. I notice an 
absence of any mention of union pension funds that have been looted 
fraudulently by their own leaders. Do not accuse their advocates and 
allies of those kinds of crimes. Do not bring them up. Let us deflect 
the issue of the importance of this bill.
  This bill is important, important to millions of Americans. It is 
about portability. H.R. 4931 will ensure that these reforms remain in 
place and that the barriers to pension portability do not return.
  Under the bipartisan provisions of this bill, which were developed by 
my colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), workers 
for the first time will be able to move retirement benefits between the 
different varieties of retirement plans offered by for-profit, not-for-
profit, and State and local government employees.
  In a provision especially important to public school teachers and 
other State and local employees who move between different States and 
districts, the tax law allows these workers to use the savings in their 
403(b) and 457 plans to accrue greater pension benefits in the States 
in which they conclude their careers.
  Mr. Speaker, provisions that this bill make today will make permanent 
to allow millions of Americans to keep more of their retirement savings 
in one place by allowing them to roll their tax-deductible IRA funds 
into the workplace retirement plan. The portability reforms also allow 
any after-tax contributions to the workplace plan to be rolled into an 
IRA.
  The provisions we want to make permanent also help workers build 
meaningful retirement benefits more quickly in today's mobile economy 
by reducing the period of time it takes for workers to take possession 
of the matching contributions their employers make to the 401(k) 
accounts. Under the 2001 tax law voted on by some 400-plus Members, 
employer-matching contributions will be vested either 100 percent after 
3 years or in increments over 6 years.
  For the sake of millions of American workers whose retirements will 
depend on the pensions they have worked hard to create, I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 4931 and reject the substitute.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to guarantee the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Foley), who is my friend, that I will verbally lacerate any union 
official or any union that steals any money from employees. But I hope 
we are not suggesting that what happened at Enron is akin to what has 
happened with unions here or there, where somebody has siphoned off 
money. At Enron, everybody at the lower end lost their pension 
benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, there have probably been enough 
explanations of what is in this bill. The question really remains: Why 
should we deal with the gentleman from Massachusetts' proposal for some 
corporate governance changes?
  I was reading the Bible recently, and I read in the second chapter of 
Luke about the fact that in the days of Caesar Augustus, everybody went 
to their home village to be taxed. That is how come Jesus' mother was 
riding on a donkey up the road 100 miles. The Roman Empire got unfair. 
It became unfair, and they had to tax everybody out in the bushes. 
Nobody was paying anything in Rome.
  Well, we say, what does that have to do with us? Santayana said that 
if we do not learn from history, we are going to repeat it. We had the 
1890s in this country, where the economy got way out of sight and we 
had a collapse. In the 1920s, we had the Roaring Twenties, and what did 
we get? We came right to the edge of going with the Soviet Union in 
communism. There was a lot of fear in this country. That is why when 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was no great liberal, came into the 
Presidency, he said, hey, look, we have to make this place fair.

[[Page H3805]]

  What we have done in the 1990s is go back to what we did in the 1890s 
and in the 1920s, and we are spreading out this country so that the 
people on the top have got all of it, or are getting more of it, I 
should say, and the people on the bottom are scraping to make it.
  When somebody from the other side stands out here and says the fact 
that we dropped a little provision for people making $30,000 out of 
here is no big deal, they are talking about 50 percent of the people in 
this country. How can Members not want to be fair?
  What is going on in Enron is not fair. If I cannot sell my stock 
because I work there, and the boss can sell his, that is not fair. That 
is why we are here. Members ought to vote for this proposal.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I would like to speak in support of H.R. 4931 and against the 
substitute.
  One of the key features of the bill, as far as I am concerned, is 
portability of pension benefits. In my previous occupation, the average 
term that anyone had at one school was usually 3 years. Sometimes they 
left because they wanted to; most of the time they left because people 
did not want them around anymore. So, as a result, we had a lot of 
people at the end of their coaching careers that had absolutely no 
retirement benefits left. These were not necessarily wealthy people. 
These were usually assistant coaches, sometimes high school coaches. So 
since their population was more mobile, I think this really applies to 
a large percentage of our population.
  Secondly, I would like to mention the fact that I think this bill is 
particularly critical for our young people. Both parties, whether they 
are Democrat or Republican, are certainly going to see to it that the 
Social Security retirement benefits are there for those who are now 
retirees or those who are near retirement; but the future is not nearly 
as bright for those young people who are in their teens, in their 
twenties, or their thirties.
  I think everyone can recognize over the next 30 years the proportion 
of retirees rises and the proportion of those paying Social Security 
taxes declines. Eventually we have a train wreck that is on the way. It 
is a pay-as-you-go system, so permanently increasing 401(k) and IRA 
limits is critical, particularly for our young people, because the main 
hope these young people have for any type of retirement security has to 
do with their long-term strategy, and 401(k)s and IRAs. So one cannot 
plan if the rules change in 8 or 9 or 10 years, particularly if one is 
a young person.
  This is not a tax break for the rich. It is critical for our young 
people, it is good for the country, and I urge passage of H.R. 4931.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, several of our Republican colleagues have 
said quite forthrightly this morning that this bill has nothing to do 
with Enron, that it has nothing to do with those corporations that 
renounce America and move off to Bermuda. They are absolutely right in 
those statements. That is what is wrong with this bill. That is why we 
have a substitute, and every reason to vote for this substitute is a 
reason to vote against the underlying bill.
  It is strange that Congress would meet today to solve a problem that 
is alleged to exist for people on New Year's Eve of 2010, instead of 
dealing with the problems that American families face today in 2002. 
But I think there is a friend of mine down in Austin, Texas, who 
understands why this is true. His name is Willy Nelson. He sang a song 
that goes, ``If you've got the money, honey, I've got the time.''
  Let me tell you something: the people that ``got the money,'' they 
are the people who are running this Congress. They keep setting an 
agenda to help the privileged few at the top and ignore the corporate 
misconduct that has occurred in this country, much of which would never 
have happened had they not enabled it to happen with the bills they 
passed and the bills they held up in committee.
  This Democratic substitute addresses a real 2002 problem, not some 
mythical concern out in 2010. It deals with those companies like 
Stanley Works, that my neighbor says ought to be called ``Stanley 
Flees.'' It deals with Fruit of the Loom, that runs off to the south, 
and we lose more than our shorts out of the deal, because they are 
dodging their taxes.
  And yes, it provides this Congress and every Member in it the first 
opportunity to have a referendum on the words of the Republican 
majority leader this very week when he compared those corporations that 
renounce America to the ordinary taxpayer, and said, ``it is akin to 
punishing a taxpayer for choosing to itemize instead of taking the 
standard deduction.''
  It is that kind of callous attitude that we need a referendum on 
today--whether we are going to defend those corporations that renounce 
America and refuse to hold up their responsibilities at a time of 
national need or whether we are going to protect employees.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), a real champion of IRA 
expansion.
  (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to 
speak today in support of the underlying legislation and in opposition 
to the substitute.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas) for reporting a bill that provides permanent retirement 
security for all Americans by allowing people to put more money into a 
401(k) plan or a traditional pension plan beyond 2011.
  In addition, this important legislation will make permanent the 
provision of the Bush tax cut that increases IRA contributions. I have 
worked hard to enact legislation to increase IRA contributions for many 
years, which is so critical to retirement savings.
  Mr. Speaker, middle-class Americans depend on traditional IRAs to 
supplement their retirement income. Seventy-two percent of people 
contributing to an IRA make less than $50,000 per year, and the average 
contributor earns approximately $30,000 per year. Many of these 
Americans do not have generous 401(k) plans or stock options to help 
them build a nest egg.
  Prior to the enactment of last year's tax cut, inflation had cut the 
value of IRAs sharply since 1981, the last time IRA contributions were 
increased. Saving for retirement requires long-term planning. 
Individuals and families need to save for many years in advance of 
leaving the workforce.
  Although the tax cut enacted last year will now gradually increase 
the IRA contributions to $5,000 by 2007, without further action by 
Congress, this increase will expire in 2011, and the amount people can 
contribute to their IRAs will revert back to $2,000.

                              {time}  1315

  After taking into account inflation, this amount will fall well short 
of what is needed to save for retirement. By increasing the IRA 
contribution limit and making it permanent, we provide families with a 
certainty needed for their long-term retirement planning.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to pass this measure.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, let me try to be clear what disturbs so many 
of us. First of all, my colleagues are making all of this permanent. 
There is a kind of rush to rashness, and therefore, they are really 
doing something that is illusionary. They are digging this fiscal hole 
so deep that what they have made permanent will have to become 
temporary. The fiscal situation simply will not, in the end, allow 
this.
  Secondly, it is so one-sided. They are making permanent the 
provisions that relate not only to the higher income, the predominantly 
higher-income people, but when it is comes to the saver credit, they do 
not want to do that. They say it needs further study. So for those 
provisions that benefit lower-

[[Page H3806]]

and middle-income families predominantly, they want something that is 
temporary, something that needs further study, but when it comes to a 
tax break that will benefit mostly the wealthy and the very wealthy, 
like the estate tax, or, in this case, predominantly to those who are 
better off, they say they want to make it permanent.
  So, therefore, there is a natural question raised: Whose side are my 
colleagues on? That is why the issue of Enron, that is why all of these 
issues come up, because when it comes to breaks for the very, very 
wealthy, they say they are either silent or permanent. When it comes to 
helping the typical family, they say, well, we better study it more.
  That is the essence of our objection, our vehement objection, to what 
they are doing and why we support the substitute and so many people are 
going to vote no on final passage.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), my distinguished colleague on the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio for all his 
hard work on this issue.
  We have heard a lot of different issues being brought to the floor 
today. We have heard the issues surrounding Enron. Well, I would like 
to inform my colleagues that we passed two pieces of comprehensive 
legislation dealing with Enron already in this Congress on the floor of 
the House.
  We have heard about a very valid issue of inversions, a new issue of 
inversions, which we are working on hopefully in a bipartisan way on 
the Committee on Ways and Means to address.
  What this issue is about today is about retirement, and I think in a 
valid point that has not been made, it is about our current economy. 
Mr. Speaker, the real economy is growing quite well right now. New 
housing starts are doing really well. Manufacturing is getting back on 
its feet. The real economy is growing except for the equity markets. 
Our stock market is very shaky right now, and if our stock market 
continues to be shaky going on for another 6 months, that is going to 
hit consumer confidence, and that is going to take a real pound of 
flesh out of our economy. So we have a problem in this economy, and 
that is that the equity markets are not responding well, and we may 
have some real problems that are going to hit consumer confidence in 
this economy if we do not respond.
  This issue that we are dealing with today speaks directly to our 
equity markets. Twenty-six percent of our equity markets are held by 
pension assets. Twelve percent of our taxable bond markets are held by 
pension assets. This issue speaks to the whole entire issue of 
retirement security, of pensions, of letting people save for their 
retirement, and the uncertainty in the tax law is creating uncertainty 
in our equity markets.
  When the vast majority of bondholders and stockholders do not know 
what the tax laws are going to be 8 years from now, that is producing a 
lot of uncertainty in our equity markets. For example, IRAs in 8 years, 
if this legislation does not pass, are going to be cut by 50 percent; 
401(k) plans which we are trying to encourage, are going to have to be 
cut back by a third in 8 years if this legislation does not pass. So it 
really is a matter of life or death for a lot of retirees. It is really 
a matter of whether we are going to get our economy on its feet and 
revive our struggling equity markets or not.
  So I urge that we focus on the issue at hand, that we pass this issue 
before us, and, Mr. Speaker, that we deal with these other issues that 
we need to be dealing with when that legislation comes to the floor.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui).
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that it is almost like Alice in 
Wonderland on the floor of the House, or perhaps it is like the 
Ringling Brothers Circus where we are in the well here, and the 
audience is all watching us and the animals and the elephants and 
donkeys and everyone else.
  What we are really talking about here, this is not going to have any 
impact on the stock market. This legislation does not even take effect 
until 2011, 2011. That is what is so ironic, and our substitute, which 
is the same thing, would handle everything that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, the previous speaker, was talking about. We take care of 
IRAs, we take care of 401(k)s, we do something on the 415. All that is 
in our bill. So vote for our bill, and we could take care of all kinds 
of things, but they did not want to do that. What is really ironic, it 
will not have any impact until 2011.
  On the other hand, when we talk about Enron Corporation and the fact 
that 100 Enron executives took $330 million just before they filed 
bankruptcy, when we talk about companies going offshore to Bermuda, 
setting up a post office box, still having all of their work in the 
United States, but saving hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, we 
want to close that loophole, they say we are being political. They say, 
well, we are being political.
  I have to say that I think we are trying to address the real problems 
of America. What I think is absolutely astonishing is that after the 
Enron crisis last December, 7 months ago, we have three problems: One 
is corporate governance, one is pensions, and one is accounting 
standards. We have not touched any of them in this body. We have not 
done anything to deal with the Enron Corporation. Instead, we want to 
pass a pension bill that will not take effect until 2011.
  I wonder what the American public thinks of us. No wonder the 
American public believes that Congress is somewhat irrelevant today.
  I have to say, Mr. Speaker, in closing, that unless we come to grips 
with the real problems facing America, the market is going to be 
sluggish. The economy is not going to revive itself because there is no 
transparency in corporate America today. We do not know in corporate 
America today whether or not companies are solvent or not solvent. That 
is why there is a lack of confidence, but this bill, 2011 does not even 
come close to addressing that issue.
  We just spent 3\1/2\ hours on this bill that will not take effect 
until half the Members of this institution are totally gone. This is 
unbelievable. It is Alice in Wonderland. Vote for the Neal substitute 
and vote against final massage to show the American public that we are 
not going to stand here and take this kind of nonsense.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Visitors in the gallery are 
reminded they are here as guests of the House and are not to show favor 
or disfavor.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this substitute and yes 
on the underlying bill. First of all, the substitute, as we said 
earlier, really has very little to do with what we are talking about 
here today, which is the retirement security. It deals with corporate 
governance, it deals with executive compensation, it deals with 
inversions. It deals with a lot of other issues, but it strays far 
afield from pension policy and does not relate to the underlying bill 
that we are trying to make permanent.
  Second, the House has already considered a number of bills in this 
regard. I do not know where the gentleman was a month ago when we 
passed the post-Enron reforms with regard to pensions. It was done on a 
bipartisan basis. I do not know where he was a month ago when we voted 
in this House on legislation regarding corporate governance. The Senate 
has not voted yet, that is correct, but the House has acted.
  Could we do more? Quite possibly. Maybe we should subject some of 
these issues to some hearings and some vetting from the public, try to 
hear from people who, as we did with the pension reforms on the 
underlying bill, we spent 5 years getting good testimony from all 
around the country.
  So we have considered legislation. The one that has worked its way in 
the substitute are very complex, very far-reaching. Although well-
intended, they may have inadvertent consequences that would be just the 
opposite impact of what we hoped, which is to keep

[[Page H3807]]

American companies here on our shores.
  Finally, with regard to the pension provisions, and I think there are 
three of them as I look at the substitute, two of them relate to 
reducing the burdens and liabilities that we have in the underlying 
bill. It takes us back to the bad old days where we were adding more 
burdens and liabilities. It actually decreases one of the compensation 
levels to below the amount it was during the 1980s when the Democrats 
put the limit up. We do not even increase it up to where it was in the 
1980s when the Democrats were in control of this House and the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  The other one discourages matching contributions. Why would my 
colleagues want to do that? We want people who are involved in pensions 
to have more contributions from the employer into their pension plan. 
People put money in their 401(k)s, that is great, but the real magic of 
them is to get that employer contribution so people can actually build 
up a nest egg for their retirement.
  Finally, I have heard today that we cannot vote for the underlying 
bill when we have to vote for the substitute because, as my colleague 
from Michigan said, we have a fiscal hole that is so deep that we 
cannot extend this underlying bill and make it permanent. Well, here 
are the facts. The underlying bill would result in the next 10 years, 
which is how we judge these things, with $6 billion in additional 
spending, $6 billion. The substitute would result in $20 billion in 
additional spending. The substitute is five times as expensive as the 
underlying bill.
  So as my colleagues on the other side who have come up time and time 
again and said my colleagues have got to support the substitute because 
we are in such a deep fiscal hole, if that is the reason they are 
concerned about it, vote no on the substitute; vote yes on the 
underlying bill.
  The underlying bill again just passed this House on many occasions by 
strong bipartisan margins, over 400 votes three times; five years of 
vetting on a totally bipartisan basis. It is not a Republican proposal. 
It is a bipartisan proposal.
  It increases the limits, lets everybody save more for their 
retirement. It lets people move from job to job and take their pension 
with them. It reduces those costs and burdens and liabilities, and lets 
small businesses get out there and offer these plans to workers who do 
not have them now, and those who are where the low-income workers are 
and the middle-income workers are, we are all trying to help.
  It is supported across the board by groups from the United States 
Chamber of Commerce to the Building and Trades Council of the AFL-CIO. 
They are all watching this vote today. Do my colleagues know why? 
Because they know this is incredibly important to the retirement 
security of the American people, and because they know the House has 
already had this vote. We have already voted to make these underlying 
retirement security provisions permanent. We have voted a number of 
times to do that. Every time it has been on a large bipartisan margin, 
over 400 votes. So anybody who votes no on the underlying bill today 
will be reversing himself or herself for a vote taken just last year 
and the year before.
  My colleagues, the substitute, while well intended, is not the issue 
before us today. It is retirement security. Let us vote yes on the 
underlying bill. Let us make it permanent for working Americans who 
need the help badly, and vote no on this substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our 
time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished 
minority leader here in the House.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge Members to vote yes on the 
Matsui amendment.
  In our country today, we face a crisis of confidence in corporate 
responsibility and accountability. Last year we witnessed the biggest 
bankruptcy in history that caused devastating financial losses for 
thousands of innocent employees. A few weeks ago I heard from some of 
these employees when I met them in Houston. In a meeting filled with 
emotion, employees of Enron explained that their pensions had 
disappeared, their health coverage was gone, their careers had been 
destroyed.
  This week, I read our Nation's papers and magazine headlines with 
regard to the crisis of confidence in corporate accountability, 
headlines that all of us should find deeply disturbing. One of them 
said, Restoring Trust in Corporate America. That was Business Week. 
Another said, Corporate America, We Have a Crisis, in Fortune.

                              {time}  1330

  Another was: ``Officials Got a Windfall Before Enron's Collapse.'' 
That was in The New York Times, which reported that about 100 
executives and energy traders received more than $300 million in cash 
payments from the company in the year before the company's collapse.
  Make no mistake about it, this is not the behavior of all the 
corporations. In fact, I am happy to say that a majority, a great 
majority of corporations are law-abiding, responsible people serving 
their employees, their shareholders, and consumers effectively. But the 
United States Congress has a responsibility to enact safeguards that 
will ferret out the bad actors and actresses and hold those bad actors 
and actresses accountable.
  It is time for our House of Representatives to begin finally taking 
the steps to restore people's faith in the integrity of our 
corporations, the bedrock of our capitalistic system. We must set sound 
standards for the accounting industry. We need to protect people's 
pensions.
  Unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle have failed 
to understand these needs. This year, despite all the scandal, despite 
all of the abuse, the Republican majority has blocked legislation that 
would have established these tough accounting industry standards, that 
would have imposed tough criminal penalties on corporate lawbreakers, 
that would have closed the unpatriotic Bermuda loophole to prevent 
corporations from going overseas to avoid paying taxes.
  Their continued opposition to sensible reforms, their continued 
allegiance to corporate special interests that have gone wrong strongly 
suggests that this majority is guilty of enabling corporate excesses 
that have done so much harm.
  Today, we, together, have an opportunity to follow the lead in 
restoring faith and trust in free markets. Today, our alternative to 
the Republican repeal of the sunset on pension provisions that passed 
last year seeks to make permanent almost all of the pension and IRA tax 
cuts. But unlike the Republican bill, our alternative seeks to close 
the loopholes that executives have used to give themselves sweetheart 
deals on their own pensions at employee expense.
  Our alternative prevents firms from deducting more than $1 million in 
executive compensation if it is obtained through manipulations of 
company pension funds. It enforces CEOs of companies that reincorporate 
overseas to avoid paying taxes to pay capital gains on their stock 
options, as other investors from Main Street are required to do.
  Earlier this year, Democrats sought to pass provisions attacking 
these problems. Republicans voted all of these measures down. So today 
we have another chance, a good chance, to do the right thing for 
capitalism, for well-run corporations, for Main Street Economic 
America. We have a responsibility to help restore confidence in our 
system and in our economy.
  So let us give investors, employees, and consumers the protections 
they deserve. Let us pass together the Democratic alternative, and let 
us meet our responsibility today and for the future of this great 
country.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of 
my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished 
majority leader and a long-time advocate of enhancing retirement 
savings for workers.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman) for yielding me this time; and, Mr. Speaker, as I 
have

[[Page H3808]]

done so many times, let me pay my respects to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman) and to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for their 
creative, responsible, responsive, thoughtful, and compassionate 
understanding of the needs and desires and hopes and prayers and dreams 
of America's saving working men and women. This is, as it has been for 
all this time, such good legislation, so deserving of our respect, our 
admiration and our support.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman 
from Maryland for their persistence. There is nothing more reassuring 
than seeing two good people get one good idea and be willing to stick 
with it no matter how many times people try to change the subject.
  And if I might thirdly thank the two of them for their patience. How 
much they must have looked forward to coming to the floor of the House 
of Representatives today to talk about their legislation; how much 
patience it must have required of them to sit here today and listen to 
so much impassioned discussion about something else. My compliments to 
the both of them.
  Mr. Speaker, I often caution myself not to listen to floor debate 
because there is a tendency when one does to want to have to answer 
everything one hears. It is a far better thing to be consoled by that 
wonderful expression, ``The world will little note nor long remember 
what is said in this body.'' But this floor debate today has been 
particularly entertaining, in that we have tried again, bless our 
little old hearts, to squeeze that last little drop of political blood 
out of Enron. We have surely squeezed on Enron.
  Now, there is a lot of harping and whining and moaning that this bill 
does not address that. This bill was not written for that purpose. 
This, by the way, is not a political instrument. It is a legislative 
instrument and, therefore, quite rightly, we should have ignored most 
of what we have heard about the evils of Enron today.
  And I guess I would not be particularly annoyed by all this Enron 
political discourse if indeed this Congress had not responsibly 
addressed the issues that were raised by Enron. We have, from this very 
committee, legislation that has passed this House that addresses the 
question of retirement security as it might have been affected in the 
Enron case. We had from the Committee on Financial Services legislation 
that addressed the whole question of management that might have been 
raised in the Enron debacle.
  So it is not as if we have not addressed it and, in fact, acted upon 
it. It is just that we have not squeezed that last little mean-
spirited, nasty little drop of political diatribe from the subject. 
Well, we should have gotten it today. I would think the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett) would have gotten a last squirmy little drop of 
political malarkey out of the subject of Enron. But I console myself in 
the belief that somebody other than myself will hear more sometime in 
the future as I turn my deaf ear to any further discourse on the 
subject.
  Now, the other thing that amused me today was this desire to validate 
all the world's rumors about the Bermuda Triangle. Yes, it is true, 
weird and strange things are going on in the Bermuda Triangle. This 
bill was not designed to deal with that, to talk about that. We are 
looking for opportunities for real people who work really hard, have 
real hopes and dreams about their own real retirement, to have their 
real savings enhanced and preserved for a longer period of time.
  The fact of the matter that we have some American firms that, quite 
rightly, legally take whatever opportunity they can to maintain their 
ability to stay in business and keep their people employed in the face 
of a double taxation of their overseas taxes might be distressing to a 
lot of us, and we should have legislation that would be directed to 
that, and we will have legislation that removes the irrational tax that 
prompts this rational behavior that gives rise to so much irrational 
discourse. But that is political diatribe. We should not have been 
bothered with it today. But we will continue to squeeze the last little 
dirty drop of political noise out of poor little old Bermuda.
  That is not the fault of this bill. This bill was directed at 
America's savers to enhance, encourage, support, reward America's 
savers for doing the right thing for themselves and their family, their 
future, the right thing for themselves that turns out to be a good 
thing for economic growth in America; and it is, as it has always been, 
a decent, thoughtful, honorable legislative effort by two decent, 
thoughtful, honorable Members of this body. It is just too bad that the 
debate did not live up to what should have been the decent, thoughtful 
expectations of these two gentlemen.
  Let us vote down this thoughtless substitute and vote for the bill, 
and let us really show ourselves in the final analysis when we match 
our actions to the legislation options before us on the side of the 
American people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
451, the previous question is ordered on the bill and on the amendment 
in the nature of a substitute by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Neal).
  The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 182, 
nays 204, not voting 48, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 246]

                               YEAS--182

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--204

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood

[[Page H3809]]


     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--48

     Ackerman
     Baker
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (FL)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Carson (IN)
     Cox
     Coyne
     Dingell
     Everett
     Ganske
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Keller
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Miller, Dan
     Murtha
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Pence
     Quinn
     Reyes
     Riley
     Roukema
     Ryun (KS)
     Smith (WA)
     Traficant
     Waters
     Weiner

                              {time}  1402

  Messrs. REGULA, TAYLOR of Mississippi and BARR of Georgia changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. JOHN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


        Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Neal of Massachusetts

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I am opposed to this bill in its present 
form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Neal of Massachusetts moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     4931 to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       At the end of the bill insert the following new section:

     SEC. 3. PREVENTION OF AVOIDANCE OF QUALIFIED PLAN RULES 
                   THROUGH CORPORATE EXPATRIATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress hereby finds the following:
       (1) Federal tax law provides that a deduction is allowed 
     for pension and other deferred compensation benefits only in 
     the context of contributions to a qualified plan.
       (2) Federal tax law provides that assets set aside to fund 
     pension and other deferred compensation can accumulate on a 
     tax-free basis only in the context of a qualified plan.
       (3) The qualified plan rules are structured to ensure that 
     rank and file employees receive substantial retirement 
     benefits as a condition for providing retirement benefits to 
     highly compensated employees.
       (4) Corporations reincorporating overseas (and their 
     subsidiaries) can in effect receive both of the benefits 
     described in paragraphs (1) and (2) outside the context of a 
     qualified plan.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of the amendment made by this 
     section is to protect the retirement benefits of rank and 
     file employees by preventing the avoidance of the qualified 
     plan rules through corporate expatriation.
       (c) Prevention of Corporate Expatriation.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (4) of section 7701(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining domestic) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(4) Domestic.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term `domestic' when applied to a corporation or 
     partnership means created or organized in the United States 
     or under the law of the United States or of any State unless, 
     in the case of a partnership, the Secretary provides 
     otherwise by regulations.
       ``(B) Certain corporations treated as domestic.--For 
     purposes of chapter 1--
       ``(i) In general.--The acquiring corporation in a corporate 
     expatriation transaction shall be treated as a domestic 
     corporation.
       ``(ii) Corporate expatriation transaction.--For purposes of 
     this subparagraph, the term `corporate expatriation 
     transaction' means any transaction if--

       ``(I) a nominally foreign corporation (referred to in this 
     subparagraph as the `acquiring corporation') acquires, as a 
     result of such transaction, directly or indirectly 
     substantially all of the properties held directly or 
     indirectly by a domestic corporation, and
       ``(II) immediately after the transaction, more than 80 
     percent of the stock (by vote or value) of the acquiring 
     corporation is held by former shareholders of the domestic 
     corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic 
     corporation.

       ``(iii) Lower stock ownership requirement in certain 
     cases.--Subclause (II) of clause (ii) shall be applied by 
     substituting `50 percent' for `80 percent' with respect to 
     any nominally foreign corporation if--

       ``(I) such corporation does not have substantial business 
     activities (when compared to the total business activities of 
     the expanded affiliated group) in the foreign country in 
     which or under the law of which the corporation is created or 
     organized, and
       ``(II) the stock of the corporation is publicly traded and 
     the principal market for the public trading of such stock is 
     in the United States.

       ``(iv) Partnership transactions.--The term `corporate 
     expatriation transaction' includes any transaction if--

       ``(I) a nominally foreign corporation (referred to in this 
     subparagraph as the `acquiring corporation') acquires, as a 
     result of such transaction, directly or indirectly properties 
     constituting a trade or business of a domestic partnership,
       ``(II) immediately after the transaction, more than 80 
     percent of the stock (by vote or value) of the acquiring 
     corporation is held by former partners of the domestic 
     partnership or related foreign partnerships (determined 
     without regard to stock of the acquiring corporation which is 
     sold in a public offering related to the transaction), and
       ``(III) the acquiring corporation meets the requirements of 
     subclauses (I) and (II) of clause (iii).

       ``(v) Special rules.--For purposes of this subparagraph--

       ``(I) a series of related transactions shall be treated as 
     1 transaction, and
       ``(II) stock held by members of the expanded affiliated 
     group which includes the acquiring corporation shall not be 
     taken into account in determining ownership.

       ``(vi) Other definitions.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph--

       ``(I) Nominally foreign corporation.--The term `nominally 
     foreign corporation' means any corporation which would (but 
     for this subparagraph) be treated as a foreign corporation.
       ``(II) Expanded affiliated group.--The term `expanded 
     affiliated group' means an affiliated group (as defined in 
     section 1504(a) without regard to section 1504(b)).

       ``(vii) Related foreign partnership.--A foreign partnership 
     is related to a domestic partnership if--

       ``(I) they are under common control (within the meaning of 
     section 482), or
       ``(II) they shared the same trademark or tradename.

       ``(C) Application with chapter 1.--Subparagraph (B) shall 
     apply only for so much of chapter 1 as is necessary or 
     appropriate--
       ``(i) to maintain tax incentives for qualified plans that 
     are of a type whose tax treatment was modified by the 
     provisions of title VI of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001, as made permanent by section 2 of 
     the Retirement Savings Security Act of 2002, and
       ``(ii) to prevent tax benefits for pension or other 
     deferred compensation benefits without complying with the 
     qualified plan rules.''
       (2) Effective dates.--
       (A) In general.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply to corporate expatriation transactions completed 
     after September 11, 2001.
       (B) Special rule.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall also apply to corporate expatriation transactions 
     completed on or before September 11, 2001, but only with 
     respect to taxable years of the acquiring corporation 
     beginning after December 31, 2003.

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ 
minutes.

[[Page H3810]]

  Mr. Speaker, this proposal states that the retirement savings of all 
workers, including those who have had the misfortune of being employed 
by a corporate expatriate, that those savings should be protected and 
preserved. This motion would build in important protections for workers 
of companies who have decided to flee the country in order to avoid 
U.S. income taxes, many who snuck out in the dark of night even as the 
Nation pulled together after September 11.
  My friends on the other side are going to say, ``We're holding 
hearings,'' and I appreciate that. ``We're discussing legislation.'' 
Then they are going to say, ``Well, maybe we should stop the 
expatriates temporarily.'' Then they are going to say, ``Well, maybe we 
should enact a flat tax or a sales tax'' or however else we reform the 
Code and pay for the war on terrorism.
  The problem with that, Mr. Speaker, is that is what we were going to 
do 8 years ago. Once down in Bermuda, a country which has no developed 
or tested corporate common law, executives have the flexibility to no 
longer care about these irritating qualified plan requirements. For 
U.S. companies, these requirements and pension protections are the only 
way that the rank and file gain access to tax-deferred retirement 
accounts. Without these pension requirements, or sticks, it will be 
carrots aplenty in Bermuda for the CEOs.
  I urge the Members of the House to vote against this corporate 
excess. I just want to say this, if I can, for one second, Mr. Speaker. 
I read in the paper yesterday where somebody in this body said that 
this was nothing more than deciding to move, I believe, to North 
Carolina or to Florida. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anybody in 
this Chamber who believes that Bermuda is part of the United States of 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Maloney).
  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts' motion.
  Simply, this motion is consistent with the Neal/Maloney legislation 
which is pending in this House to stop corporate expatriates such as 
the one being attempted by Stanley Works of Connecticut. The specific 
purpose of this motion is to protect the retirement benefits of rank-
and-file employees by preventing the avoidance of the qualified plan 
rules through such corporate expatriations.
  We have learned that employees of 401(k) plans will be treated 
differently from executive plans in the circumstances of these 
corporate expatriates. The executives will be protected. The rank-and-
file employees under the 401(k) plans will not be protected. This is 
just a further example of the outrage that is being perpetrated on the 
American taxpayer and on the American Government by these corporate 
expatriates. We have an opportunity today to say that that should not 
continue. We have an opportunity to say today that that should stop. I 
urge the House to take that opportunity.
  Let me be clear as to what is involved here. The New York Times 
reported on the scope of this outrage, saying that even if the shares 
of the company rose 11.5 percent, the shareholders, the small ones in 
particular, would barely break even after taxes. Of course that does 
not apply to the executives. The CEO at Stanley Works stands to pocket 
an amount equal to 58 percent of every dollar the company would save in 
corporate taxes in the first year. That is $17.4 million out of an 
estimated $30 million in savings. And that CEO, in addition, if he 
exercised his options, would gain an additional $385 million. So while 
we have the executives of these corporations literally taking money out 
of the United States Treasury and putting it in their pocket, the rank-
and-file workers are going to be paying capital gains tax and greatly 
diminishing the value of their 401(k) plans and their opportunity to 
retire.
  Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. This needs to be stopped, and it 
needs to be stopped today. I urge support for the gentleman from 
Massachusetts' motion.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple addition to the underlying 
bill to protect workers. I would urge my colleagues to support the 
motion and to support final passage.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I think a concern that we 
have tried repeatedly to express, and I in particular have tried to 
express, is that this issue demands action in this institution. I would 
suggest today, based upon the headlines that we have all seen for weeks 
and weeks and weeks now across the country, we are headed toward a 
gilded age. There is an opportunity for this Chamber to act 
responsibly, to shut down this outrageous loophole that we should be 
acting on immediately.
  We have tried very hard, and I want to say to the Members of this 
body, I guarantee you this is the first of many votes until we succeed 
in shutting down the ability of these companies to move to Bermuda in a 
time, as the President has said, of war.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts has been 
literally jumping up and down through this entire debate saying, ``Wait 
until the motion to recommit. Wait until the motion to recommit. We are 
going to make you vote on Bermuda.'' If you do not know what that 
means, we are talking about corporate inversions. In a couple of weeks 
you are going to get a real solution from the Committee on Ways and 
Means taking the tax structure change away from these corporations.
  But what you have in front of you on the motion to recommit is a 
political dirty bomb. It is an attempt to raise this issue in a way 
that operates like this.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker I demand that the gentleman's words be 
taken down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the words.

                              {time}  1419


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on reflection, I would like to withdraw 
my request. And the inquiry is, can I withdraw my request with an 
observation as to why I would like to withdraw it?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may withdraw his request.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request in the hopes that 
we can take a little consideration when we are discussing with each 
other our judgment, not just as to political philosophy, but as to the 
motivations and reasons that we consider the implications of what we 
say when we draw rather, to my mind, offensive analogies as to the 
consequences of what another Member's actions might be.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman withdraws his demand to have 
the words taken down.
  The Chair agrees with the gentleman that civility is always desired. 
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, now let me explain why, based upon their 
desire to offer this motion as a motion to recommit, they hope it is a 
political dirty bomb. The reason is they want this to be a vote on 
inversions. They want it to be a vote on Bermuda.
  What in the world do corporate inversions have to do with the 
underlying pension bill? When you listen to their arguments, never once 
did they say union pension funds. Never once did they say union pension 
funds. Why? Because this has nothing to do with that.
  Let me explain something: if a foreign company owns a U.S. 
subsidiary, the U.S. subsidiary has to follow U.S. laws. They are 
talking about corporate inversions. What are those? U.S. companies that 
want to have a package of foreign ownership. If you are a U.S. company, 
you have got to follow U.S. pension laws.
  So do you know what this motion to recommit really says? It says you 
have to follow U.S. pension law. If you are a foreign corporation with 
a U.S. subsidiary, you have to follow it. If you are a U.S. corporation 
and you want to make yourself a foreign corporation with a U.S. 
subsidiary, you have to follow it.

[[Page H3811]]

  This motion to recommit does nothing. Why in the world is it in front 
of us? Because on page 6 there is one little tax hook, and that is all 
this is about. As a matter of fact, I apologize; this is not a 
political dirty bomb, it is political hot air.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit and a ``yes'' vote 
on the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9, rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 192, not voting 57, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 247]

                               AYES--186

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--192

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--57

     Ackerman
     Baca
     Baker
     Barcia
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (FL)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Cannon
     Carson (IN)
     Coyne
     Dingell
     Everett
     Ganske
     Gillmor
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Jenkins
     Keller
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Pence
     Platts
     Quinn
     Reyes
     Riley
     Roukema
     Smith (WA)
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Walsh
     Weiner
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1438

  Mr. TERRY and Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 247, I was unavoidably 
detained and could not reach the chambers to cast my vote. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent on Friday, June 21, 
2002, and consequently missed a recorded vote on H.R. 4931. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 247.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 308, 
noes 70, not voting 57, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 248]

                               AYES--308

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe

[[Page H3812]]


     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--70

     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Berry
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Clay
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Gephardt
     Green (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Taylor (MS)
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Waxman
     Wexler

                             NOT VOTING--57

     Ackerman
     Baca
     Baker
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (FL)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Carson (IN)
     Coyne
     Cunningham
     Dingell
     Everett
     Ganske
     Gillmor
     Gutierrez
     Hansen
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Jenkins
     Keller
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Murtha
     Northup
     Norwood
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pence
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Reyes
     Riley
     Roukema
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Walsh
     Weiner
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1446

  Mr. DeFAZIO and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________