[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 25, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6660-H6669]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1545
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 540, EXPRESSING SENSE OF HOUSE 
THAT CONGRESS SHOULD COMPLETE ACTION ON H.R. 3762, PENSION SECURITY ACT 
   OF 2002; H. RES. 544, EXPRESSING SENSE OF HOUSE ON PERMANENCY OF 
 PENSION REFORM PROVISIONS; AND H. RES. 543, EXPRESSING SENSE OF HOUSE 
THAT CONGRESS SHOULD COMPLETE ACTION ON H.R. 4019, MAKING MARRIAGE TAX 
                            RELIEF PERMANENT

  Mr. SESSIONS. By direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House 
Resolution 547 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 547

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H. 
     Res. 540) expressing the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that Congress should complete action on H.R. 
     3762, the Pension Security Act of 2002. The resolution shall 
     be considered as read for amendment. The resolution shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided among and controlled 
     by the chairmen and ranking minority members of the 
     Committees on Education and the Workforce and Ways and Means. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution to final adoption without intervening motion.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 544) 
     expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on 
     permanency of pension reform provisions. The resolution shall 
     be considered as read for amendment. The resolution shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the resolution to final adoption without 
     intervening motion.
       Sec. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 543) 
     expressing the sense of the House that Congress should 
     complete action on H.R. 4019, making marriage tax relief 
     permanent. The resolution shall be considered as read for 
     amendment. The resolution shall be debatable for one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution to final adoption without intervening motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). The gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a closed rule that allows 
for consideration of three important resolutions. The rule provides for 
1 hour of debate, equally divided among and controlled by the 
respective chairmen and ranking members of the committees of 
jurisdiction.
  Mr. Speaker, the trio of resolutions before us today represents some 
of the most pressing needs for average Americans across the Nation. In 
politics, we often try to put a personal face to a problem that is 
being debated or addressed. Mr. Speaker, the face of our story today is 
just the average American, the average American who is a family member, 
a friend, a neighbor. It is a person who has worked hard and tried to 
invest wisely so that he or she can enjoy a retirement of independence.
  The first of these resolutions, House Resolution 540, expresses the 
sense of the House that Congress should complete action on and present 
to the President before adjournment the Pension Security Act of 2002.
  Although the House passed this measure more than 150 days ago by a 
strong bipartisan vote, the Senate has not taken up comprehensive 
pension protection that includes safeguards and options to help 
American workers preserve and enhance their retirement security.
  Over the last year, we have witnessed the unraveling and breakdown of 
major corporations such as Enron. While Enron workers were likely 
victims of criminal wrongdoing, there is no question that they were 
most definitely the victims of outdated Federal pension laws.
  The tragedy of Enron was two-fold. In addition to decimating the 
savings of employees, it has also undermined the confidence of American 
workers in this country's pension system.
  The Pension Security Act includes new options and resources for 
workers, as well as greater accountability from companies and senior-
level executives. Employees would be given new freedoms to sell and 
diversify company stock. The bill also creates parity between senior 
corporate executives and rank-and-file workers. This will help to 
prevent a repeat occurrence of the egregious disparity that allowed 
Enron executives to sell their investments and preserve their savings 
while rank-and-file workers were barred from making changes.
  The bill also includes provisions that would ensure that employees 
receive accurate and timely information, along with sound advice and 
resources to make informed investment decisions. Mr. Speaker, let me be 
very clear about this: each day that we delay in enacting the Pension 
Security Act is another day that we leave worker retirement savings 
vulnerable to corporate meltdowns.
  The second resolution we will consider is House Resolution 544, which 
expresses the sense of the House that Congress should complete work on 
the Retirement Savings Security Act of 2002. The tax relief package 
that was enacted last year included provisions that increased 
contribution limits for IRA and 401(k)-type plans to make it easier for 
companies, and particularly small businesses, to offer a retirement 
savings plan.
  Currently, half of the Nation's workforce, roughly 70 million 
Americans, do not have a 401(k) plan or any other kind of pension. At 
the same time, much of the workforce is quickly approaching retirement. 
The provision enacted last year addressing this growing concern by 
allowing all workers to set aside more in their own retirement and IRA 
plans was important. I am proud of what this House did. Special 
considerations were also given to workers over 50 years old who were 
allowed to so-called ``catch up'' or accelerate contributions so that 
they can build up their retirement nest egg more quickly.
  One group that will be particularly helped by this is women, women 
who come to work many times after raising their children, many times 
later in life.
  This tax relief package also included provisions that modernize 
pension laws. Workers are now able to enjoy the benefits that come from 
having a portable defined contribution plan and are also allowed to 
vest in their plans more quickly.
  So one might ask: What is the problem? The problem, Mr. Speaker, is 
that all of these very good benefits enjoyed by the American worker are 
set to expire on December 31, 2010, because of an arcane Senate rule. 
Consequently, Americans will have a difficult time planning for the 
future.
  In order to prevent a massive overnight tax increase, this past June 
the

[[Page H6661]]

House passed a bill that would make these provisions permanent on a 
strongly bipartisan vote of 308 to 70. The American worker is calling 
for these reforms to be made permanent, and the President is ready and 
willing to sign these significant retirement security provisions. We 
just need to go through the legislative process that involves both 
parties here in the Capitol. This measure, too, has also not been taken 
up by the other body.
  The last resolution addresses similarly important tax relief that is 
put in jeopardy by the aforementioned Senate rule. House Resolution 543 
is a measure expressing the sense of the House that Congress should 
complete action on H.R. 4019, making marriage tax relief permanent.
  Because of the Senate rule, the provisions that give relief to 
married couples from an additional tax burden are set to expire at the 
end of the year 2010. The Senate has not acted on making marriage tax 
relief permanent. Without enacting a law making marriage tax relief 
permanent at the start of the year 2011, the nearly 36 million couples 
in the Nation would be subject once again to this fundamentally unfair 
tax solely because they are married. If this provision is not made 
permanent, married couples across America will once again be subject to 
this unfair tax that is an affront to the most basic institution of 
marriage.
  The Committee on Ways and Means report also notes that ``failure to 
make permanent marriage penalty tax relief would result in a $17 
billion tax increase for low- and middle-income married taxpayers in 
the year 2011, followed by a $25 billion tax increase in the year 
2012.''
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to debate on these three resolutions, 
which give the House the opportunity to once again reaffirm its 
commitment to the American workers and their families.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair most recently ruled on 
September 19, 2002, Members are reminded to confine their remarks to 
factual references to the other body and avoid characterizations of 
Senate rules, Senate action or inaction, remarks urging Senate action 
or inaction, or references to particular Senators.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, this rule and the three meaningless sense of 
the House resolutions it will bring to the floor represent a complete 
abdication of leadership by House Republicans.
  On the front page of today's New York Times, the Census Bureau 
reports that the number of people living in poverty has increased, the 
median household income has decreased, and Americans are suffering 
under the weakest economy in 50 years. But congressional Republicans 
are fiddling about, cynically playing politics in order to run out the 
clock before the November elections.
  The majority leadership should be ashamed of itself, Mr. Speaker. 
Republicans refuse to do the most basic job that they were elected to 
do: fund the Federal Government. House Republicans have passed only 
five of the 13 appropriation bills, and the fiscal year ends in less 
than 1 week.
  Later today, or perhaps tomorrow, or perhaps some day next week, we 
will pass the first of several continuing resolutions to keep the 
government operating. But instead of working overtime to do their most 
fundamental job, Republican leaders are worried about their own 
political power, so they are wasting time on the meaningless bipartisan 
propaganda that these resolutions represent.
  Never have I seen such timidity, timidity from the Republican 
leadership. Meanwhile, long-term unemployment is at an 8 percent high, 
and 2 million Americans have lost their jobs. Consumer confidence is at 
its lowest level since November of 2001, and prescription drug prices 
are still sky high, leaving senior citizens unable to afford vital 
prescription medicine.
  Mr. Speaker, corporate scandals, the massive criminality at Enron, 
WorldCom, and the like have rocked the economy and devastated 
retirement plans of millions of Americans; but House Republicans 
overwhelmingly voted against real pension protection legislation a few 
months ago, blocking Democratic efforts to protect Americans' 
retirement plans.
  Just yesterday, the Dow hit a 4-year low. The NASDAQ is at a 6-year 
low. Overall, the stock market has lost $4.5 trillion in value since 
Republicans took control in Washington a year ago January.
  How have Republicans responded, Mr. Speaker? Last week they wasted 
the taxpayers' time and money on two utterly meaningless resolutions. 
This week they are doing it again, issuing a rule that brings three 
more utterly meaningless resolutions to the House floor, since we have 
already passed these bills that are the subject of these resolutions.
  Mr. Speaker, in case anyone has any doubt as to the substantive 
significance of the resolutions on the floor today, let me tell the 
Members how we got here. Originally, Republicans had one meaningless 
resolution on the schedule for today. Apparently, however, that would 
not waste enough time, so in the middle of the Committee on Rules 
meeting yesterday evening, Republicans happened to mention that they 
were going to add two more meaningless resolutions. Then they told us 
that they had to adjourn the committee until the new resolutions had 
been written.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a shameful failure to lead. It demonstrates an 
embarrassing intellectual bankruptcy on the part of the Republican 
Party. They have given up on addressing the real priorities of the 
American people and turned the House floor into a propaganda arm of the 
Republican National Committee.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I pose a simple question to my Republican 
colleagues: Are they afraid to do the job their constituents elected 
them to do? If not, I urge them to join Democrats in opposing the 
previous question.
  If we defeat the previous question, we will amend the rule to bring 
to the floor real corporate accountability legislation offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Social Security. The Matsui measure would ensure that 
big corporations treat their employees the same way they treat their 
favorite executives: if the CEO gets a guaranteed pension, then so 
should the front line employees; if the company restricts employees who 
want to change their 401(k) plans, then it should restrict CEOs who 
want to cash in their stock options.
  The Matsui bill embodies the values that President Bush set forth 
months ago. If it is good enough for the captain, it is good enough for 
the crew.
  I urge my Republican friends to join us in defeating the previous 
question so this House can finally address the corporate scams that 
have hurt so many employees and investors.
  By the way, it might be nice if the Republicans would also bring the 
eight appropriation bills that are still languishing in committee to 
the floor. They have utterly failed to do the job that they were sent 
here to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), a member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last year thousands of Americans employed by 
Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia and others have watched helplessly as their 
companies collapsed and their retirement savings evaporated. In 
response, President Bush called on Congress to act in a bipartisan 
fashion to restore confidence in our Nation's pension and retirement 
security system, and I am not ashamed to say more than 150 days ago the 
House did its part by passing a comprehensive pension protection bill 
that protects workers from losing their retirement savings in Enron-
style corporate meltdowns.
  The House passed the Pension Security Act to protect workers' 
retirements by stopping harmful inside trader moves. It gives workers 
new freedoms to diversify their retirement savings in 3 years and 
allows workers to

[[Page H6662]]

receive sound investment advice about their retirement plans. American 
workers deserve no less than this from Congress. And also we need to 
support a 401(k) continuation and permanent renewal of the marriage 
penalty. The Senate has not passed any protection bill; and by 
supporting this bill rule, you are standing up for American workers.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui).
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the State of 
Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member on the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are really doing here today is passing three 
resolutions that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said were 
absolutely meaningless, and I would have to say that they are probably 
less than absolutely meaningless.
  The first resolution deals with a bill that was passed some months 
ago basically asking that the Senate act on it. Now, the way I would do 
this is you just go walk over to the Senate side, which takes about 5 
minutes, and just suggest that perhaps they bring the bill up, and if 
they will not bring the bill up ask them why and then you will find out 
why because the bill that passed the House is somewhat meaningless.
  The same thing on the second resolution. You want to make something 
permanent that will not take effect until 8 years from now. And so why 
talk about asking the Senate to take this bill up now when we are 
talking about something 8 years from now? We do not even know how this 
bill will work.
  The last one is on the marriage penalty, again doing something that 
will take 8 years from now. What is odd is that we should really be 
addressing the shortfall on Social Security, but because the 
Republicans want to privatize Social Security, they want to wait until 
after the elections because they know they are getting really torpedoed 
on this. They do not want to talk about Social Security. They have a 
prescription drug proposal that will privatize Medicare and, obviously, 
that cannot pass the other body because it is so extreme that that is 
not going to happen.
  You can go on and on and on. One of reasons the appropriations bills 
are not being brought up is even though the President had a wonderful 
Rose Garden ceremony, signing ceremony, on the education bill, Leave No 
Children Behind, he falls $7 billion short in actually funding that 
bill, which would make it impossible to implement it and create chaos 
in every school district in America.
  So we know what is happening. We know why we are spending hours of 
time on this floor of this body talking about resolutions. The easiest 
thing in the world, as I said, is just go on the other side. Talk to 
these people on the other side. Do not send resolutions and waste their 
time.
  What is really offensive is let us take the first piece of 
legislation that we are talking about, the first resolution. I will 
tell you how meaningless it is. They have basically two parts of this 
bill: The Boehner-Thomas bill which is supposed to really address the 
Enron pension problems. The first one basically says that no employee 
can actually sell company stock for 3 to 5 years from the date of 
receipt. Now, that does not mean anything from the top level management 
employees; the executives like Ken Lay could still sell any time they 
want. They get a stock option. So this does not really help the 
employees of these companies.

  The second part of it is even more silly when you think about it. The 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) talked about investment advice. The 
only trouble is the investment advice will come from the same people 
that are administering the program. So you take Enron, it would have 
been the Enron pension managers that would have been giving investment 
advice to the Enron employees. Now, what do you think they are going to 
say? Do not buy Enron stock? Of course not. It is silly.
  But you say, we do have a provision that you have to disclose a 
conflict of interest. Sure, that is a lot of help. That is what this 
bill does. It is somewhat meaningless. That is why the other body has a 
rough time wanting to take this up.
  The bill I would like to offer and the bill we really should be 
debating, you can vote against it, but let us bring it to the floor so 
that the American public will know our values, what we stand for, 
exactly who does want to solve those problems. What our bill will do is 
basically, let us take, for example, the whole issue of 
diversification, the first issue about Enron employees having in their 
401(k) plans Enron stock. Essentially what we would provide is that the 
executive employees like Ken Lay and Skilling and those folks would not 
be able to sell their stocks if in fact there are impediments to the 
employees having to sell their stocks. And if they do sell their stocks 
and breach the general company-wide prohibition in terms of time 
limits, they would just have to pay a capital gains tax that is larger 
than the capital gains tax they will pay now. They will have to pay a 
50 percent capital gains tax. That should be a disincentive then for 
them to sell these stocks or at least perhaps open it up so their 
employees can sell their stocks.
  Secondly, we all know what has been going on, and finally I think the 
Jack Welch situation became public knowledge about a month ago. A lot 
of retired top executives and CEOs get millions and millions of dollars 
of perks. Not only do they get wonderful pension programs, but they 
also get tickets free to sporting games on the front row. They get 
apartment complexes. They get their cleaning paid for. They get a 
corporate jet that is waiting for them. Millions of dollars worth of 
funds.
  We know that they get these big benefits and we are not going to stop 
that. They are going to get them. But what we want is transparency. One 
of the reasons the market is falling apart, it was 11,700 when the 
President took office, and now it is down to 7,700. It lost 4,000 
points in the last 2 years since President Bush has been President, 
about a 40 percent reduction in pension benefits.
  The reason why there is no confidence in the stock market today is 
because there is no transparency, because the shareholders do not know 
what is actually being expensed. The shareholders of GE did not know 
that Jack Welch was actually spending millions and millions of dollars 
of monies that could have gone in the form of stock dividends. All we 
would do is just provide that when you give these benefits and perks to 
these top management people, that you notify the shareholders in 
writing. And then you allow the shareholders to vote as to whether or 
not they agree with it; and if they do not, these perks are not 
available. Very simple.
  Why would anybody be opposed to that? You want transparency, you want 
fairness, and you want the shareholders to have their benefits. We 
cannot bring this bill on the floor because you, Republican leadership, 
will not allow us to. The American public needs to know that. Why 
should we not be allowed to do that?
  Lastly, the whole issue of deferred compensation. Ken Lay did really 
well. After bankruptcy was filed, he was able to take millions of 
dollars in deferred compensation. You know why he was able to do it? 
Because he put it in a third party trust that was nontaxable to him; 
nontaxable trust monies of Enron money went into a third party trust. 
And when they filed bankruptcy, every employee of Enron corporation 
lost their 401(k)s and went from $100,000 to zero or whatever they had 
went down to zero. It was suffering, what these people went through. 
Ken Lay walked off with it. You know why? Because we have a provision 
in the Tax Code that needs to be changed because it allows a deferral 
of taxes, and at the same time with the third party trust he was able 
to take literally millions of dollars from his account.
  We need a no vote on the motion on the previous question so we are 
able to bring up our legislation that will deal with these major points 
so the American public and the shareholders will understand exactly 
what is going on in corporate America.


                Announcement By The speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). Members are 
reminded to avoid improper references to the Senate.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we were furthering this debate that we have had

[[Page H6663]]

for quite some time. I completely understand where the Democrats are 
coming from. They completely understand where we are coming from. We 
would like an agenda that is going to help taxpayers. We want an agenda 
that will help investors. We want an agenda that will help this country 
to come back from the problems that it has had. But the bottom line is 
the consensus that these bills have represented, including just one of 
these bills, got 308 votes. It is a consensus about doing something 
that will work.
  I understand how difficult it is to beat up the status quo, just beat 
it up. But the answers that the other side has, just like when they 
present their budget, it does not even come close to passing. The 
measures that they have time after time do not come close. But the 
provisions that we have put on the floor have virtually bipartisan 
agreement with over 308 people who vote for it.
  These are the ideas that we bring back to the floor today. The ones 
that have received over 300 votes of this body, the votes that make a 
difference, the ideas that make sense. It is easy beating up these 
ideas. I understand that. I also understand a lot of the frustration 
that they have got. But now is the time for us to make sure that we are 
pushing these. These three provisions are important. Yes, it is true. 
Two of them simply make permanent the things at the end of 10 years 
that we passed in the past few years. But I believe they are very 
important and I believe they represent more than a consensus of this 
body. And that is why it makes sense that what we passed previously, 
that we will debate again.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for yielding me time; and I am pleased to talk about today 
the substance of some of the legislation before us.
  The rule permits us to take up three bills. My understanding is today 
we will address two of them. They have just been mischaracterized in my 
view by my colleague from the other side of the aisle, and I just want 
to relate what they actually contain.
  The first is H.R. 3762. This is the pension security bill. It passed 
the House with a vote of 255 to 163 with 46 Democrats supporting it. It 
does have a controversial amendment with regard to independent 
investment advice, but to say that it does nothing, which my colleague 
and friend from California (Mr. Matsui) said earlier, is not accurate. 
Let me tell you just what it does.
  It says to people who are currently in company plans who have 
401(k)s, who get a match of stock from their employer, that they do not 
have to be in that stock for an unlimited period of time. Under current 
law if an employer wants to they can give a match under a 401(k) 
program and say, you can have that stock but you have got to keep it, 
and you can never get rid of it, because there is no current rule which 
says that employees, the workers, have the right to unload that stock. 
That is a bad situation.
  What happened at Enron is they told people they had to be 50 years of 
age plus they have to have 10 years of service. So people literally got 
hold of that Enron stock and they did not have the ability to get it 
out of their retirement plan. That is current law. Enron could have 
said 65 instead of 50. They could have said 20 years of service. They 
chose 50 and 10.
  So what this House did on a bipartisan basis is we said, Let us 
change these rules. Let us say that as soon as you are vested, and 
vesting is after 3 years of service, that is the current vesting rule. 
We moved it from 5 years down to 3 years in the Portman-Cardin 
legislation a couple years ago. As soon as someone is vested after 3 
years, you can get rid of that stock. You can divest yourself of that 
corporate stock that that company has given you as a match. That is a 
huge difference. And to say that does nothing I think not only 
mischaracterizes the bill, but I think that is really unfair to the 
workers of America who want to have that flexibility. They want to have 
the choice. If they want to keep that stock, fine, they should be able 
to. But they should also have the choice to get out of it. And a lot of 
folks at Enron would have gotten out of it. So that is a big change 
from current law.
  It is not something, frankly, the business community was wild about 
because they like the idea of giving corporate stock and tying people 
to that stock because they think that gives people more of a stake in 
that company. It enables them to have that stock be held. But we looked 
at it. We said it was fair. We decided to do it. The gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and I worked on that. The gentleman from North 
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and I worked on that and others. So to say it does 
nothing is just inaccurate.
  Second, it provides better information to workers. That is something 
we agreed to on a bipartisan basis. It was not a controversial part of 
the bill. It does provide a lot more information and better 
information. For instance, now when somebody gets into a plan they have 
to be provided with advice that says diversify. Do not put all your 
eggs in one basket. A commonly accepted principle for retirement is you 
should not have all your eggs in one basket. People now have to be told 
that when they get into a plan. They also have to be told, not only 
when they get into it but on a quarterly basis, what that plan is 
doing.

                              {time}  1615

  That was not a requirement before this legislation. If we could get 
this out of the Senate, people would actually get quarterly statements 
telling them what is in their plan, what they have, how the plan is 
doing in plain English so they can actually have the kind of 
transparency that the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) talked 
about, and I could not agree with him more. Transparency is absolutely 
critical.
  Finally, education. Choice and information are important, but we also 
need to give people more tools to be able to educate themselves about 
how to invest their retirement savings. I think there is a consensus on 
doing that. There is some controversy about one element here, but it is 
extremely important.
  There are two provisions in the bill. One says that one should be 
able on a pretax basis to go out and get advice wherever one wants, up 
to 500 bucks. Just like one can get a pretax cafeteria plan for 
eyeglass coverage or some other benefit, one can get investment advice. 
Investment advice is not cheap. So it is important that people have the 
ability to go out to get that advice. That is something that the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and I have put together in 
previous legislation; it is something this House passed.
  Finally, it says that companies ought to be able to allow people to 
come into the company and provide advice to the employees. The employer 
has the option to do that under this bill. It is voluntary. If the 
person comes forward to offer advice, the person has to disclose 
whatever that person is doing including being involved in a company 
plan, if they are. It is subject to all fiduciary responsibilities that 
come with that. It has to be a certified individual. So their 
protection is in there, but the point is there are millions of American 
workers today, over 42 million of them are in 401(k)s and a lot of them 
are getting no advice at all. In fact, 65 percent of those workers tell 
us they want to get education. So this is what this bill does. It is 
pretty simple. It says people ought to have choice. They do not have it 
now. And until the Senate acts, they will not have it. They ought to 
have better information about their plan. They ought to have better 
education.
  A couple of other really good provisions of the bill have already 
been passed in the corporate accountability bill. That dealt with the 
blackout period. Do my colleagues remember that issue with the Enron 
situation because they were changing plan administrators, there was a 
blackout where people could not sell their stock and yet the people at 
the top could and there was no notice of the blackout? This House 
passed legislation that is part of this bill that says 30-day notice, 
they have to tell people about a blackout and during the blackout, the 
corporate executives who are not even in the plan but have stock 
separately cannot sell their stock. What is good for the sailor is also 
good for the ship captain. That was that idea and that did pass as part 
of the corporate accountability bill,

[[Page H6664]]

but it came out of this House and out of this legislation.
  So what we are doing today may seem meaningless to some, but I think 
it is very important because it is important to the workers of America. 
It is to say to the United States Senate, look, we passed this thing 
back in April. We responded on a bipartisan basis in the House. It is 
time now for the United States Senate to help America's workers. Enough 
talk. We have got a bipartisan consensus on which way to go. We ought 
to get it done.
  The second piece of legislation has to do with enabling people to put 
more in their retirement accounts, enable them to move their accounts 
from job to job, portability, and simplifying the rules for small 
business so that they can offer more accounts. We know for a fact that 
of the 75 million people in America who do not have any retirement 
savings plan at all, 75 million people are left out right now. Most of 
them work in small business. In fact, among small businesses, only 20 
percent offer any kind of plan like a 401(k) or a similar plan. So this 
House, on a 308 to 70 vote and in the past on a 400 vote, passed this 
legislation.
  And what we are saying here is we ought to now make that legislation 
permanent. It lets everybody save more for their retirement. It is good 
policy. It is already working. IRA contributions are up 25 percent this 
past year, and thank goodness, because some of that money is accounted 
for now and able to balance some of what is happening in the markets so 
that people have a little more retirement savings. So it is out there 
working. It is good policy.
  Why do we think it ought to be made permanent? Because although it 
does not expire for 8 years, it is very difficult to plan. Most 
Americans are trying to plan for their retirement. They want to know 
that this thing is not going to expire in 8 years, which it does under 
the current legislation. Small businesses would like to plan. If 
someone is thinking about getting into a pension plan for the first 
time if they are one of those 80 percent of small businesses, Mom and 
Pop operations, and they are sort of scared about the cost and the 
burden of liabilities to this, we reduce some of these for them here 
but they are saying, gee, how do we know that if we get into this 
business we are not going to get knocked out of it in 8 years? We ought 
to make it permanent.
  I hope this is something this House would agree on. We already had a 
vote on that in this House. All we are saying to the Senate is, please, 
instead of talking about this so much, let us do something. We have the 
ability to do something. We have a consensus on how to help every 
worker have a more secure retirement.
  There may be other things that people would like to add. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) has talked about executive 
compensation. Those are important issues. We ought to address those 
issues. It will not help one person get a pension, I can tell you that. 
So let us focus on what we are about here, which is helping workers to 
be able to have a little nest egg for their retirement, have a little 
peace of mind so that when they retire, they have something to be able 
to use for their own retirement and pass along to their kids and 
grandkids. That is what we are doing today. It is very simple. I 
appreciate the time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). Members are 
reminded to avoid improper references to Senators.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I was listening to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, a while 
ago; and he was talking about why we need to be voting on this today, 
and I think he is a little confused. I do not know, maybe he was sick 
the day they did the legislative process during freshman orientation. I 
do not know. But it sounded like he was talking about voting on a 
conference report. We do not have a conference report before us. We 
have a bill that has already passed the House, has not been taken up by 
the Senate. So it is meaningless to vote a second time on the same bill 
that has already passed the House when it has not been passed by the 
Senate, has not gone to conference, and has not come back to us. So 
this really is an extraordinary waste of everybody's time, the 
minority's time, the majority's time, and the taxpayers' time and 
money.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support worker protection in the pension 
laws, but today is another wasted opportunity, another loss of an 
opportunity to do something positive in that direction. I strongly 
disagree with the partisan strategies of my Republican colleagues. We 
need Congress to act on pension protection. It has been a pleasure to 
work with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) on many of these 
pension issues. Yes, employees should have control over their assets in 
the 401(k) plan.
  Yes, we need to give them advice on diversification and independent 
advice; and yes, we have to give them notice of blackout periods. All 
that is very important, but this rule, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has pointed out, if it passes, will allow us to consider on this 
floor three meaningless resolutions. They do not even reenact what we 
did before. These are basically political statements more than action 
on the floor of this body.
  Instead, we could have done something here today to make it more 
likely we would send legislation to the President accomplishing what we 
are talking about today. We still have that opportunity. If we defeat 
the previous question, then we will be able to bring forward an issue 
that is extremely important to the workers of this Nation, will help 
bring us closer to the other body and more likely that we will get 
legislation enacted this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I refer to the fact that under current pension law, 
there is preferential treatment for top management over the rank-and-
file workers of a defunct company. No one can justify that. If a 
company cannot pay its workers, if a company cannot pay its creditors, 
it should not be paying these lucrative agreements to its top 
management, the deferred compensations and the unqualified pension 
plans that allow these payments to continue even though the company is 
in bankruptcy; and that is what the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui) is referring to. That is what we will be able to consider in 
this body if we defeat the previous question; and if we do that, we 
will not only be enacting the right policy, treating workers equally 
with top management and protecting their pension rights, but we also 
will make it more likely that we can get legislation enacted this year.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to this debate. Why we continue to 
take up these resolutions that do absolutely nothing is beyond me. 
These are important issues. We all want to help workers. So why can we 
not use the time that is obviously available to us to do the work we 
have not done yet? We have not taken up the issue of protecting the 
rank and file versus the top management. Let us take that issue up 
during this time.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller), the sponsor of the Marriage Penalty Relief Act.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of the rule. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
previous question because this is a pretty simple debate before us 
today. We are debating bringing up a measure that says we need to get 
our work done on making elimination of the marriage tax penalty 
permanent; and before I discuss this marriage tax penalty, I do want to 
commend my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for their good work on the pension 
legislation that is also part of this rule debate, particularly for the 
inclusion of the 415 pension provisions which benefit over 10 million 
construction and building trades people across America.
  Thankfully, President Bush had the leadership to sign that 
legislation into law; and unfortunately, it was a temporary measure, 
and just imagine what it would mean to working folks back home in our 
districts if the rug were pulled out from them if that provision

[[Page H6665]]

were allowed to expire, what it means for a laborer in my district like 
Larry Core. That 415 provision means a doubling of his pension by 
removing those artificial caps that denied him the full pension that he 
earned and deserved.
  I have often, like many of my colleagues, come to the floor and asked 
the very fair and basic issue of fairness, and that is, is it right, is 
it fair that under our Tax Code almost 42 million married working 
couples have suffered higher taxes historically just because they are 
married? It does not seem right, and it does not seem fair; but the 
average marriage tax penalty would be about $1,700.
  Thankfully, this House, along with the Senate, and we obtained 
bipartisan support, succeeded in passing as part of the Bush tax cut 
legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty, helping 42 million 
married working couples, couples such as Jose and Magdalena Castillo, 
two laborers, two construction workers from Joliet, Illinois. They have 
a son and daughter, Eduardo and Carolina. They are good people. They 
work hard. They are pursuing the American dream, but they suffered the 
marriage tax penalty prior to President Bush signing the Bush tax cut 
into law.
  Unfortunately, the Bush tax cut is temporary. It expires in a few 
years, so what that means for a couple such as Jose and Magdalena 
Castillo, who right now have the marriage tax penalty essentially 
eliminated, is they could end up paying in a few years about $1,700 
more in higher taxes just because they are married; and I believe that 
there is bipartisan agreement in this House that it is wrong that a 
married couple who are both in the workforce, man and wife, should pay 
higher taxes. We saw that we had almost 60 Democrats join with every 
House Republican that rejected their leadership's call, and they voted 
with us in eliminating that marriage tax penalty.
  We have before us today a rule which will allow us to bring up this 
coming week a measure which will say that we want to complete before 
the end of this year, making permanent the elimination of the marriage 
tax penalty, and this House has passed legislation to make permanent 
the elimination of the marriage tax penalty; and I would note that the 
Senate has not taken up permanency when it comes to eliminating the 
marriage tax penalty legislation that the House passed months ago. I 
think it is important that we make this a bipartisan priority.
  We have that opportunity today, because think about it, for Jose and 
Magdalena Castillo of Joliet, Illinois, two hardworking people who have 
suffered the marriage tax penalty, just like 42 million American 
working couples, unless we make permanent the elimination of the 
marriage tax penalty, they are going to once again suffer higher taxes 
just because they are married.
  We have a simple vote before us. We are voting on a rule. It is a 
procedural thing that we have to do, but this rule will allow us to 
debate the need to finish our job on eliminating the marriage tax 
penalty permanently; and, again, I would note that this House passed, 
and the votes of every House Republican and about 60 Democrats joined 
with us in a bipartisan effort, to eliminate the marriage tax penalty. 
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me the time.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we are considering more resolutions without 
meaning. What was great about the Seinfeld show, a show about nothing, 
is not so funny here in Congress when we debate bills about nothing. 
These empty resolutions seek to divert attention of the American voters 
from the Republican leadership's mediocre attempt at pension and 
corporate reforms.
  What we should be debating today is actual legislation that deals 
with the important issues of pension reform and corporate 
accountability. My colleagues may recall, Mr. Speaker, that the first 
economic stimulus bill that the leadership pushed through this House, 
and my friend from Ohio made reference to Ma and Pa businesses they 
want to help, would have given $254 million with repeal of the 
corporate alternative minimum tax to Ma and Pa Enron.

                              {time}  1630

  Well, in the wake of Enron's spectacular demise, this House has done 
little to help those who were financially devastated as shareholders 
and workers. Pension security deserves serious debate. Establishing 
parity between corporate executives and rank-and-file employees 
regarding the buying and selling of stock is simply the right thing to 
do. It is imperative to strengthening the integrity and public trust in 
corporate America. Congress has that opportunity if we would just get 
to it.
  President Bush, a former corporate executive himself, said, ``If it 
is okay for the captain, it ought to be okay for the sailor.'' Instead 
of debating senseless senses of the House, we should correct this 
system that unfortunately allowed hardworking Americans, the backbone 
of corporate America, to lose their retirement savings.
  What we are continuing to allow by wasting our time on these 
resolutions is abusive corporate perks. Let us start with our friends 
at GE, the quintessential corporate manager who was receiving 
exorbitant perks at shareholders' expense and most importantly, without 
shareholder approval. I call Members' attention to the enviable list of 
perks ranging from big-ticket items to minutia, from a $15 million 
Manhattan apartment, to corporate jets, to membership fees at four 
country clubs, to sports tickets, and even expensive toiletries. It is 
interesting why a man whose wealth has been estimated at $900 million 
would feel it necessary to have the shareholders of GE pay for his 
laundry service.
  How about the ousted CEO of Tyco, formerly of New Hampshire and now 
of Bermuda. Without shareholder approval, the company paid for a 
bizarre set of perks, including $2 million on a birthday party for his 
wife, $15,000 for a dog umbrella stand, and how about $445 for a pin 
cushion.
  The CEO of Adelphia, he used company funds to construct a $13 million 
golf course on family property. The holidays must have been very good 
there.
  These extravagances reflect a corporate culture gone awry. Warren 
Buffet summed it up best when he said, ``The ratcheting up of 
compensation has become obscene.'' But rather than taking up 
legislation to prevent or discourage such financial abuse of 
shareholders and investors, we debate resolutions about nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to join the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui) in urging this House to take up his legislation which would 
bring some sanity into the corporate compensation process. We need 
better protections for our investors, shareholders and workers. How can 
anybody look at those shareholders and employees at Enron and justify 
what happened to them?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 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.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said this is a 
meaningless resolution. I beg to differ with the gentleman; I think 
this resolution is very meaningful because it shows that the majority 
in the face of real economic stress and pain in our country is more 
interested in positioning for the election that is coming in 6 weeks 
than it is in solving the country's problems.
  Since the beginning of 2001, 2 million people have gone on the 
unemployment rolls. In the last 12 months, 1 million people have 
exhausted their economic unemployment benefits, have seen them run out. 
Since the beginning of 2001, the stock markets have seen $4.5 trillion 
of wealth evaporate, much of that wealth in the pension funds of 
American workers, American retirees.
  We have seen the equity markets themselves lose 40 percent of their 
value. We have seen the spread between short- and long-term interest 
rates, a key indicator of future happenings in our economy, grow wider 
than it has in recent history. We have seen a Federal Government that 
was bringing in $108 for every $100 that we spent at the beginning of 
2001, now bringing in $90 for

[[Page H6666]]

every $100 that we spend, and covering the difference by borrowing from 
the Social Security trust fund, running the government on Social 
Security money that should be there for the future.
  The right thing to do would be to renegotiate the country's budget, 
to bring to this floor legislation that would really make a difference 
to the people that have been stressed, an extension of unemployment 
benefits for people who cannot find work, a means of creating more jobs 
in the short run for people who cannot find work, provisions that would 
truly strengthen pension plans, and one of those provisions can be 
brought to the floor if Members vote ``no'' on the previous question, 
and that is the idea of the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), 
which says that a self-regulating concept in pension plans will be that 
whatever the top guy in the organization gets, everybody else has to 
get, too. If there is a restriction on what can be done with stock that 
applies to the person who cleans the office at night, then it applies 
to the person who owns the office building. If there are benefits for 
the person high up in the executive suite, a similar kind of a benefit 
has to apply to every single man and woman who stands under that person 
on the company's organizational table.
  This is a real change that would make a real difference at a time of 
real problems. I regret that what we are going to do if the majority 
passes this rule is pass a couple of ceremonial resolutions to take 
note of what we wish the other body would do. We cannot control what 
the other body does. It has a conscience and a rhythm all of its own. 
That is what the framers intended. However, we ought to do something 
rather than nothing.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, over the course of this past year, we have watched 
employees of Enron and WorldCom and other companies watch their 
retirement savings dwindle to almost nothing. The House in a bipartisan 
way came together on April 11, 160 days ago, to pass the Pension 
Protection Act which will in fact help protect all pensions in America. 
Yet the Senate has not acted.
  Now the Senate did in fact act along with the House when we passed 
the Corporate Accountability bill to put those corporate insiders who 
have abused their shareholders and abused the law and put them in jail. 
In that bill, I might add, there were two provisions from the Pension 
Security Act actually signed into law. One, a provision that would bar 
company insiders from selling their stock during a blackout period 
where the plan administrator is changing.
  Secondly, in the Corporate Accountability bill, we do require that 
pension plan administrators notify their employees 30 days in advance 
of any blackout period. But we all know there is a lot more that needs 
to be done. We need to give workers more freedom to diversify their 
401(k) accounts. We need to make sure that workers have access to high-
quality investment advice. But the House cannot do it alone.
  We all know under the Constitution that before a bill can become law 
and go to the President's desk, it has to be acted on by the House; it 
has to be acted on by the other body. Any differences have to be 
resolved before the bill goes to the President. The House has acted. 
The Senate has yet to take up pension legislation, and I believe this 
issue is one thing that needs to be done.
  We have to remember that this bill, the Pension Security Act, passed 
the House with 46 Democrat members voting for it. We worked in a 
bipartisan way to make responsible reforms that really would in fact 
protect the pension assets of many of our employees. But we cannot get 
this bill to the President's desk until we have action. That action 
needs to occur, and it needs to occur now.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when people who are watching this on television, maybe 
listening to us on the radio, perhaps following these proceedings in 
the newspaper tomorrow, when members of the public get their quarterly 
401(k) statements next week and the statements from their mutual funds, 
think of the Republicans when you open that up. Think of the 
Republicans and what they have not done and what they are not willing 
to do to improve the economy.
  They are not willing to bring any legislation to the floor today that 
makes any difference. They bring meaningless resolutions. I urge 
members of the public, think of my friends on the Republican side when 
you open your quarterly 401(k) statement next week.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority should be ashamed to bring these sense of 
Congress resolutions to the floor. These resolutions are pieces of 
paper that do nothing, help no one, and waste the time of the House of 
Representatives. No wonder the American people are cynical about their 
government. Mr. Speaker, I would be, too, if this is the best the 
majority can produce.
  If there is any Member on the majority side who wishes to pass some 
actual legislation, they should join us in defeating the previous 
question of the rule. If that occurs, then I will offer an amendment 
that provides immediately after the House passes this meaningless rule, 
it will take up a bill that contains real corporate welfare reforms. 
While the Republican majority is busy indulging their aversion to 
passing actual legislation so close to an election, Democrats want to 
crack down on corporate executives who get cheap leases for their 
corporate jets while their company's 401(k) plan collapses. The 
majority allows these executives to shield their earnings and retire to 
their penthouses and benefits for life, while the American people are 
left playing for this largess.
  This is wrong, Mr. Speaker. Democrats know it and are willing to do 
something about it, while the Republicans pretend these problems do not 
exist. I do not know about anybody on the other side, Mr. Speaker, but 
Democrats want to work. We are elected to help make things better for 
the American people, not to stall legislation we were afraid would hurt 
us with our big donors too close to an election time.
  By defeating the previous question, the House can take up this bill 
and stop the two classes of people we now have in this country: 
executives who walk away with millions and live the life of luxury, and 
the rank-and-file worker who goes home every day hoping their 401(k) 
plan will last until retirement.
  Mr. Speaker, Members, all a ``yes'' vote does is waste time, and 
Congress has done enough of that for the past 3 weeks. Let us actually 
pass something that matters. Let us get some work done. I urge a ``no'' 
vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we promised at the beginning of this debate on the rule 
that it would be contentious, that we understood that the Democrat 
Party opposed what we were doing, and we understood what we were 
supporting. We believe what we are talking about here is good for 
investors. We believe it is good for people to have 401(k)s, pension 
plans, the opportunity to save more money.
  We have had a chance to debate these important issues. We have had 
any number of speakers on both sides of the aisle who have talked about 
the things that are good and bad about these resolutions that we are 
talking about; but the bottom line is that Members will get a chance to 
vote now after hearing this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the previous question will pass, that we will 
pass these resolutions, that the vast majority of Members will 
understand what we are doing, the importance to the American people, 
and the importance to people who are trying to make a go of it with 
their own savings account.

                              {time}  1645

  I think the American public understands what we are doing, and I 
think they understand what the Republican Party stands for.

[[Page H6667]]

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

  Previous Question for H. Res, 547--rule on H. Res. 540 Sense of the 
  House that the Congress should complete action on H. Res. 3762, the 
   Pension Security Act of 2002, H. Res. 543 Sense of the House that 
   Congress should complete action on H.R. 4019, making marriage tax 
relief permanent and H. Res. 544 Sense of the House of Representatives 
               on permanency of pension reform provisions

       At the end of the resolution add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec.  . Notwithstanding any other provision in this 
     resolution, immediately after disposition of the resolution 
     H. Res. 540, the Speaker shall declare the House resolved 
     into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
     Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5432) to amend the 
     Internal Revenue code of 1986 with respect to the amount 
     included in gross income by reason of personal use of 
     corporate property, to require the same holding period for 
     company stock acquired upon exercise of options as is 
     applicable to company stock in its 401(k) plan, to require 
     disclosure to shareholders of the amount of corporate perks 
     provided to retired executives, and to provide parity for 
     secured retirement benefits between the rank and file and 
     executives. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec.  . If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of that bill.

                                 H.R.--

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

     SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULES FOR EXECUTIVE PERKS AND RETIREMENT 
                   BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Part I of subchapter D of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to pension, profit-
     sharing, stock bonus plans, etc.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subpart:


 ``Subpart F--Special Rules for Executive Perks and Retirement Benefits

``Sec. 420A. Holding period requirement for stock acquired through 
              exercise of option.
``Sec. 420B. Additional tax on nondisclosed retirement perks.
``Sec. 420C. Inclusion in gross income of funded deferred compensation 
              of corporate insiders.
``Sec. 420D. Definitions and special rule.

     ``SEC. 420A. HOLDING PERIOD REQUIREMENT FOR STOCK ACQUIRED 
                   THROUGH EXERCISE OF OPTION.

       ``(a) In general.--In the case of a corporate insider with 
     respect to a corporation, the tax imposed by this chapter on 
     a corporate insider for any taxable year shall be increased 
     by 50 percent of the amount realized by such insider from the 
     disqualified disposition during such year of stock acquired 
     by the corporate insider upon the exercise of a stock option 
     granted by the corporation with respect to which such 
     individual is a corporate insider.
       ``(b) Disqualified Disposition of Stock.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
     `disqualified disposition of stock' means any sale, exchange, 
     or other disposition of stock which, if such stock were 
     employer securities held in a qualified cash or deferred 
     arrangement (as defined in section 401(k)(2)), would violate 
     any restriction imposed on the sale or other disposition of 
     such securities by the plan of which such arrangement is a 
     part.
       ``(2) Special rule for 2 or more cash or deferred 
     arrangements.--If a corporation has more than 1 qualified 
     cash or deferred arrangement (as so defined), the 
     restrictions which apply for purposes of paragraph (1) shall 
     be the most restrictive provisions relating to the 
     disposition of employer securities held pursuant to any such 
     arrangements.

     ``SEC. 420B. ADDITIONAL TAX ON NONDISCLOSED RETIREMENT PERKS.

       ``(a) In General.--In the case of a publicly traded 
     corporation, the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable 
     year shall be increased by 50 percent of the net cost to the 
     corporation for the taxable year of personal perks provided 
     to a retired executive of the corporation.
       ``(b) Waiver If Perks Provided Pursuant to Shareholder 
     Approval.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any 
     personal perks provided pursuant to a contract if--
       ``(1) all of the material terms of such contract (including 
     a description of the benefits to be provided to the executive 
     and the extent of such benefits) are disclosed to 
     shareholders, and
       ``(2) such contract is approved by a majority of the vote 
     in a separate shareholder vote before any benefits are 
     provided under the contract.
       ``(c) Net Cost of Personal Perks.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the net 
     cost of personal perks provided to a retired executive is the 
     excess of--
       ``(A) the cost to the corporation of such perks, over
       ``(B) the amount paid in cash during the taxable year by 
     the executive to reimburse the corporation for the cost of 
     such perks.
       ``(2) Personal perks.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     term `personal perks' means--
       ``(A) the use of corporate-owned property,
       ``(B) travel expenses, including meals and lodging, unless 
     such expenses are directly related to the performance of 
     services by the executive for the corporation and the 
     business relationship of such expenses is substantiated under 
     the requirements of section 274,
       ``(C) tickets to sporting or other entertainment events,
       ``(D) amounts paid or incurred for membership in any club 
     organized for business, pleasure, recreation, or other social 
     purpose, and
       ``(E) other personal services, including services related 
     to maintenance or protection of any personal residence of the 
     executive.
       ``(3) Cost relating to use of corporate-owned property.--
     For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The cost taken into account with respect 
     to the use of corporate-owned property shall be the allocable 
     portion of the total cost of operating such property.
       ``(B) Allocable portion.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
     the allocable portion of total cost is--
       ``(i) the portion of the total cost (including 
     depreciation) incurred by the corporation for operating and 
     maintaining such property during the corporation's taxable 
     year in which such use occurred,
       ``(ii) which is allocable to the use (determined on the 
     basis of the relationship of such use to the total use of the 
     property during the taxable year).

     SEC. 420C. INCLUSION IN GROSS INCOME OF FUNDED DEFERRED 
                   COMPENSATION OF CORPORATE INSIDERS.

       ``(a) In General.--If an 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 corporate 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 payable 
     only upon separation from service, death, disability, 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 payable 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 on the earliest 
     date that there is no substantial risk of forfeiture of the 
     rights to such compensation.
       ``(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

[[Page H6668]]

       ``(iii) there is no factor 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.

     Except as provided in regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary, such a factor shall include the location of the 
     trust outside the United States.
       ``(c) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) Qualified employer plan.--The term `qualified 
     employer plan' means--
       ``(A) any plan, contract, pension, account, or trust 
     described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 219(g)(5), 
     and
       ``(B) any other plan of an organization exempt from tax 
     under subtitle A.
       ``(2) Plan includes arrangements, etc.--The term `plan' 
     includes any agreement or arrangement.
       ``(3) 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.
       ``(4) Treatment of earnings.--Except for purposes of 
     subsection (a)(1) and the last sentence of (b)(2)(A), 
     references to deferred compensation shall be treated as 
     including references to income attributable to such 
     compensation or such income.

     ``SEC. 420D. DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULE.

       ``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this subpart--
       ``(1) Corporate insider.--The term `corporate insider' 
     means, with respect to a corporation, any individual--
       ``(A) who is subject to the requirements of section 16(a) 
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to such 
     corporation, or
       ``(B) who would be subject to such requirements if such 
     corporation were an issuer of equity securities referred to 
     in such section.
       ``(2) Retired executive.--The term `retired executive' 
     means any corporate insider who is no longer performing 
     services on a substantially full time basis in the capacity 
     that resulted in being subject to the requirements of section 
     16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
       ``(3) Publicly traded corporation.--The term `publicly 
     traded corporation' means any corporation issuing any class 
     of securities required to be registered under section 12 of 
     the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
       ``(4) Corporate-owned property.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the term `corporate-owned property' means any of the 
     following property owned by a corporation--
       ``(i) planes,
       ``(ii) apartments or other residences,
       ``(iii) vacation, sports, and entertainment facilities, and
       ``(iv) cars.

     Such term includes any such property which is leased or 
     chartered by the corporation.
       ``(B) Exceptions.--Such term does not include any property 
     used directly by the corporation in providing transportation, 
     lodging, or entertainment services to the general public.
       ``(b) Additions to Tax Not Treated As Tax for Certain 
     Purposes.--The tax imposed by sections 420A and 420B shall 
     not be treated as a tax imposed by this chapter for purposes 
     of determining--
       ``(1) the amount of any credit allowable under this 
     chapter, or
       ``(2) the amount of the minimum tax imposed by section 
     55.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of subparts for part I 
     of subchapter D of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new item:

``Subpart F. Special Rules for Executive Perks and Retirement 
              Benefits.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as follows:
       (1) Section 420A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as 
     added by this section) shall apply to stock acquired pursuant 
     to the exercise of an option after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (2)(A) Except as provided by subparagraph (B), section 420B 
     of such Code (as so added) shall apply to perks provided 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (B) In the case of perks provided pursuant to a contract in 
     existence on the date of the enactment of this Act, such 
     section 420B shall apply to such perks after the date of the 
     first annual shareholders meeting after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (3) Section 420C of such Code (as so added) shall apply to 
     amounts deferred after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 200, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 413]

                               YEAS--217

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     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
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter

[[Page H6669]]


     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bachus
     Bonior
     Borski
     Callahan
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Mink
     Radanovich
     Roukema
     Stump
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1733

  Messrs. BRADY of Pennsylvania, WU, and BAIRD changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER1 of California and Mr. HEFLEY changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________