[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4289-4301]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3762, PENSION SECURITY ACT OF 2002

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 386 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 386

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3762) to amend title 
     I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional 
     protections to participants and beneficiaries in individual 
     account plans from excessive investment in employer 
     securities and to promote the provision of retirement 
     investment advice to workers managing their retirement income 
     assets, and to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to 
     prohibit insider trades during any suspension of the ability 
     of plan participants or beneficiaries to direct investment 
     away from equity securities of the plan sponsor. The bill 
     shall be considered as read for amendment. In lieu of the 
     amendment recommended by the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce now printed in the bill, the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted. All points of order against the bill, 
     as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate on the 
     bill, as amended, equally divided among and controlled by the 
     chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on 
     Education and the Workforce and Ways and Means; (2) the 
     further amendment printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative George 
     Miller of California or Representative Rangel of New York or 
     a 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. 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 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 the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a fair, structured rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 3762, the Pension Security Act. 
H. Res. 386 provides 2 hours of debate in the House equally divided 
among and controlled by the chairmen and ranking minority members of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways 
and Means. All points of order are waived against consideration of the 
bill.
  It also provides that in lieu of the amendment recommended by the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the 
Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution shall be 
considered as adopted. All points of order against the bill, as 
amended, are also waived.
  The amendment printed in part B of the report, if offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) or the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) or a designee is also made in order. It shall be 
considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The rule 
waives all points of order against the amendment printed in part B of 
the report. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House today is one of utmost 
importance to American families across the Nation: securing the 
economic security of their retirement years. H.R. 3762 represents the 
good work of my friends and colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), who have spent 
countless hours carefully crafting a bill that includes safeguards and 
options to help workers preserve and enhance their pension plans in 
order to help provide for themselves and their families in their 
retirement years.
  We all witnessed the tragic unraveling of Enron Corporation and have 
witnessed the disbelief and anger of the thousands of employees who 
lost their jobs and most, if not all, of their retirement savings. 
While those workers were quite possibly victims of criminal wrongdoing, 
there is no question they were most definitely the victims of an 
outdated Federal pension law.

[[Page 4290]]

  I am a firm believer in encouraging Americans to help secure their 
own futures through savings. While savings must begin with the 
individual, there are ways that government can help and encourage 
people to save. The average 50-year-old in America currently has less 
than $40,000 in personal financial wealth. Statistics also show that 
the average American retires with savings totaling only about 60 
percent of their former annual income. Quite simply, Americans are 
saving too little.
  The tragedy of Enron went further than just diminishing the savings 
of some employees. Sadly, Enron has undermined the confidence of 
American workers in this country's pension system. The collapse of 
Enron highlights the need for protections and safeguards to help 
workers preserve and enhance their retirement savings.
  The Pension Security Act includes new options and resources for 
workers, as well as greater accountability from companies and senior-
level executives. I would like to highlight some of the key elements of 
this bill.
  First, the bill gives employees new freedoms to sell company stock 
and diversify into other investments. Current law allows employers to 
restrict a worker's ability to sell their company stock in certain 
situations until they are age 55 years old and/or have 10 years of 
service with the company.
  This bill gives employers the option of allowing workers to sell 
their company stock 3 years after receiving it in their 401(k) plans, 
presumably at the beginning of their service. This 3-year ``rolling 
diversification option'' provides employers with the ability to promote 
employee ownership while giving employees the flexibility to make 
choices according to their own interests.
  This legislation also creates parity between senior corporate 
executives and the rank-and-file workers. During blackout periods, 
routine times when a plan must undergo administrative or technical 
changes, employees are unable to change or access their retirement 
accounts. What we saw from Enron was an example of disparity, where the 
executives were able to sell off their investments and preserve their 
savings, while rank-and-file workers were barred from making changes.
  Under this bill, workers would be given a 30-day notice before a 
blackout period begins. Furthermore, during a blackout period, neither 
an executive nor a rank-and-file employee would be permitted to make 
any changes to their plan.
  The Pension Security Act also requires workers to give annual 
statements regarding their accounts and their rights in their 
investments. Currently the law only requires that workers receive 
annual notices, with no guarantee of what information must be provided. 
This would ensure that employees receive accurate and timely 
information.
  Finally, this bill incorporates the key principles from H.R. 2269, 
the Retirement Security Advice Act. Under the leadership of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the House passed this bill with a 
bipartisan vote last autumn. While employees must be encouraged to 
save, they must be provided with sound advice and resources in order to 
make sound decisions. The bill would allow qualified financial advisors 
to offer investment advice if they agree to act solely in the fiduciary 
interest of the workers they advise.
  Mr. Speaker, passage of this bill would send a strong signal to both 
employers and employees of this country. Employers should be commended 
for continuing to offer workers investment options, but they must 
exercise corporate responsibility as they do so. Workers should be 
encouraged to save, with the safety of knowing that their investments 
are secure.
  It is my hope this legislation will not only provide much needed 
reform for our country's pension system but also help restore 
confidence in a system which has enabled generations of American 
workers to enjoy secure and independent retirement.
  I would like to commend the tremendous efforts of both the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
in bringing this legislation to the House floor. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting not only this fair rule, so that the House can 
proceed to consider the underlying legislation, but the legislation 
itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate for the House. It is a 
debate about the Enron scandal, and it is a debate about whether this 
Republican House will keep its promise to the American people.
  When the Enron Corporation collapsed late last year, thousands of its 
employees lost their life savings and an untold number of innocent 
investors had their pockets picked by a few greedy company insiders. It 
was the worst corporate scandal in U.S. history.
  Virtually everyone in Washington, Republicans as well as Democrats, 
promised that it would never happen again. Well, today, the House will 
consider what the Republican leadership has chosen as its response to 
the scandal of Enron, and I am sure we will hear a lot of Republicans 
come to the floor today and claim that their bill, the so-called 
Pension Security Act, responds to the Enron scandal.
  Mr. Speaker, we can argue over the particulars of what the Republican 
bill would do, but there is no doubt about what it will not do. It will 
not protect Americans from corporate wrongdoers like the ones at Enron. 
It will not stop unscrupulous executives at another corporation from 
defrauding their employees and investors the way Enron executives did.
  I suppose we should not be too surprised. After all, just last month 
Republicans passed their so-called class action bill, which would make 
it harder for Enron employees and retirees to hold accountable the 
corporate wrongdoers who defrauded them. So I suppose we should not be 
shocked that this Republican bill would do nothing to ensure that other 
Americans do not suffer the same fate as Enron's employees.
  That does not make this empty Republican promise any less outrageous, 
and calling this Republican bill the Pension Security Act dangerously 
misleads millions of Americans about the security of their 401(k) 
plans, and since the Republican assault on Social Security continues, 
protecting Americans' 401(k) plans is even more vital to financial 
security for millions of retirees.
  Mr. Speaker, Enron employees lost more than $1 billion from their 
retirement nest eggs, while the corporate insiders who defrauded them 
made millions. The scandal is so bad that earlier this week, the Arthur 
Andersen auditor who oversaw the books at Enron pled guilty, and the 
New York Times reports today that Arthur Andersen is near a deal to do 
the same.
  We should not be slamming the door on corporate fraud and abuse that 
company insiders used to pick the pockets of their employees and 
investors. So the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) are offering a Democratic 
substitute today, one that takes real steps to protect employees and 
hold corporate wrongdoers accountable. It ensures a level playing field 
between executives and employees, and the corporate wrongdoers cannot 
take advantage of employees and investors.
  As the President said after the Enron collapse, ``If it is good 
enough for the captain, it is good enough for the crew.'' For example, 
the Democratic substitute requires that employees be notified when 
executives are dumping stock, and it prevents executives from selling 
their stock while employees are prohibited from selling their stock. If 
the Democratic bill had been law, Enron executives could not have 
bailed out while promising their employees that everything would be 
just fine.
  The Democratic substitute also gives employees a seat on pension 
boards so they have a voice when critical decisions about their 
retirement security are made.
  It provides employees with access to independent, unbiased financial 
advice,

[[Page 4291]]

and it ensures that they get honest, accurate, and timely information 
about their pension plans.
  Finally, the Democratic substitute increases criminal penalties 
against corporate wrongdoers who violate employees' pension rights.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic substitute is the only real response to 
Enron on the floor today. It is our only chance today to protect 
Americans from another Enron scandal.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote for it. It is also my 
intention to vote against the previous question on this rule. If the 
previous question is defeated, I intend to offer an amendment by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the 
Committee on the Judiciary. His amendment, the Corporate and Criminal 
Fraud Accountability Act, would allow the House to vote on increasing 
the penalties against the corporate wrong-doers, like the Enron 
executives who brought their company to ruin, while walking away with 
their pockets stuffed with cash.
  If we are really going to consider pension security, we ought to make 
sure that corporate wrong-doers do not think that they can get away 
with this kind of fraud again. Without that addition, this Republican 
bill would leave the pension plans of employees and investors 
vulnerable to another Enron.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we will hear a lot of demagoguery about Enron today. 
Some may be true. But the one point made that the bill passed by the 
Republicans on class action suits a few weeks ago would have undercut 
Enron's ability and its employees' ability to sue is simply wrong. What 
we said was above a certain threshold, those suits may be removed to 
Federal court. The Enron suit is in Federal court. It would not have 
been hampered one wit.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to indicate that 
this rule serves as an example for those of us who continually point 
out that bipartisanship is a rhetorical idea that the majority refuses 
to turn into a reality. Sure, the rule allows for one Democratic 
substitute. But yesterday evening the Committee on Rules shot down 
along party lines more than 12 amendments that were offered by Members 
on both sides of the aisle. I particularly paid attention to the one 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), which I think 
should have been permitted by the Committee on Rules. Many of these 
amendments would have aided the leadership of both parties to move 
closer together on comprehensive and agreeable compromise. But as we 
see this morning, the majority is not in the business of compromise.
  The notion of pension reform was raised from the rubble of the Enron 
scandal. Congressional hearings and law enforcement investigations have 
shown that to prevent future Enrons, Global Crossings and countless 
others, Congress must address the issues of diversification, auditor 
independence, honest and accurate information, tougher criminal 
enforcement, and most important, equal treatment of employer and 
employee retirement plans. Let me repeat that. Equal treatment of 
employer and employee retirement plans.
  Yet while we know what needs to be done, the majority's bill 
inadequately addresses these issues. The Republican bill does not 
require employers to notify employees when they are dumping stocks. It 
locks employees, but not employers, into 3- or 5-year stock holding 
situations, thus continuing down the dangerous road of nondiversified 
portfolios. It denies employees a crucial vote on pension boards. It 
does not hold employers liable in the case of another Enron or Global 
Crossing, and continues the special treatment of employers' pensions.
  This bill fails to protect employees and often yields power and 
leverage to executives and business owners. Candidly, it is an act of 
irresponsibility.
  The Democratic substitute addresses these issues; and it addresses 
them in a manner that treats the retirement packages of employees equal 
to those of their employers, even more, in holding employers 
accountable for violating workers' pension rights. The Democratic 
substitute fills a large hole in the majority's bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
realize that we have the chance for a bipartisan compromise on pension 
security. We could have reached one during the hearing process before 
last night's Committee on Rules meeting, and certainly today.
  Instead, the majority is trying to push through its own misguided 
bill that fails working families at a time we need to be protecting 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, oppose the 
underlying bill, and support the Democratic substitute. I know that if 
Enron's former employees were able to vote here today, they would do 
just that.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this is really about 
two different approaches to the protection of American workers' 
retirement funds.
  Earlier this year, American workers all across this country were 
jolted by the fact that their 401(k) plans, which they are having to 
increasingly rely on for their retirement nest-eggs, could be 
vulnerable and could be wiped out by incredible actions by corporate 
executives. But that is what happened to the people who worked for 
Enron, and that is what millions of Americans all of a sudden 
understood was possible with their plans.
  So we learned a lot of information about the Enron case and about the 
vulnerability of employee retirement funds. We learned first and 
foremost that many employees had no control over many of the assets 
that were put into their funds because corporations have said that 
employees have to hold on to them until you were 50 or 55, could not 
divest them for 5 or 10 years, and could not diversify their holdings.
  We learned that employees, even though the vast majority of these 
funds, or in fact all of these funds, were assets that belonged to the 
employees, that in many instances they were not given a voice on the 
pension board; and clearly, they were not at Enron. What happened, the 
members of the Enron pension board sold their stock. They never told 
the employees that they were selling, or that they thought the stock 
should be sold. They saved themselves millions of dollars. The 
employees got wiped out. Why? Because they had a conflict. Nobody 
represented the rank-and-file employees on the pension board which was 
made up of executive vice presidents who were trying to get to the 
corner office.
  They also found out that the employer's plans at Enron were ensured. 
They were guaranteed. So as Enron goes into bankruptcy, the executive 
elites, their retirement plans are guaranteed. They saved millions of 
dollars for their future use through insurance plans and guarantees. 
The employees, wiped out, and at best get to stand in line and hope to 
get something from the bankruptcy court where they have no real 
protections.
  We also wanted to make sure when the employer, the executive elites, 
were making a decision to sell stock, that somebody would tell the 
employees. There is no requirement in the law today. And yet when Ken 
Lay was telling people he was buying stock, he was secretly selling 
stock to liquidate his personal debts at Enron. The employees had no 
way of knowing that, no timely notification. They lost their assets; 
the Ken Lays protected themselves.
  Finally, what we see is these employees have no real right of action 
for the misconduct of the executives of Enron, for the executives of 
Enron that have wiped out their retirement plans. We think that they 
should be made whole,

[[Page 4292]]

that they should have a right to go after that; but under ERISA, they 
have no rights.
  Mr. Speaker, what is the distinction today between the Republican 
bill and the Democratic substitute? The Republican bill learns nothing 
from Enron. It lets executives continue to sell stock and not notify 
the employees. It continues to treat the executive retirement assets 
completely different than the employee retirement assets. It makes sure 
that the employees have no voice on the pension board, even though 
research shows that where employees have a voice on the pension board, 
they invest more money and, in fact, they do a little bit better on the 
rate of return on those investments.
  So they have learned nothing about protecting American workers as a 
result of the disaster at Enron, as a result of the greed at Enron, as 
a result of the self-dealing at Enron, as a result of the conflicts of 
interest. The Republicans have learned nothing because their bill does 
nothing to provide further protections.
  Yes, they let them diversify; but it is a 3-year rolling 
diversification. Three years ago, people were in the last stages of the 
greatest bull market in the history of this country; and today, people 
have lost many of their assets. Three years in the marketplace is a 
long time.
  How is it that we believe that we can lock up people's assets for 5 
years, and then for every 3 years after that?
  Finally, the final insult to the employees in this bill, and that is 
the investment advice provisions. For the first time under the Federal 
laws protecting these pension plans, conflicted advice will be allowed 
to be offered. That comes just 2 days after we learn of the Merrill 
Lynch conflicts where Merrill Lynch, as an investment banker, was 
making tens of millions of dollars on investment advice and 
arrangements for these companies and then were telling their people who 
were giving retail advice to investors all across the country that 
these were good stocks and good for retirement plans, when we find out 
that they did not believe that at all.
  Investment advice can be very important to Americans trying to secure 
their retirement; but it must be advice without hidden commissions, 
without hidden fees, and without hidden conflicts of interest. America 
got a rude awakening with Enron, but we have also learned that Enron is 
not unique. I appreciate that Members want to treat it as a one-time 
effort. We have seen other corporations that have locked up the pension 
assets of employees for their own convenience, for the good of the 
corporation, as opposed to the good of the workers.
  We have also seen other corporations where huge loans were secretly 
taken out, where stock was secretly sold, and the employees had no way 
of knowing it until after it was too late. After the famous ship that 
the President keeps talking about, where what is good for the captain 
is good for the crew, the crew was already underwater. The captain did 
not even have the courtesy for the workers of many, many years, did not 
even have the courtesy to bang on the abandon-ship horn as he went to 
the lifeboat. We owe America's workers more.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the one vote we are going to get about millions 
of workers, about almost all of our constituents in the workplace, 
about the security and protection and the advice and the control that 
they have over their retirement nest-egg.
  Mr. Speaker, our committee was sadly treated to the testimony, as 
many other committees were, of workers at Enron and many other 
corporations who are in their 50s and 60s who thought that they had a 
great retirement ahead of them; and it has vanished. It was wiped out 
by incredible corporate greed, by a lack of total ethics by corporate 
executives, by the double-dealing of corporate executives, by the 
conflicts of interest in the financial institutions and the accounting 
institutions. We cannot let that happen again. We must pass the 
Democratic substitute.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, before us today is a bipartisan bill that 
will help promote security, education, and freedom for employees who 
have worked and saved all of their lives for a safe and secure 
retirement. Those of us on the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
have been engaged in pension reform issues for several years now, 
looking at ways to expand worker access to high-quality investment 
advice and encourage employers to sponsor retirement plans for their 
workers.

                              {time}  1045

  As our committee began hearings to address the Enron collapse, we did 
so with a firm commitment to identify further reforms that will 
strengthen the retirement security of American workers.
  The Pension Security Act, based on President Bush's reform plan, 
sends a clear message that Congress is committed to addressing the 
Enron collapse by enacting new safeguards to restore worker confidence 
in the Nation's pension system. It accomplishes this goal in a number 
of ways: First of all, the Pension Security Act includes new 
flexibility for workers to diversify their portfolios and better 
information about their pensions. In addition, it requires companies to 
give workers quarterly benefit statements that include information 
about their accounts, including the value of their assets, their right 
to diversify, and the importance of maintaining diversity in their 
portfolios.
  President Bush has also called upon the Senate to pass the Retirement 
Security Advice Act which passed this House last November with a large 
bipartisan vote. The bill encourages employers to make quality 
investment advice available to their employees. Some of Enron's 
employees could have preserved their retirement savings if they had 
access to a qualified adviser who would have warned them in advance 
that they needed to diversify their investment portfolio.
  The Pension Security Act also ensures parity between senior corporate 
executives and rank-and-file workers by prohibiting company insiders 
from selling stock during blackout periods when workers are unable to 
change their investment mix. The bill also strengthens the blackout 
disclosure requirements and specifically requires 30 days' notice 
before a blackout period could begin. Lastly, the bill clarifies that 
companies in fact have a fiduciary responsibility for workers' 
investments during a blackout period.
  The Nation's private pension system is essential to the security of 
American workers, retirees and their families. Congress should move 
decisively to restore worker confidence in the Nation's retirement 
security and pension system, and President Bush's reform proposal will 
do just that. This is a bipartisan bill. I look forward to working with 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we move forward on this 
important issue.
  The rule today before us, I believe, is a fair rule. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, when the Enron scandal started, so many 
reporters were trying to associate this with the administration and 
they did all they could to distance themselves from this conduct that 
was just repugnant to everything that fairness and equity would want us 
to do. So one would think that the Republican leadership in the House 
would want to do the same thing, especially as related to protecting 
the 401(k) employee contributions to their pension plans. This being a 
tax issue, one would logically believe that it would be the leadership 
of the Committee on Ways and Means that would be showing our concern 
about protecting these pension plans. But the silence has been 
deafening from my committee, and the leadership, what little there was, 
actually came from the gentleman from Ohio

[[Page 4293]]

(Mr. Boehner) who heads the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
and I thank him at least for raising the subject. But the President 
still was not convinced that we had fully appreciated that captains 
were getting a better shake than employees; that is, the executives in 
these firms. And so he continues to say that that there should be more 
equity.
  The bill that comes to the floor really puts the employees going 
upstream in a canoe without a paddle, because it actually gives 
protection, even after bankruptcy, to the executives while the 
employees continue to suffer. One might ask a question, well, why would 
the Republicans do this to themselves in an election year? The answer 
is, ``It's campaign contributions, stupid.'' They tried yesterday to 
really disrupt campaign finance reform by putting a little thing in 
there to disrupt it. But the Republicans are no longer walking 
lockstep. They have to decide whether they are going to follow the 
corporations or follow their constituents back home.
  So for those who really want to see what is going on in this House, 
do not listen to the debate but watch the votes today, because while 
you do not find too much bipartisanship on the floor, you are going to 
find Republicans and Democrats trying to protect their employees by 
voting against the Republican bill that is on the floor today, and 
voting for the Democratic substitute that is going to allow us to go 
home feeling that we have protected the employee and we are not going 
to allow the executives just to get away with whatever they want to do 
just because they are the captains of the ship.
  If this ship is going down, the integrity of America goes down with 
it. Equity and fair play should be a part of every pension bill. What 
happened to Enron, this is the last chance we will get to tell the 
American people how much we believe in protecting their pension funds.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thought what I might do is respond to some of the 
comments that have been made on the other side of the aisle, first to 
my friend from New York, the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways 
and Means. I was there with him in the Committee on Ways and Means when 
we had a good hearing, a good markup on these issues, and I appreciate 
his support of the Portman-Cardin provisions which are really the base 
of this legislation. There has been something added since that time, 
which is that those ``captains'' are prohibited from trading their 
stock at all during a blackout period so long as 50 percent of the 
participants in the plan are affected by the blackout.
  So you supported us in committee, we had a good bipartisan product, 
we had a good debate on it, we made some changes to accommodate some of 
the gentleman from Maryland's and your concerns and others, and then we 
added to it by actually putting in place what you indicated a moment 
ago is your biggest concern: that there is nothing in here to keep the 
captains from trading stock when the sailors cannot.
  I know there are some other issues. There is investment advice in 
here that was not in our bill, although we did have the pretax 
investment advice proposal. I would just hope that those listening to 
the debate today who are still trying to decide whether this is the 
right legislation to support or not, particularly on the other side of 
the aisle, would take a look at the bill.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) earlier who spoke 
in opposition to the bill because he said it did not do anything, I 
hope he would look at what came out of the Committee on Ways and Means 
and the gentleman from Ohio's committee more carefully because it does 
do a lot. Right now if you are in a 401(k), your employer can say, 
``You're tied in till you retire.'' If it is an ESOP, they can only tie 
you until you are age 55. Plus you have to have 10 years of 
participation. So if you arrive at age 46, you have to wait until you 
are age 56. But with 401(k)s, they can go even further than that.
  The legislation before us today makes a substantial change and 
directly affects what happened at Enron. The employees at Enron had to 
wait till age 50. They could not unload the stock if they wanted to. 
What we are saying is, once you are there 3 years, you are vested, you 
can unload the stock. Three years, instead of waiting until you are age 
50 or 55 or 65 or whatever the employer wanted to do under current law. 
Or the employer can instead choose a 3-year ``rolling,'' which means 
that when you get stock, you can only be required to hold it for 3 
years. That is a big difference.
  For those on that side of the aisle who say there is no change here, 
that this is somehow worse, how can that be worse? Think about the 
employees who are in 401(k)s around this country who are taking 
advantage of that employer match but who want to have a little more 
choice. Do we not want to give that to them? Why would you vote ``no'' 
on this? This is going to help millions of people be able to have more 
choice.
  It also has a very important component, which is more information and 
education. On the information side, it says you now have to be told 
about a blackout. Right now there is no notice requirement for 
blackouts. A blackout is when a company stops all the trading in their 
stock, in their 401(k) plan or other pension plan during a period of 
time, for example, when they are changing plan administrators or 
managers. Right now there is no requirement for a notice.
  Some say Enron provided notice, some say they did not. That is really 
beside the point, because this is not just about Enron. The point is 
that right now there is no ability for employees to know when they are 
going into a blackout period where they cannot trade. We say it has to 
be given 30 days before the blackout. That is new. There is no 
requirement now.
  Again, for my colleagues on that side of the aisle to stand up and 
say this does not change things at all, I hope they are looking out for 
the interests of the employees, but I have got to wonder. Is this all 
about politics or is it about making real change that is going to make 
a real difference? We had a 36-2 vote out of the Committee on Ways and 
Means on this issue because the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
and other Democrats looked at the bill, read the bill, understood its 
impact on workers and supported it.
  Finally, in order to be able to make informed choices, because we are 
giving people more choices, we are giving people more information, you 
want to give people more education. I thought there was a bipartisan 
consensus about that. I thought we wanted people to be better informed 
so they could make better decisions on their own. 401(k) participants 
have gone in the last 22 years from a few thousand employees to 
millions of Americans. With over 235,000 plans, 42 million Americans 
now enjoy the benefits of this. Do you not want to let them have a 
little more education so they can make these decisions?
  This bill says on a pretax basis, you can deduct out of your paycheck 
money to go out and get advice, wherever you want. You can get it from 
whoever you want. You can get 300 bucks or 400 bucks or 500 bucks to go 
out and seek advice. Pretax. That is a pretty good deal. Again, that 
came out of the Committee on Ways and Means. I appreciate the gentleman 
from New York supporting that. It is a good provision. It is going to 
help people to get the information they need to be able to make these 
decisions we are now empowering them with. Rather than saying you have 
got to hold onto that stock until you retire, we are saying, you should 
diversify. We want to give you the information to do so.
  And then in Chairman Boehner's committee, the provision was added to 
say the company ought to be able to go out and get advisers to come in 
who are certified advisers, who disclose any conflict of interest they 
might have or potential conflict of interest, and they ought to be able 
to offer advice. That

[[Page 4294]]

passed this House with over 60 Democrats supporting it last year, in 
November. That is not a controversial provision.
  The final thing is that we require not just more diversification 
options, more choice, more information, more education, but we actually 
force the employer now to tell employees they ought to diversify. When 
an employee now enters into a plan, we are going to require for the 
first time that they be given a notice which says, ``Guess what, it's 
not a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket. You ought to 
diversify.'' That is in this bill. It is not in current law. Then every 
quarter, they are now required to provide a benefit statement telling 
the employee what is going on with their plan and another notice 
saying, you ought to diversify. Because for retirement savings, it is 
not a good idea to have all your eggs in one basket. Information, 
education, choice, equals security.
  This is a pretty straightforward, commonsense piece of legislation. I 
have enjoyed working with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) on 
it for the past 3 or 4 months, enjoyed working with the administration, 
with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), with the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel), with other Democrats on the Committee on Ways and 
Means. I would just hope that today in a political year, where there is 
a lot of partisanship, that we can set some of that aside for the good 
of the workers, not the people at Enron solely, the people all around 
this country who are in 401(k) plans that have the huge advantage of 
getting an employer match. For those people, we ought to offer them 
better information, better education opportunities, and more choice. 
That is what this is about.
  This legislation, Mr. Speaker, has been bipartisan from the start. I 
am disappointed from what I have heard this morning from the other 
side. I would hope that at a minimum we can stick to the facts today, 
and if at the end of the day some of my colleagues on that side think 
this is such a great political issue that they just have to vote 
``no,'' so be it. But let us not as we go through this debate mislead 
the American people and mislead our colleagues as to what is in this 
legislation. It is good, solid legislation that does address what 
happened at Enron. It is not the silver bullet that is going to solve 
every problem in our pension area, but it makes substantial progress. 
It does not turn the clock back. It moves the clock forward. It gives 
people information, education, security, that they need.
  I would strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
look at the bill and if they do so, I believe they will support it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have had a very nice kind of technical discussion by the gentleman 
on the other side, but this is a very simple issue. The question is, 
which side are you on? Which side are they on? Which side are we on? 
They are with the top executives. We are with the employees.
  I would like to quote from an article in today's New York Times on 
the front page. It says: In Enron's Wake, Pension Measure Offers 
Loopholes. Experts Say House Bill Could Allow Companies to Favor Highly 
Paid Employees.
  It goes on:
  ``Some legal experts and pension rights advocates say the first of 
the post-Enron pension measures to reach the House floor actually opens 
up fresh loopholes. Some of the bill's provisions would lead companies 
to seek to reduce the number of employees covered by pensions and give 
proportionally larger pension benefits to the most highly paid 
executives.''

                              {time}  1100

  Which side are we on? We are with the employees. Which side are they 
on? They are with the highly paid executives.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me time.
  The gentleman spoke on the other side for a minute and wanted to talk 
about politics and education. Well, the politics of this rule are very 
simple. They did not want to have a straight matchup of each part of 
this bill. We are not allowed to bring forward amendments and talk 
about the several aspects that you heard the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) talk about earlier, because when you stack them up 
one against the other, this side that is with the employees, with 
working people, would win hands down. It is only by putting them all 
together in the aggregate and then trying to put it through on a party-
line vote that they stand to have any prospect of having a bill that 
favors employers and the well-to-do against people that work every day 
and need protection.
  I will associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) on the general aspects of the 
substitute, and that should pass. Thank God the rule at least allows 
that.
  But I had tried, Mr. Speaker, to get in an individual amendment 
speaking just to the issue of advice and was not allowed the 
opportunity to do that. That is why this rule is in essence an 
abomination. That issue and others are being excluded from a direct 
debate in a direct contradiction to what is in that major bill that the 
majority is putting forward.
  They claim this is a compromise between the two committees, the 
Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Education. The only 
thing being compromised here is the retirement security of our working 
men and women.
  This bill hurts employees with respect to the advice situation. A 
year ago, my amendment was the only amendment on this floor that talked 
about having no conflicted advice. The majority would not let it on the 
floor, would not let it come to a vote, and they passed a bill that 
went through and allowed for conflicted advice.
  Again we see a bill here saying, gee, as long as we tell you we are 
conflicted, as long as we tell you we might hurt you, we can have that 
kind of advice. Well, the fact of the matter is, Enron is coming 
between that; Ken Lay and his chat room advice to employees to hang on 
to the stock while he was dumping it off at a profit has come in 
between that. We have had investigations in the industry which every 
day reveal new conflicts, new scandals, more losses for working people.
  Mr. Speaker, I will include my remarks from the Congressional Record 
from last year for the record, because they are still pertinent.
  We only have to look at a recent newspaper headline from the 
Washington Post, April 9: ``Merrill Lynch e-mail shows firm pushed bad 
investments on client, chief New York prosecutor says.''
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the industry is admitting 
they are totally conflicted. The U.S. Attorney's Office and the New 
York State Attorney's Office in New York have shown that that happens 
day in and day out.
  The American public and the working people need to know they have 
advice that is not conflicted. Employers can be protected on the advice 
that they give, but there is no excuse to not protect the employees and 
to make sure advice they get is absolutely not conflicted. It is just 
one more way in which this bill does not favor employees and does more 
for the executives than it does for the working people.

       Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New 
     Jersey for yielding me this time.
       Like many Members, I represent people who have worked hard 
     and whose entire hope for a secure retirement may well rest 
     on the success of their 401(k): leather workers, jet engine 
     assemblers, teachers, nurses, and other hard-working, 
     intelligent folks who are bright and able, but many of whom 
     have little experience in understanding investment 
     fundamentals. They may lack the time or even the knowledge to 
     work through a mountain of financial information. They need 
     advice that is given by a provider that meets at least 
     minimum standards, one who is qualified and one who is 
     subject to the laws of ERISA's fidicuary standards, standards 
     of trust, and one who is free from financial conflict, free 
     from divided loyalties; and

[[Page 4295]]

     they need an advisor who will put the worker's or investor's 
     interests first above profit.
       Consider this following example: two mutual funds, each 
     posting annual gains of 12 percent consistently for 30 years. 
     One fund has an expense fee of 1 percent, the other an 
     expense fee of 2 percent. If you invested $10,000 in each 
     fund, the fund with the lower expense fee at the end of 30 
     years would earn $229,000, but the one with the higher 
     expense fee of 2 percent would have only $174,000. The mutual 
     fund would pocket the difference of $55,000.
       Obviously, there may be little incentive for the advisor 
     connected to the mutual fund to highlight the significance of 
     this conflict, of his or her potential gain in steering 
     someone to the higher fee investment. Why should we allow 
     such a conflict of interest to exist when it is not 
     necessary?
       Perhaps that is why the fund industry is lobbying so hard 
     for this bill, but workers and retirees are not asking for 
     its passage. These hard-working people, like other investors, 
     need and want good, sound advice; but allowing money managers 
     to make recommendations that will generate more income for 
     themselvess hardly falls into the realm of independent 
     advice.
       In 1974, Congress chose to ban transactions between pension 
     plans and parties with a conflict of interest, except under 
     very narrow circumstsances; and they did that for a simple 
     reason. There is too great a danger that a party with a 
     conflict of interest will act in its own best interests 
     rather than exclusively for the benefit of the workers. That 
     concern is not less valid today.
       Studies by the financial industry itself have found broker 
     conflicts have harmed advice received by individuals, audit 
     conflicts have undercut the value of audits on financial 
     firms, analyst reports have shown significant evidence of 
     bias in comparing ratings. The law, ERISA, was designed to 
     protect against just these types of issues.
       Our shared goal should be to increase access to investment 
     advice for individual account plan participants. We need not 
     obliterate long-standing protections for plan participants in 
     order to do that. Surveys show that the most important reason 
     advice may not now be offered is that employers have fears 
     that they may be held liable for advice gone bad. The remedy 
     for that, and it is in the bill, is that Congress should 
     encourage more employers to provide independent advice by 
     addressing employer liability. It should clarify that an 
     employer would not be liable for specific advice if it 
     undertook due diligence selecting and monitorinng the advice 
     provided. It is as simple as that. There is no need for 
     conflicted advice.
       Many plans already provide for investment education. Many 
     plans now provide independent investment advice through 
     financial institutions and other firms without conflict. 
     Clarifying that employers would not be liable if they 
     undertake due diligence with respect to advice providers 
     would further increase advice as necessary.
       Disclosure alone will not mitigate potential problems. The 
     alternative bill in adding some protections and mandating a 
     choice of alternative advice that is not conflicted is a 
     better ideaa, but the best idea remains a prohibiting against 
     conflicted advice. Congress, by clearing up the liability 
     issue, can encourage independent, unbiased investment advice 
     that will better enable employers to improve their long-term 
     retirement security, while minimizing the potential for 
     employee dissatisfaction and possible litigation. This is 
     what is in the best interests of the plan participants and, 
     in fact, the best interests of the plan; and certainly is in 
     the best interests of the hard-working people in my district 
     who need to know that their retirement is secure.

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from Massachusetts' concern 
about his amendment that would seek to eliminate the ability of, 
frankly, some of the best advisers, some of the most successful 
companies in America, from offering investment advice to their 
employees.
  The fact is today we have some 50 million Americans who have self-
directed investment accounts as part of their pension and retirement 
package from their employer. Only about 16 percent of these people have 
any access to professional investment advice.
  One of the things we have all seen with the collapse of the high-tech 
sector, with the Enron collapse, and about the dramatic fall in the 
value of a number of stocks that we have seen over the last several 
years, those employees today need more investment advice to help them 
make better decisions for their own retirement security.
  The two provisions in the underlying bill today, the Investment 
Advice Act that this House passed with all the Republicans and 64 
Democrats last November is one of those provisions, and the provision 
from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) in the Committee on Ways and 
Means' section of the bill that would provide a tax credit, the ability 
to use pre-tax dollars to have their own investment, I think complement 
each other to the point where we will have much more investment advice 
out in the marketplace.
  But to say that people who sell products cannot offer investment 
advice I think is wrong-headed. Why? Because we are trying to encourage 
more investment advice in the marketplace, not less, and the fact is 
that if you do not allow those who sell products from offering advice, 
with protections for the employee as we have in the underlying bill, we 
will get very little new advice into the marketplace.
  That is not what employees want. In a recent poll, some 75 percent of 
employees said they need more investment advice. Well, why should we 
not get this information out in the marketplace for them?
  We will have much more debate on this when we get into the bill 
itself. But the gentleman from Massachusetts is a good friend, I know 
he means well, but in the end I think the provisions we have in the 
underlying bill meet the test of fairness and safety for all of 
Americans and America's employees.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today might be called the ``We Have 
Learned Nothing From Enron Yet Act.'' The first lesson of Enron is 
Enron is not alone. The problem is endemic in corporate America.
  The retirement security of millions of Americans is at risk. For 
years, corporations have moved more and more toward defined 
contribution plans. In other words, the corporations took less and less 
responsibility for their employees' retirement and no one was looking 
after the employees' interests. Employees in many cases were denied the 
opportunity to look after their own interests. They were denied 
information about their company and the actions of their executives.
  Now, the bill before us today fails to give employees notice when 
executives are dumping company stock. It denies employees a crucial 
voice on pension boards. It limits the ability of employees to collect 
damages resulting from misconduct of corporate officials. It allows 
executives to continue to have their savings set aside and protected if 
a company fails, while rank-and-file employees are left to fend for 
themselves in line in bankruptcy proceedings.
  Perhaps most important, the bill leaves employees' money locked into 
company stock. Think Enron here. Locked into company stock for long 
periods against their will. The bill ties employees' hands from 
diversifying, even if they want to, for a 5-year period or a 3-year 
rolling period after that, and corporate executives will be allowed to 
unload their stock options.
  I asked the Committee on Rules to allow a vote on my amendment that 
would allow employees to be vested in their 401(k) plans after 1 year. 
I thought that was a fairly generous period, instead of 5 years. The 
Committee on Rules would not even allow a vote on that.
  Now, I have sided with the Republican majority on provisions with 
regard to pension whenever I can, but now they put together this bill 
that falls woefully short.
  All I can ask of my colleagues is take the side of employees. Pass 
the Democratic alternative.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, again I would make the point what we are proposing here 
today, what is before us, is a substantial change from current law, and 
it does address the Enron issue.
  My friend across the aisle just said that he believed that no one was 
looking after the employees' interests over the last 20-some years as 
we put together defined contribution plans. I would respectfully 
disagree.

[[Page 4296]]

  I would ask him to ask the thousands of constituents in his district 
how they feel about it, maybe ask the 55 million Americans who 
currently have the benefits of defined contribution plans. I would ask 
him to go to some of the smaller businesses in his community that would 
never have offered a defined benefit plan, never had one, who now offer 
a SEP or a simple plan or a 401(k) or a safe harbor 401(k) and are 
giving people the ability to save for their own retirement.
  There are people who will retire today in my hometown of Cincinnati 
with hundreds of thousands of dollars in their account, even with what 
the market has done in the last year, who turned a wrench their entire 
lives. They were technicians or mechanics and never had access to any 
kind of retirement savings. These are some of the 55 million people who 
now have a defined contribution plan.
  We do not want, in response to the Enron situation, to have those 
plans and those people lose their promise, lose their dreams, lose 
their ability to do that. I think we have achieved the right balance 
here.
  Frankly, the business community is not wild about this bill. Why? 
Because it does not let the employer tie people to the company stock 
the way they currently can.
  Now, my friend said he wanted to go to 1 year instead of 3 years. 
Well, it is unlimited years now. So we could debate whether it is 1 
year or 2 years or 3 years or 4 years or 5 years. That is as compared 
to saying to one your constituents, you have to keep in this stock 
until you retire, which could be 40 years, or 45 years, or even 50 
years.
  So, I think we are talking about some relatively small differences 
between where you would like to end up and what you proposed to the 
Committee on Rules last night and where we are today.
  I would again just urge those who are listening to this debate, let 
us be very clear: There are substantial differences between current 
practice and what we are proposing, and these do not just relate to the 
Enron situation. It relates to millions of Americans who have the 
benefit of getting a match from their employer in employer stock. We 
want to continue that.
  What the employer community tells us is they are not wild about our 
bill, but they certainly do not want it to go down to 1 year because 
they like the idea of giving corporate stock, in part because they want 
the employee to feel some stake in the company. They like the idea of 
employee ownership and employee empowerment through the company.
  We are, frankly, not going to permit them to have the kind of 
ownership that many of them would like to have over a longer period of 
time. We are doing it for a simple reason, because we believe employees 
ought to have more choice. Again, we combined that with information, 
including notice periods that are not there now, and better education.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey, Mr. Andrews.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the tragedy that affected the Enron 
pensioners is a story about power and conflict of interest. People with 
a lot of power and influence and a conflict of interest took advantage 
of people with very little power and influence, and those people lost 
just about everything they had.
  I wish that the legislation that my friend from Cincinnati described 
was on the floor today, but it is not. The legislation the majority is 
addressing on the floor today I think fails to solve the problems that 
exist in American pensions plans in three very important ways.
  First of all, our substitute would give employees real power to have 
a say in how pension plans, filled with their money, are managed. Our 
bill would call for these employees to have a seat, to have a say in 
how the plans are managed. The majority plan does not.
  Our bill would say that once money is in your account, it is your 
money. If the employer can put stock into your 401(k) plan and receive 
a deduction because it is treated as compensation paid to you, then it 
should be compensation. It should be yours to do with, whatever you 
please.
  The gentleman says that there is very little difference between the 
Democratic and Republican plans. I would respectfully disagree. Under 
the majority's plan it could be 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 years that an employee 
would have to sit there and watch the value of their stock plummet and 
not be able to sell the stock or do anything about it, while their 
bosses and superiors could drop their stock in a minute. That is wrong.
  Finally, there is the issue of conflict of interest. We are 
legalizing in this bill today, we are legitimizing in the majority's 
bill today, the practice of benefiting from giving people advice that 
benefits you more than it does them.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge support of the substitute.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, just to respond briefly, if the gentleman would like to 
take the mike, that is fine, but he said somehow I was not describing 
the bill that is before us. I would like him to tell me one thing that 
I said about the bill that is not in the legislation.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman to tell me, if 
your bill became law tomorrow, if an employee had stock in a 401(k) 
plan that was employer-matched, how many years would the employee have 
to wait before they could sell the stock?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my colleague just stood 
before the well of the House and told our colleagues and the American 
people, to the extent they are listening, that an employee would have 
to wait 5, 6 or 7 years holding on to its stock, while other people 
could dump the stock.

                              {time}  1115

  I do not know what he is talking about. In this legislation, it says 
that you have to hold the stock, if the employer requires it, for a 
period of 3 years as compared to an unlimited time now. That is the 
difference. Let me finish and tell the gentleman what is in the bill, 
because this legislation came out of the gentleman's committee and my 
committee. I assume the gentleman has read it, but the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and I put together this part of the bill, and I 
will just tell the gentleman what is in the legislation.
  When the legislation goes into effect, we were very careful not to 
have a dumping of stock on to the market, which is going to hurt not 
just the American consumer and our economy, but those very employees 
who care about having the corporate stock continue to have the value 
that it deserves. If we allowed immediately for everyone who has 
corporate stock in America in their 401(k) plan to unload that stock, 
it would be detrimental. So we say it should be done over a 5-year 
period initially, with 20 percent per year, doing the math. That is, 
after 5 years one could, if one chose, have all of the stock out of 
their account. Then once that is completed, that is just the first 5 
years after the legislation, then the 3-year period begins.
  So that is how the legislation was drafted. I see the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has now come into the Chamber. That is how we 
drafted it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I know at the end of the day, some of my 
colleagues have some substantive differences with the legislation and 
they also have some politics that they would like to talk about; and I 
would love to address the gentleman from Texas's quote from the New 
York Times, because there are some other quotes from that story that 
are more accurate. This is not about us versus them; this is not about 
the big guy

[[Page 4297]]

versus the little guy. This is about something that will help the 
workers in this country. But I do believe that it would be in the 
interests of this House to stick to the facts, and that is what I have 
tried to do.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question 
about the facts?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I think I just heard the gentleman say that 
if the majority's bill became law tomorrow, an employee would have to 
wait for 5 years before he or she could divest themselves of all of the 
stock; is that correct?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, 20 percent the first year, 20 percent the 
second year, 20 percent the third year, 20 percent the fourth year, 20 
percent the fifth year.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, so before 
they could divest themselves of all the stock, they would have to wait 
for 5 years; is that correct?
  Mr. PORTMAN. That is correct. Reclaiming my time, does the gentleman 
disagree with that provision?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I do indeed.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the high school sophomores of America are 
disgusted with this conversation, I am certain. I am sure they are 
asking themselves why the Members of the House of Representatives and 
the other people who are elected to protect their rights allow this 
situation to exist for so long; but they are certainly not happy with 
the majority party standing up to applaud themselves for taking a few 
significant steps toward greater financial security with respect to the 
pension funds of the employees.
  We have taken a few steps. Why not maximum reasonable security for 
all of the people who have their money in these pension plans? Why not 
go further than the plan that the majority has? Does it cost the 
taxpayer any money to do a little more as reflected by the Miller 
substitute?
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Miller substitute. What would 
it cost to have immediate disclosure whenever a top executive sells a 
large amount of stock? Would that cost the taxpayer any money? Would it 
really cost us any money to have greater checks and balances? Would it 
cost us any money to have more democracy where the employees have a 
representative actually watching their funds sitting in a high place 
where the decisions are being made? The people in Europe and the other 
industrialized democracies do not think it is such a great problem to 
have an employee representative sitting on the board. Why not maximum 
reasonable security? Why not go one step further?
  Everybody knows from past scandals, savings and loans swindles, the 
bigger the party is, the more corruption there is going to be. We have 
enough history as a human race to know that whenever we have large 
amounts of money or large amounts of power, corruption is inevitable. 
Human beings are going to behave that way. That is why the system of 
checks and balances exists. Let us go all the way with maximum 
reasonable security.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in my district in Houston, the 
ex-Enron employees' lives are in shambles; and every time I go home, 
they ask, what? why? What is the Congress going to do?
  Today we have an opportunity to act and we are not. I ask that we 
defeat this rule. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. Why? Because the majority refused to allow an amendment that 
I cosponsored with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the 
Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act, which gives a 10-year 
felony for defrauding shareholders of publicly-held companies. There is 
a penalty for destruction of evidence, it provides whistleblower 
protection, and a bureau in the DOJ that prosecutes such acts. Why can 
we not do something real for these people whose lives are now 
destroyed?
  I rise to urge the Members to defeat the previous question so that 
the House can consider my amendment to toughen criminal penalties 
against white collar fraud and prevent future Enrons.
  I'm amazed that after all of the outrageous abuses we have learned 
about in the Enron case that the Leadership would refuse to permit this 
body to even vote on these provisions. You would think that after the 
greatest white collar fraud in history, which cost tens of thousands of 
hard working Americans their jobs, their retirement, and their savings, 
that we would take action to prevent future Enrons. But the base bill 
does not provide a single increased criminal penalty to respond to this 
abuse.
  My amendment would impose tough criminal and civil penalties on 
corporate wrongdoers and takes a variety of actions to protect 
employees and shareholders against future acts of corporate fraud. 
Among other things, it creates a new 10-year felony for defrauding 
shareholders of publicly-traded companies; clarifies and strengthens 
current criminal laws relating to the destruction or fabrication of 
evidence, including the shredding of financial and audit records; 
provides whistle-blower protection to employees of publicly-traded 
companies; and establishes a new bureau within the Department of 
Justice to prosecute crimes involving securities and pension fraud.
  My amendment would also give former employees enhanced priority in 
bankruptcy to protect their lost pensions. If we defeat the previous 
question, we can bring these measures up for a vote immediately, and 
take a strong stand against white collar fraud and in favor of working 
Americans.
  In the wake of the Enron debacle, there can be no question that the 
time is ripe to protect American investors and employees. The Enron 
case has established beyond a shadow of a doubt that white collar fraud 
can be incredibly damaging, in many cases wiping away life savings and 
devastate entire communities. There can be no conceivable justification 
for shielding white collar criminals from criminal prosecution for 
their outrageous behavior.
  This is why it is so important that we act today to prevent corporate 
wrongdoers from preying on innocent investors and employees. Vote no to 
defeat the previous question, and we can do just that.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. 
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule that will allow the Conyers enforcement amendment to be offered.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment will give the base bill much-needed 
language to prosecute the corporations found guilty of pension fraud. 
It will create a new bureau within the Justice Department to prosecute 
crimes involving pension fraud and create a new 10-year felony for 
defrauding shareholders of publicly traded companies.
  Mr. Speaker, no one here today opposes giving employees a greater 
role in managing and understanding their investments. That part of the 
bill we all support. However, it is absolutely critical that we send a 
message to those companies that might be tempted to follow the 
practices of Enron. They need to realize up front that if they do that, 
they will be severely punished. The Conyers amendment will do just 
that.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can add some teeth to 
this bill and really guarantee that those who defraud their employees 
will pay a severe price.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I urge my colleagues to support the previous question and the rule so 
that we can move on with debate on this important bill.
  The amendment previously referred to by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) is as follows:


[[Page 4298]]

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the bill (H.R. 3762) to amend title I of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional 
     protections to participants and beneficiaries in individual 
     account plans from excessive investment in employer 
     securities and to promote the provision of retirement 
     investment advice to workers managing their retirement income 
     assets, and to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to 
     prohibit insider trades during any suspension of the ability 
     of plan participants or beneficiaries to direct investment 
     away from equity securities of the plan sponsor. The bill 
     shall be considered as read for amendment. In lieu of the 
     amendment recommended by the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce now printed in the bill, the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be 
     considered as adopted. All points of order against the bill, 
     as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate on the 
     bill, as amended, equally divided among and controlled by the 
     chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees on 
     Education and the Workforce and Ways and Means; (2) the 
     further amendment specified in section 2, if offered by 
     Representative Conyers of Michigan 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 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent; (3) the further amendment 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules, if 
     offered by Representative Miller of California or 
     Representative Rangel of New York or a 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 (4) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendment offered by Representative Conyers 
     referred to in the first section of this resolution is as 
     follows:
       Add at the end the following new title (and amend the table 
     of contents accordingly):

          TITLE V--CORPORATE AND CRIMINAL FRAUD ACCOUNTABILITY

     SEC. 501. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR ALTERING DOCUMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 73 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of 
       records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

       ``Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, 
     covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, 
     document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, 
     obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper 
     administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any 
     department or agency of the United States or any case filed 
     under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any 
     such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

     ``Sec. 1520. Destruction of corporate audit records

       ``(a) Any accountant who conducts an audit of an issuer of 
     securities to which section 10A(a) of the Securities Exchange 
     Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78j-1(a)) applies, shall maintain all 
     documents (including electronic documents) sent, received, or 
     created in connection with any audit, review, or other 
     engagement for such issuer for a period of 5 years from the 
     end of the fiscal period in which the audit, review, or other 
     engagement was concluded.
       ``(b) Whoever knowingly and willfully violates subsection 
     (a) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 
     5 years, or both.
       ``(c) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish 
     or relieve any person of any other duty or obligation, 
     imposed by Federal or State law or regulation, to maintain, 
     or refrain from destroying, any document.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new items:

``1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal 
              investigations and bankruptcy.
``1520. Destruction of corporate audit records.''.

     SEC. 502. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR DEFRAUDING SHAREHOLDERS OF 
                   PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 63 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1348. Securities fraud

       ``Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a 
     scheme or artifice--
       ``(1) to defraud any person in connection with any security 
     registered under section 12 or 15(d) of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l, 78o(d)) or section 6 of 
     the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f); or
       ``(2) to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, 
     representations, or promises, any money or property in 
     connection with the purchase or sale of any security 
     registered under section 12 or 15(d) of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l, 78o(d)) or section 6 of 
     the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f),
     shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 
     10 years, or both.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1348. Securities fraud.''.

     SEC. 503. REVIEW OF FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR 
                   OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL 
                   FRAUD.

       Pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code, 
     and in accordance with this section, the United States 
     Sentencing Commission shall review and amend, as appropriate, 
     the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and related policy 
     statements to ensure that--
       (1) the guideline offense levels and enhancements for an 
     obstruction of justice offense are adequate in cases where 
     documents or other physical evidence are actually destroyed 
     or fabricated;
       (2) the guideline offense levels and enhancements for 
     violations of section 1519 or 1520 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as added by this Act, are sufficient to deter and 
     punish that activity;
       (3) the guideline offense levels and enhancements under 
     United States Sentencing Guideline 2B1.1 (as in effect on the 
     date of enactment of this Act) are sufficient for a fraud 
     offense when the number of victims adversely involved is 
     significantly greater than 50; and
       (4) a specific offense characteristic enhancing sentencing 
     is provided under United States Sentencing Guideline 2B1.1 
     (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act) for a 
     fraud offense that endangers the solvency or financial 
     security of 1 or more victims.

     SEC. 504. DEBTS NONDISCHARGEABLE IF INCURRED IN VIOLATION OF 
                   SECURITIES FRAUD LAWS.

       Section 523(a) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (17), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (18), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end, the following:
       ``(19) that--
       ``(A) arises under a claim relating to--
       ``(i) the violation of any of the Federal securities laws 
     (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the 
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(47)), any 
     State securities laws, or any regulations or orders issued 
     under such Federal or State securities laws; or
       ``(ii) common law fraud, deceit, or manipulation in 
     connection with the purchase or sale of any security; and
       ``(B) results, in relation to any claim described in 
     subparagraph (A), from--
       ``(i) any judgment, order, consent order, or decree entered 
     in any Federal or State judicial or administrative 
     proceeding;
       ``(ii) any settlement agreement entered into by the debtor; 
     or
       ``(iii) any court or administrative order for any damages, 
     fine, penalty, citation, restitutionary payment, disgorgement 
     payment, attorney fee, cost, or other payment owed by the 
     debtor.''.

     SEC. 505. INCREASED PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES WAGES UNDER 
                   CHAPTER 11 PROCEEDINGS.

       Section 507(a) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``90'' and inserting 
     ``180'', and
       (2) in paragraphs (3) and (4) by striking ``$4,000'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``$10,000''.

     SEC. 506. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR SECURITIES FRAUD.

       (a) In General.--Section 1658 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Except''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a private right of 
     action that involves a claim of fraud, deceit, manipulation, 
     or deliberate or reckless disregard of a regulatory 
     requirement concerning the securities laws, as defined in 
     section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 
     U.S.C. 78c(a)(47)), may be brought not later than the earlier 
     of--
       ``(1) 5 years after the date on which the alleged violation 
     occurred; or
       ``(2) 3 years after the date on which the alleged violation 
     was discovered.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The limitations period provided by 
     section 1658(b) of title 28, United States Code, as added by 
     this section, shall apply to all proceedings addressed by 
     this section that are commenced on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 507. PROTECTION FOR EMPLOYEES OF PUBLICLY TRADED 
                   COMPANIES WHO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 73 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1514 the 
     following:

[[Page 4299]]



     ``Sec. 1514A. Civil action to protect against retaliation in 
       fraud cases

       ``(a) Whistleblower Protection for Employees of Publicly 
     Traded Companies.--No company with securities registered 
     under section 6 of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f) 
     or section 12 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
     (15 U.S.C. 78l, 78o(d)), or any officer, employee, 
     contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such company, may 
     discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other 
     manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and 
     conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by 
     the employee--
       ``(1) to provide information, cause information to be 
     provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding 
     any conduct which the employee reasonably believes 
     constitutes a violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, 
     any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud 
     against shareholders, when the information or assistance is 
     provided to or the investigation is conducted by--
       ``(A) a Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency;
       ``(B) any Member of Congress or any committee of Congress; 
     or
       ``(C) a person with supervisory authority over the employee 
     (or such other person working for the employer who has the 
     authority to investigate, discover, or terminate misconduct); 
     or
       ``(2) to file, cause to be filed, testify, participate in, 
     or otherwise assist in a proceeding filed or about to be 
     filed (with any knowledge of the employer) relating to an 
     alleged violation of section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any 
     rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
     or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against 
     shareholders.
       ``(b) Election of Action.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person who alleges discharge or other 
     discrimination by any person in violation of subsection (a) 
     may seek relief under subsection (c), by--
       ``(A) filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor; or
       ``(B) bringing an action at law or equity in the 
     appropriate district court of the United States.
       ``(2) Procedure.--
       ``(A) In general.--An action under paragraph (1)(A) shall 
     be governed under the rules and procedures set forth in 
     section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
       ``(B) Exception.--Notification made under section 
     42121(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, shall be made to 
     the person named in the complaint and to the employer.
       ``(C) Burdens of proof.--An action brought under paragraph 
     (1)(B) shall be governed by the legal burdens of proof set 
     forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code.
       ``(D) Statute of limitations.--An action under paragraph 
     (1) shall be commenced not later than 180 days after the date 
     on which the violation occurs.
       ``(c) Remedies.--
       ``(1) In general.--An employee prevailing in any action 
     under subsection (b)(1) (A) or (B) shall be entitled to all 
     relief necessary to make the employee whole.
       ``(2) Compensatory damages.--Relief for any action under 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       ``(A) reinstatement with the same seniority status that the 
     employee would have had, but for the discrimination;
       ``(B) 2 times the amount of back pay, with interest; and
       ``(C) compensation for any special damages sustained as a 
     result of the discrimination, including litigation costs, 
     expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney fees.
       ``(3) Punitive damages.--
       ``(A) In general.--In a case in which the finder of fact 
     determines that the protected conduct of the employee under 
     subsection (a) involved a substantial risk to the health, 
     safety, or welfare of shareholders of the employer or the 
     public, the finder of fact may award punitive damages to the 
     employee.
       ``(B) Factors.--In determining the amount, if any, to be 
     awarded under this paragraph, the finder of fact shall take 
     into account--
       ``(i) the significance of the information or assistance 
     provided by the employee under subsection (a) and the role of 
     the employee in advancing any investigation, proceeding, 
     congressional inquiry or action, or internal remedial 
     process, or in protecting the health, safety, or welfare of 
     shareholders of the employer or of the public;
       ``(ii) the nature and extent of both the actual and 
     potential discrimination to which the employee was subjected 
     as a result of the protected conduct of the employee under 
     subsection (a); and
       ``(iii) the nature and extent of the risk to the health, 
     safety, or welfare of shareholders or the public under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(d) Rights Retained by Employee.--
       ``(1) Other remedies unaffected.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privilege, or 
     remedies of any employee under any Federal or State law, or 
     under any collective bargaining agreement.
       ``(2) Voluntary adjudication.--No employee may be compelled 
     to adjudicate his or her rights under this section pursuant 
     to an arbitration agreement.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1514 
     the following new item:

``1514A. Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases.''.

     SEC. 508. ESTABLISHMENT OF A RETIREMENT SECURITY FRAUD 
                   BUREAU.

       (a) In General.--Part II of title 28, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

            ``CHAPTER 40A--RETIREMENT SECURITY FRAUD BUREAU

     ``Sec. 600. Retirement Security Fraud Bureau

       ``(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish a 
     Retirement Security Fraud Bureau which shall be a bureau in 
     the Department of Justice.
       ``(b) Director.--
       ``(1) Appointment.--The head of the Retirement Security 
     Fraud Bureau shall be the Director who shall be appointed by 
     the Attorney General.
       ``(2) Duties and powers.--The duties and powers of the 
     Director are as follows:
       ``(A) Advise and make recommendations on matters relating 
     to pension and securities fraud, in general, to the Assistant 
     Attorney General of the Criminal Division.
       ``(B) Maintain a government-wide data access service, with 
     access, in accordance with applicable legal requirements, to 
     the following:
       ``(i) Information collected by the Department of Justice, 
     the Department of the Treasury, and the Securities Exchange 
     Commission on pension and securities fraud matters.
       ``(ii) Other privately and publicly available information 
     on pension and securities fraud-related activities.
       ``(C) Analyze and disseminate the available data in 
     accordance with applicable legal requirements, policies, and 
     guidelines established by the Attorney General to--
       ``(i) identify possible criminal activity to appropriate 
     Federal, State, local, and foreign law enforcement agencies;
       ``(ii) support ongoing criminal pension and securities 
     fraud investigations;
       ``(iii) determine emerging trends and methods in pension 
     and securities fraud matters; and
       ``(iv) support government initiatives against pension and 
     securities fraud-related activities.
       ``(E) Furnish research, analytical, and informational 
     services to financial institutions, to appropriate Federal 
     regulatory agencies with regard to financial institutions, 
     and to appropriate Federal, State, local, and foreign law 
     enforcement authorities, in accordance with policies and 
     guidelines established by the Department of Justice, in the 
     interest of detection, prevention, and prosecution of pension 
     and securities fraud-related crimes.
       ``(F) Establish and maintain a special unit dedicated to 
     assisting Federal, State, local, and foreign law enforcement 
     and regulatory authorities in combating pension and 
     securities fraud.
       ``(G) Such other duties and powers as the Attorney General 
     may delegate or prescribe.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated for the Retirement Security 
     Fraud Bureau such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 
     2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters at the 
     beginning of part II of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``40A. Retirement Security Fraud Bureau.''......................600....

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 and, thereafter, the approval of the 
Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 208, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 87]

                               YEAS--218

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert

[[Page 4300]]


     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
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     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
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     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
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     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)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     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
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Allen
     Ford
     Pryce (OH)
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Sessions
     Towns
     Traficant

                              {time}  1150

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. SANCHEZ and Messrs. ROTHMAN, SCOTT, CROWLEY, 
ISRAEL, and TURNER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BAKER and Mr. LEWIS of California 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. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215, 
noes 209, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 88]

                               AYES--215

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     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
     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
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     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
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--209

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     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
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson

[[Page 4301]]


     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)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     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
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Allen
     Ford
     Otter
     Pryce (OH)
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sessions
     Towns
     Traficant

                              {time}  1159

  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall 88, 
on agreeing to House Resolution 386. Had I been present I would have 
voted ``aye''.

                          ____________________