Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). Ms. Harman. Mr. Speaker, my father was a refugee from Nazi Germany. If he had not made his way here and not made his way in America, I would not be standing here. My story is the story of many Members, themselves refugees, like our friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), or the sons and daughters of refugees from oppressed places all over the world. The only country in the world which always, always provides a homeland for Jewish refugees is Israel. As anti-semitism is on the rise all over the world, shockingly in France and Germany, Israel's existence and security becomes even more important. President Harry Truman courageously recognized Israel 54 years ago and every administration since has strongly supported her. We must do so again today by strongly supporting this rule and this resolution. It is the moral thing to do. It is the strategic thing to do. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Rules Committee. (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this rule permits the House to consider today under suspension of the rules 1 hour of debate on H. Res. 392, expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. I urge the House to approve this rule so we can immediately demonstrate our strong support for the State of Israel, bypassing the underlying resolution. Mr. Speaker, we face a historic turning point in the Middle East. All of us, Democrats and Republicans, want peace in the region and all of us want a strong vital State of Israel to prosper. In order for that to happen, the United States must reaffirm its longstanding support for Israel as we attempt to achieve a peaceful solution to the problems of the region. There should be no misunderstanding in the rest of the world: we are Israel's friend as she deals with the wave of terrorism directed against her by her enemies. That does not mean that we cannot make constructive suggestions to our ally and work for a solution that provides two states in the region, one Israeli and one Palestinian. But key to all of this is the clear understanding that Israel is our ally. She is the only democracy in the region and has always been our friend. And now in her time of need Israel stands virtually alone. Much of Europe has turned its back on Israel and few in the Arab world are willing to stand up to the radical elements that conduct terrorism against innocent civilians, including women and children. The resolution that we will vote on later today is somewhat different from the original one drafted by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on International Relations. Some of us might reword portions of the resolution if we had that option. But we would not change the basic thrust of the resolution, that America stand by its ally at this critical juncture. The procedure chosen by the majority does not give us the opportunity to change one word in the resolution. It is unamendable and subject to a straight up-or-down vote. That being the case, it is my hope that the resolution will receive an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote at the end of the day. Americans must speak with an unequivocal voice at this juncture in history. We stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism, and we urge the Palestinians to reject the extremists in their midst and to work for peace. We must also reject the pessimists who say that there is no solution for the differences that divide Israel and Palestinians. The United States is the only nation in the world that can mediate this dispute. It is my hope that the Bush administration will continue to be engaged at the highest level in seeking a peaceful solution. But make no mistake about our role. We are not a neutral bystander with no stake in the outcome. We stand for a strong vital Israel and should continue to play a constructive role to ensure both peace and Israel's future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. FROST

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.

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.'' 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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

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, 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. 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. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

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 gave 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.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Since September 11, Americans have united in historic fashion, pulling together as a national family to face down the new dangers of terrorism, and Democrats remain committed to ensuring our troops have all the resources they need to win the war on terrorism. There is no partisan debate over defending America. But that is not the only challenge facing us right now, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that my friends on the other side of the aisle are great fans of Lewis Carroll. You remember Lewis Carroll. He is the fellow who wrote ``Alice in Wonderland.'' We have a situation where down is up and up is down. Republicans say, oh, we do not touch the Social Security surplus. We do not take a penny out of Social Security. Well, down is up and up is down, my colleagues, because, in fact, this budget uses $1 trillion of the Social Security and Medicare surplus the first 5 years and $2 trillion over a 10-year period. Over the past 12 years, America has fallen into a very deep and dangerous budgetary hole, one that poses a great threat to Social Security and other priorities like education, prescription drugs, and homeland security. Since Republicans passed their budget last year, America has lost $5 trillion of the proposed surplus. That is nearly 90 percent of our national nest egg down the drain. Mr. Speaker, last year, we were planning to pay off America's national debt. This year, the Bush administration wants to increase the debt ceiling so all Americans can go deeper into debt. Before last year, we were using the Social Security surplus to strengthen Social Security. In fact, this House overwhelmingly passed five different lock boxes, pledging not to spend Social Security on other government programs. But this year, Republicans have broken their promise to America and offered a budget that raids Social Security in each of the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, there is only one way to dig ourselves out of this hole and that is by working together as a national family to restore fiscal responsibility and honest budgeting. That is how families across the country operate. They sit down at the kitchen table and take an honest look at their expenses, their debts, and their income. Mr. Speaker, that is why Democrats have repeatedly urged Republicans to forget politics as usual and join us at the negotiating table to work out a bipartisan budget. Unfortunately, Republicans refuse to even acknowledge the mess they have made or the threat it poses to Social Security. Instead, their budget cooks the books yet again and tries to pass off another bad check on the American people. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are hiding behind budget gimmicks and accounting tricks that no self-respecting accountant would stomach, unless he worked for Enron. Republicans are desperate, Mr. Speaker. They are desperate to hide the fact that the Republican budget is a trillion dollar raid on Social Security, one that still increases the debt and shortchanges priorities like education and prescription drugs. Additionally, as the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) have pointed out, Republicans are seriously shortchanging health care for veterans and military retirees. Vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the budget.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. My colleagues on the other side want to say no, no, no, no, this is not about Enron. Explain that to the thousands of Enron employees who lost their life savings in their 401(k)s and who would like to bring a civil fraud action against executives at Enron in State court in Harris County, Houston, Texas. Explain that to them, please, if this is not about Enron. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark). (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

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.