Robert Matsui

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from Hawaii for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to offer my condolences to John, Patsy's husband, and Wendy, Patsy's daughter, and obviously her staff both in Hawaii and in Washington, for the wonderful job that they have given her and the people of her State over the past 24 years. And this goes from the time she was in Congress, from 1964 to 1976, and from 1990 until she passed away last Saturday. It is somewhat unique when a colleague of ours dies. I remember when Walter Capps, the member from California, passed away. We had a chance then to look at his accomplishments over the years, and we began then to realize what a great human being he really was. We see our colleagues on the floor every day, and we obviously know them, we like them, we have friendships, but until they leave us do we really have an opportunity to really look at their careers. Unlike Members of the other body and unlike Governors in statehouses, we do not have an opportunity to view our colleagues as we do Patsy Mink today. Her political career went over 46 years. If one really thought about it, she was the first Asian American, she was the first woman of color to enter the House of Representatives. I had not known that until this week. I think many of my colleagues did not know that. She was the first Asian American woman to be admitted to the Hawaii bar, and she had to do it by challenging the residency requirements because her husband was from Pennsylvania, and in those days she had to take the residency of her husband, and so she was first not admitted. But at the age of 26, Patsy Mink challenged the Hawaii residency requirements in respect to admission to the bar, and her life was like that. I think the gentlewoman from Ohio stated that Patsy was the one who made an amendment through the Higher Education Act, Title IX, back in 1972. Because of her, young elementary schoolgirls can say that they want to be like Mia Hamm. A young woman in college now can aspire to be a professional player in the WNBA. She has just done so much. Two things stick out in my mind about Patsy, if I may just say this, and I know there are so many speakers that want to talk about Patsy. When she came back in 1990, Bill Ford was the chairman of what was then known as the Committee on Education and Labor. Bill said, ``Patsy Mink, she's coming back. I'm going to get her on my committee. She's just a great Member.'' I said, ``Yeah, I know.'' He said, ``No, no, you don't understand. Patsy Mink is a great legislator. She knows how to bring people together, she knows how to develop a consensus, she knows how to use words that are words of art. She is a legislator's legislator.'' I think all of us that have worked with Patsy know that. Last, let me just say that I have worked with Patsy on welfare and on a number of issues. I have never seen anyone in this body, or in any body, any more impassioned, any more committed to the forgotten people, the people that perhaps do not have the chance that many of us have, for people that really want to aspire in America. That is what Patsy Mink means to me and to all of us. She is truly a role model not just for Asian Americans or women, but for all Americans.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to my friend Mack Powell. On August 8, the Sacramento real estate community lost one of its most beloved and dedicated leaders when Mack Powell passed away. As his family and friends gather to remember Mack's many outstanding achievements and contributions to his community, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in saluting this truly remarkable citizen of Sacramento. Born in Sardis Mississippi on September 20, 1920, Mack was orphaned at an early age and was raised in an orphanage. Mack would go on to serve his country by enlisting in the Army during World War II. After his stint in the Army, Mack moved to Texas in 1946. While in Texas, Mack was elected and served with great distinction as the Mayor of Pecos, Texas. In hopes of securing a better future for himself, Mack moved to California in 1955. In time, Mack owned and operated a furniture store in Sacramento. It was also in Sacramento where Mack met his wife, Paula. Mack and Paula were happily married in 1967. In the following year, Mack made his initial entry into the real estate business. After obtaining his sales license and later his brokers license, Mack and Paul founded Suburban Properties, Inc. By 1970, Mack had begun to get involved with the Sacramento Board of Realtors. During the course of his illustrious career, Mack would serve on over 100 committees between the national, state, and local Realtor associations. Locally, Mack served as the Sacramento Association of Realtors' President in 1986. On a statewide level, Mack was the California Association of Realtors Regional Vice President in 1986, and after much hard work, he was selected President of California Association of Realtors in 1991. It was also in 1991 that Mack was named the Realtor of the year for the Sacramento Association of Realtors and California Association of Realtors. Mack also served as a Federal District Coordinator of the National Association of Realtors for my a Congressional district. It was simply a great joy and privilege to have had the opportunity to work with Mack over the years. Mack was a gentle man of unparalleled ethics who always had the best interests of the community and his industry in mind in all his endeavors. The citizens of Sacramento should be thankful that they could call Mack Powell one of their own. Widely touted as one of Sacramento's most cherished and prominent citizens, Mack was the consummate community leader. While astute and active politically, he was both a civic leader and exemplary citizen who was trusted and respected across all political persuasions. His intellect, integrity, good cheer, energy, and compassion made him a natural gatherer of people. Mack always found time to help others, whatever their stations in life. Mr. Speaker, as Mack Powell's family and friends pay tribute to his many wonderful achievements, I am honored to express my gratitude and respect for one of Sacramento's most outstanding citizens. His accomplishments are unparalleled, and it was truly a privilege for me to count him as one of my dearest friends. I ask all my colleagues to join me in acknowledging Mack's invaluable contributions to Sacramento.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member on the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, what we are really doing here today is passing three resolutions that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said were absolutely meaningless, and I would have to say that they are probably less than absolutely meaningless. The first resolution deals with a bill that was passed some months ago basically asking that the Senate act on it. Now, the way I would do this is you just go walk over to the Senate side, which takes about 5 minutes, and just suggest that perhaps they bring the bill up, and if they will not bring the bill up ask them why and then you will find out why because the bill that passed the House is somewhat meaningless. The same thing on the second resolution. You want to make something permanent that will not take effect until 8 years from now. And so why talk about asking the Senate to take this bill up now when we are talking about something 8 years from now? We do not even know how this bill will work. The last one is on the marriage penalty, again doing something that will take 8 years from now. What is odd is that we should really be addressing the shortfall on Social Security, but because the Republicans want to privatize Social Security, they want to wait until after the elections because they know they are getting really torpedoed on this. They do not want to talk about Social Security. They have a prescription drug proposal that will privatize Medicare and, obviously, that cannot pass the other body because it is so extreme that that is not going to happen. You can go on and on and on. One of reasons the appropriations bills are not being brought up is even though the President had a wonderful Rose Garden ceremony, signing ceremony, on the education bill, Leave No Children Behind, he falls $7 billion short in actually funding that bill, which would make it impossible to implement it and create chaos in every school district in America. So we know what is happening. We know why we are spending hours of time on this floor of this body talking about resolutions. The easiest thing in the world, as I said, is just go on the other side. Talk to these people on the other side. Do not send resolutions and waste their time. What is really offensive is let us take the first piece of legislation that we are talking about, the first resolution. I will tell you how meaningless it is. They have basically two parts of this bill: The Boehner-Thomas bill which is supposed to really address the Enron pension problems. The first one basically says that no employee can actually sell company stock for 3 to 5 years from the date of receipt. Now, that does not mean anything from the top level management employees; the executives like Ken Lay could still sell any time they want. They get a stock option. So this does not really help the employees of these companies. The second part of it is even more silly when you think about it. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) talked about investment advice. The only trouble is the investment advice will come from the same people that are administering the program. So you take Enron, it would have been the Enron pension managers that would have been giving investment advice to the Enron employees. Now, what do you think they are going to say? Do not buy Enron stock? Of course not. It is silly. But you say, we do have a provision that you have to disclose a conflict of interest. Sure, that is a lot of help. That is what this bill does. It is somewhat meaningless. That is why the other body has a rough time wanting to take this up. The bill I would like to offer and the bill we really should be debating, you can vote against it, but let us bring it to the floor so that the American public will know our values, what we stand for, exactly who does want to solve those problems. What our bill will do is basically, let us take, for example, the whole issue of diversification, the first issue about Enron employees having in their 401(k) plans Enron stock. Essentially what we would provide is that the executive employees like Ken Lay and Skilling and those folks would not be able to sell their stocks if in fact there are impediments to the employees having to sell their stocks. And if they do sell their stocks and breach the general company-wide prohibition in terms of time limits, they would just have to pay a capital gains tax that is larger than the capital gains tax they will pay now. They will have to pay a 50 percent capital gains tax. That should be a disincentive then for them to sell these stocks or at least perhaps open it up so their employees can sell their stocks. Secondly, we all know what has been going on, and finally I think the Jack Welch situation became public knowledge about a month ago. A lot of retired top executives and CEOs get millions and millions of dollars of perks. Not only do they get wonderful pension programs, but they also get tickets free to sporting games on the front row. They get apartment complexes. They get their cleaning paid for. They get a corporate jet that is waiting for them. Millions of dollars worth of funds. We know that they get these big benefits and we are not going to stop that. They are going to get them. But what we want is transparency. One of the reasons the market is falling apart, it was 11,700 when the President took office, and now it is down to 7,700. It lost 4,000 points in the last 2 years since President Bush has been President, about a 40 percent reduction in pension benefits. The reason why there is no confidence in the stock market today is because there is no transparency, because the shareholders do not know what is actually being expensed. The shareholders of GE did not know that Jack Welch was actually spending millions and millions of dollars of monies that could have gone in the form of stock dividends. All we would do is just provide that when you give these benefits and perks to these top management people, that you notify the shareholders in writing. And then you allow the shareholders to vote as to whether or not they agree with it; and if they do not, these perks are not available. Very simple. Why would anybody be opposed to that? You want transparency, you want fairness, and you want the shareholders to have their benefits. We cannot bring this bill on the floor because you, Republican leadership, will not allow us to. The American public needs to know that. Why should we not be allowed to do that? Lastly, the whole issue of deferred compensation. Ken Lay did really well. After bankruptcy was filed, he was able to take millions of dollars in deferred compensation. You know why he was able to do it? Because he put it in a third party trust that was nontaxable to him; nontaxable trust monies of Enron money went into a third party trust. And when they filed bankruptcy, every employee of Enron corporation lost their 401(k)s and went from $100,000 to zero or whatever they had went down to zero. It was suffering, what these people went through. Ken Lay walked off with it. You know why? Because we have a provision in the Tax Code that needs to be changed because it allows a deferral of taxes, and at the same time with the third party trust he was able to take literally millions of dollars from his account. We need a no vote on the motion on the previous question so we are able to bring up our legislation that will deal with these major points so the American public and the shareholders will understand exactly what is going on in corporate America. Announcement By The speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to myself. Mr. Speaker, I am astonished. It is 6:15 in the evening; West Coast time it is 3:15. We have been debating essentially this issue with the rule and now in debate; and we will go on for another couple hours on this, so we will have all of this staff time in the House of Representatives and all of us sitting in the House of Representatives. What this resolution does is just say that the Senate should pass the Boehner-Thomas bill that was passed earlier this year. That is all it does. It is a meaningless piece of legislation. It has no effect of law. It is just gamesmanship. I suppose the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) actually might feel a little more secure at night because this resolution will probably pass, and it will make us feel better. Like, my gosh, we earned our pay because we were on the floor debating an important issue. Maybe the gentleman from Ohio feels a little better also because people from the State of Ohio in their 401(k)s only lost $8 billion over the last 18 months. My problem is California, these same people that have 401(k)s, have lost $18 trillion. Maybe the intensity of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and my intensity is a little greater than the intensity of the gentleman from Ohio because $8 billion is small time compared to what we lost in California. But what is interesting is the way Members handle legislation is not by passing resolutions and beating our chest and making a spectacle of ourselves. We walk to the other body, 5 minutes away, and say to the Senators, this bill has not passed. How can we get this piece of legislation passed? They may raise some problems. They may say we should beef the bill up a little bit. Then we could come back and start talking. The reason nothing happens is because we keep beating our chests and pretending like we are legislating when we really are not. Many of us who are concerned about this, in the last 18 months since President Bush took the oath of office, the stock market lost 40 percent. It went from 11,700 points down to 7,700 points. That is a lot of money. That is trillions of dollars worth of losses. My colleagues said when the President took office, we have to reform Social Security; we are going to privatize Social Security. All of a sudden privatization has become a bad word because people have lost money in the stock market, so they abandon the discussion about Social Security; but it will probably come up next year because the President plans to privatize Social Security. That is why this election is important. We will not debate Social Security. We have four Republican bills out there. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) has one, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has one. Why not bring those bills up on the privatization of Social Security. Let us debate those so at least the American public in an election year will know where we stand. On prescription drugs, Republicans want to privatize Medicare and the prescription drug program. That is why the other body has a very difficult time with it because we want to put prescription drugs under the Medicare program to make sure all seniors are protected. So we have fundamental differences, but what is really sad is that the Boehner-Thomas bill is irrelevant. We have some major problems in America. People have lost their 401(k) plans. People are stuck with their own company's plans, their stock in their 401(k)s. This bill will do very little. I think the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said it is a 5-year transition before it really comes effective. Then the so-called financial advice will come from the same people that are managing the Enron-type pension plans. They are going to say buy Enron stock or WorldCom stock because it is in their company's best interests. They are getting their wages from the company. That is why it is very difficult for the other body to get excited about this. Mr. Speaker, what we should be dealing with right now is transparency. One of the real problems in the stock market and why there is a great loss of confidence is because people know that the books are not necessarily accurate. We saw that with the former CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch. This guy has a corporate jet on call, he had a penthouse in New York, tickets to sporting events. Millions and millions of dollars' worth of money that was part of his going-away present in perpetuity for the rest of his life. He was smart enough to give it up because he knew the political ramifications. I wish my colleagues would have the judgment of Jack Welch, and I will tell Members why, not to punish corporate CEOs, but to provide transparency. The American public when they invest in the market should know exactly where that money is going. That means less stock dividends that are being paid out. That is why this is important. We would like to just offer a bill, or even an amendment; but under the rules, the Republicans will not allow us to do it. But if in fact there is a situation where we are going to give big fringe benefits to many of these CEOs who are retiring, all it requires is letting the shareholders of the company know what these benefits are, what the value is; and secondly, letting the stockholders vote. What is wrong with that? Why can we not debate that issue today and send it over to the other body. I bet they would pass it quickly. But the other side of the aisle does not want to do it quickly because they have a lot of friends that they are helping. That is what the problem is right now, and that is why this resolution is a waste of time, and that is why we have already wasted 3\1/2\ hours, and we will probably waste more time on nothing today. But we will go home, and we will feel a little better and have a glass of wine and kind of enjoy life. But I will say that my constituents, maybe not the constituents of the gentleman from Ohio, but my constituents, because they have lost $18 trillion in their 401(k) plans, are really sad. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is kind of interesting, because I do not have anybody that wants to speak. This bill is so meaningless, so irrelevant, so worthless, that not one of my colleagues on our side of the aisle wants to speak. I think the other side probably has two or three, probably because they want to say something, I do not know what. But again, this is a resolution that asks the other body to pass a bill that we passed. Now, under the rules of the institution, of the Congress, after we pass a piece of legislation we enroll it and then we send it over to the other body so they know they can either take action or take no action. If they decide to take no action, then the next logical thing is, maybe you do not want to walk over there, maybe the 5-minute walk takes too long, how about just calling them up and saying, hey, what is wrong with the bill we sent over, because we want to move it. Then maybe you can have a discussion. But, instead, we have to pass a resolution, keep all the staff here; and no one really wants to speak about it. I will tell you why this is so irrelevant. This is unbelievable. It is so irrelevant because this will not take effect until 2010. This will not take effect until the year 2010, 8 years from now. We are not even going to be around here. Maybe that is why we are doing it now, because we want to make sure our legacy is going to be effective in 2010. This is not going to have any effect, even if it became law, until the year 2010. Well, let me just say this, if I may, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to get into the substance too much, but I think it does require a little discussion about the substance. In this proposal that was passed by the House, and is not being passed by the other body and will not take effect, at least the extension of this law, for 8 years, 84 months, 8 years, in this proposal we actually make significant changes in the anti-discrimination law, that is a very technical law, and also the top-heavy rules. I have a letter dated April 11 when the bill was being considered by the House by Daniel Halperin, who just happens to be a professor of law at Harvard University, an expert on pension law; and he says if this bill is allowed to continue and take effect, at that time it had not taken effect, but it is in effect now, it could allow about 80 percent of the ordinary workers of a company that are non-highly compensated to be excluded from the plan, the pension plan. Eighty percent of the workers could be excluded from the pension plan. You just help the high-level employees. Then I have a letter from a professor from the University of Alabama named Norman Stein, not a real liberal institution, Alabama; but he indicates that this bill was cobbled together by the pension industry. Of course, Karen Ferguson, director of a group that makes sure that beneficiaries are adequately taken care of on pension benefits, basically said this bill is really going to do damage to the average worker in America because it is going to create a situation because of the top-heavy rules and anti-discrimination rules where pension benefits are going to be eliminated. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has said, because I remember the debate he had last time, that, no, what is going on, the reason why Americans are not having more pension benefits is because these rules are too complicated and it does not do enough for the highly compensated employees. So why would a manager, an executive, set up a pension plan if he is not going to benefit? The reason he does not set up that plan, I say to the gentleman from Ohio, is because they found a way to get around it. These high-level executives had companies like Arthur Andersen who advised them in tax laws. We know what that is really all about. So what they have done was they set up rules like Ken Lay had in which he was able, without being taxed, to have his deferred compensation placed in an offshore trust account, so that when he finally retired and when Enron went bankrupt and all the employees lost their 401(k) plans, he was able to then get millions of dollars in deferred compensation. So he found a way around dealing with pension benefits. He had a defined benefit plan, and the Enron employees had what is known as a defined contribution plan, subject to the stock market; and they lost everything. Of course, you have all kinds of gimmicks that insurance companies use, for example the split dollar plan, and we all heard about that, because many folks were worried that was going to be eliminated. So that is another plan that highly compensated employers could engage in. So they really do not need to set up system-wide plans in companies, because of the fact that they are being taken care of through the Tax Code or through other mechanisms that have been thought through by the Arthur Andersens and all those smart people that know how to deal with tax laws. What we really should be doing instead of passing meaningless resolutions is really try to deal with the average American's pension benefit. There are only three ways when a person is ready to retire that they think about their retirement. One is personal savings, and we know a great majority of Americans do not have personal savings because they have family responsibilities, kids going to college. So most of the time even families that make $70,000, $80,000 a year, spend that money right away on their families, because those are just necessities. So they do not have any savings, except their house. That is the only thing they have. Then you have 401(k)s. Because we do not have these defined benefit plans in existence anymore, it is basically 401(k) plans. You saw what happened when the market went down 40 percent the last 18 months, since the President was sworn into office. So that obviously is subject to the economy, and subject to the global economy as well. Of course, the one thing that at least the Enron employees and the WorldCom employees told me when they came to Washington, they said, ``At least I have my Social Security benefits.'' But we know about Social Security benefits, because the President wants to privatize Social Security. The President wants to make Social Security subject to the stock market. Well, if the President gets his way and if we do not take action on the 401(k)s, if we do not do something about these highly compensated employers and we extend this law beyond 2010, I think we are going to do major damage to the baby boom population. We have had all kinds of studies in America now that people 45 years and older, they are not going to be ready for retirement. In fact, all they are going to have is maybe $20,000 or $30,000 in their 401(k) plans. If they live another 20 years, that is going to be gone within a couple of years. All they have is Social Security, and that may not be secure if the President is successful in privatizing Social Security. So I have to ask myself, what are we doing here at 7 o'clock in the evening debating a bill that is meaningless and not taking up some of the real important problems of America? Well, it is because you cannot do it. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot pass these other bills that are really critical to the American public. They cannot deal with the national economy. That is why we are fooling around with meaningless resolutions. That is why I have no colleagues that want to speak on this, because it is meaningless. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) is the only other speaker on their side, and I am the last speaker, the only speaker on my side, and if the gentleman is, and we can have some understanding that we are going to kind of keep it light and short, I will yield back the balance of my time, with that understanding.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me the 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that there are so many reasons why we should vote ``no'' on this rule that it is really hard in the period of 4 minutes to really compress it, but I am going to do the very best I can. First of all, this will cost $5 billion over the next 3 years. The reason it is only for the next 3 years is because it expires at the end of 3 years. As we know, we have not got any of the appropriations bills to the President's desk, even though the fiscal year will end in about 3 weeks. The reason for it is because, rightfully, the appropriators are having a very difficult time trying to come up with bills that would stay within at least some reasonable budget confines. That is because the tax bill that was passed last year, which incidentally was about $1.4 trillion, and 40 percent of it goes to the top 1 percent of the taxpayers, which basically makes about $1.1 billion a year on their tax returns; but the fact of the matter is that here we are now passing a bill that will cost $5 billion over the next 3 years, and we cannot move appropriation bills. That is somewhat odd, obviously. But more importantly, this $5 billion will invade the Social Security trust fund. As we are getting close to the election on November 5, I think the American public is entitled to know who really cares about Social Security, making it ensured as a defined benefit plan. Obviously, by passing this bill, we are going to make that much more difficult. Senior citizens of America and those people who are concerned about being disabled or, obviously, survivors' benefits, should be very concerned about what we are doing on this particular piece of legislation. But most importantly, this is bad legislation. No one gave it a lot of thought. We did not have a hearing on it. What is interesting is that one can get up to $3,000 a year on a tax credit, tax deduction, if one is an elementary or grammar school parent; so they go out and buy a flat screen television and say, we use this for our children's education, because we can put it up to a computer. A flat screen TV costs about $4,000; take $3,000 and use it for a deduction. We know they are going to do that. We know this is not really going to go for education. They can even purchase a car if they say they need a car in order to take the child to school in the morning, up to $3,000, of course. This tax bill is ridiculous. It makes no sense at all. It is only a political document. In fact, we know the Senate is going to take it up because they have been stopping all this bad legislation we have been moving out of the House. Obviously, I think, the Chair and the leadership is probably very happy about that. In fact, when I asked the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and I said, how are you going to make this fit within the budget, he said, it does not make any difference until the President signs it. Everyone on their side of the aisle chuckled because they know it is not going to become law. We should also vote against this because there is one very important piece of legislation that should pass this year, in spite of the fact that we have Social Security problems, and others. That is school construction. We estimated that it would cost $127 billion over the next decade, $127 billion over the next decade just to repair and modernize the public schools throughout the United States. $127 billion. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking Democrat, over the years have put together a piece of legislation that would cost over the next 35 years $25 billion. That bill would go at least as a downpayment for school construction for all the public schools in America. This would be a great start. I have a public school that I went to when I was in high school, C.K. McClatchy. I go there all the time. The roof is leaking. They cannot do anything about it. We need to pass a bill that makes sense, not bills for flat screen TVs or for automobiles. We need a bill that undoubtedly will help America's schoolchildren. I would suggest a ``no'' vote on this rule.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time. I would like to clarify some misunderstanding because I heard at the time as I was sitting in my office that the documents were delivered at three o'clock or it was posted on the Web site at four o'clock and that would have undoubtedly then would have given about 7 hours and 45 minutes for us to review the documents in the middle of the Homeland Security Department legislation as it was moving through there. The reality of it is, and I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) would have to verify this or at least his staff would have to verify this, or perhaps the gentleman from New York would, we were not notified that the documents, all 360 pages, would be posted on the Web site until 6:53 or almost seven o'clock in the evening. And as all of my colleagues know, we were in the final stages of debate on the Homeland Security Department at that time; so we have actually only had a little over 4 hours and 45 minutes to review this document, and I have to tell my colleagues that one of the things that troubles me about this is that this is a significant major piece of legislation, and I think that Members on both sides of the aisle, particularly Members on my Republican side of the aisle, because we are going to be discussing textile rules, we are going to be discussing issues like trade adjustment assistance, which could cost considerable sums of money. We are going to be discussing health care issues that were going to go to displaced workers, and it would seem like both parties would want an opportunity to review and vet this legislation before we adopt it, presumably this evening at 2 or 3 in the morning. And I will tell my colleagues why this is important is because the other body this week will be taking this legislation up and they will have a chance to review it, and all the flaws of this bill will come out, and some of my colleagues might be embarrassed if they, in fact, vote for this legislation, sight unseen, and it will be sight unseen. For example, let me just throw out the trade adjustment assistance that many people made a big thing about. The fact of the matter is that if a company closes and leaves the United States and goes, let us say, to China, which many companies are doing at this time, those employees that are displaced from that factory will not be eligible for trade adjustment assistance or the health care benefits. Most of my colleagues on my side of the aisle who have been told this are absolutely astonished because they were told when a plant closes, the employees are going to be able to receive assistance, and that is just not necessarily true in most cases. And the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), if all of us recall, just two weeks ago, introduced legislation to provide $90 billion at a time when we are all facing a great deal of trouble on Wall Street, $90 billion worth of tax cuts to U.S. companies that would go offshore, and so essentially this bill would encourage companies to go to China offshore, and the tax bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has offered would do the same thing. I find it kind of incomprehensible that Members who may not quite understand the implication of this, it could hurt their hometown companies, would end up voting for this and then next week maybe find out that this bill does not say what many of the Members suggested it might say. So I think this martial law proposal at this time in this evening for this kind of bill is pretty outrageous, and it should not be really offered tonight.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, let me just say this: What are we really talking about here? Let us talk about the legislation for a moment. It is a quarter to 1 right now. We just got a 360-page bill about 5 hours ago. We dealt with the homeland security legislation, so no one really has had a chance to read it. I have to say that many people are saying though the trade adjustment assistance provision, in which we are supposed to help displaced workers, many of the colleagues on my side of the aisle, and I imagine on your side of the aisle, have basically said this will help those workers who lost their jobs because factories are closing. But the reality is that is not so. The Senate had a provision in there that if a company would move offshore, let us say to China, and 500 employees in your home community were laid off, then trade adjustment assistance and health care benefits would click in. Unfortunately, in the conference, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) insisted that that provision be removed. Now, about 75 percent of plant closings are because of companies moving offshore. It is not because of import competition. So, a great number of employees that many of our constituents right now think will be covered, will not be covered. I think it is going to be rather tragic when the Senate talks about this next week, and our colleagues go back home, after voting for this bill, and find out they made a grave mistake. Lastly, let me just say, when this bill comes back in terms of a multinational 144-country agreement 3 years from now, we are going to have changes that Members would never have thought about. You are going to have changes in U.S. antitrust laws; you are going to have changes in food safety laws; you are going to have changes in accountant standards. So essentially it means, let us say we have another Enron 2 years from now, 3 years from now. The WTO will tell us exactly what kind of accounting standards we are going to have. We could not do it on our own. We are giving up our authority under article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. We have the authority to make all trade laws. Essentially we are delegating this authority to the President of the United States. We should have some limitations on that authority if in fact we want good trade legislation.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the State of New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Democratic Committee on Ways and Means. First of all, what I would like to do if I may is respond to some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle but basically on the Democratic side of the aisle that says that we have trade adjustment assistance, and that alone, or among other things, is enough to get us to support this legislation. If, in fact, the bill that came out of the Senate was part of the conference report, I would say, well, okay, if you want trade adjustment assistance, that is fine. But the bill that came out of the conference report is not the bill that left the Senate. Because essentially what we see here is a bill that is really kind of a mirage. For example, if a U.S. factory closes and goes overseas to China and 5,000 U.S. workers are out of a job in your congressional district, those workers are not covered under this bill of trade adjustment assistance. They will not get trade adjustment assistance and they will not get health care benefits. It is very rare when this provision will be used, and that is why it is in the bill because the goal was not to use trade adjustment assistance. So it is really a mirage. So if Members think they can go home and tell their colleagues and their constituents that they will get trade adjustment assistance, they are flat out wrong. It will rarely be used. Let me make one other observation, if I may. This next round will not be about trading goods. It will not be about reducing tariffs and quotas. We have done that. That is pretty much over. You can trade goods back and forth all over the world if you want today. What this will be about this next round is about moving investments, and we all know that. And that means basically every U.S. regulation, whether it is accounting standards, whether it is defining whether a lawyer can practice law, these are going to be all on the table in this next round. Members mention antitrust laws, that will be on the table. This legislation is not needed for the President at this time. He can negotiate without giving this major delegation of authority by the United States Congress to the President of the United States. I urge a no vote.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the John E. Moss Foundation recently awarded its annual Public Service Award to our colleague, the Honorable David Obey of Wisconsin. The award, which is given each year to a member of the House or Senate who most exemplifies the qualities of integrity, courage and dedication to the public interest, is richly deserved by Congressman Obey who has always fought hard for legislation benefiting the small investor, the working man, and the consumer. At the award ceremony on July 9th, Paul McMasters of the Freedom Forum delivered keynote remarks on current threats to the public's right to information, which are of importance to all Americans. Mr. McMasters' remarks are as follows: On Independence Day, 1966, President Johnson took time out from holiday festivities at his ranch on the Perdernales to sign the Freedom of Information Act into law. If he had waited only a few hours more, a pocket veto of the legislation automatically would have gone into effect. There was no press release, no ceremony, no special pens struck for the occasion. The chief sponsors were not invited. It had taken 11 arduous years for Congressman John Moss of California to coax into existence a law that few in government liked or wanted. But the legislation finally made it through. This law providing meaningful access to government information embraced three democratic ideals: The First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and the press. Creation of a proper environment for the people to function as full partners in their own governance. The checks-and-balances role of Congress. That was 36 years ago. But we never quite escape the clutches of history. It has a way of landing on us suddenly and hard when we forget it. And when it comes to the conditions that created the great need for the FOIA back then, the past has caught up with us. The reason that Congressman Moss and his colleagues worked so hard and endured so much getting FOIA passed was that it had become next to impossible for members of Congress and their staffs to obtain access to even the most routine of information in the custody of federal agencies or the White House. Today, the federal government, while attending to the formidable responsibility of waging a war on terrorism, has allowed itself to slide backward into history with an ever- widening array of restrictions on access. These new restrictions in effect have demoted both the public and the Congress as partners in the democratic process. Once more, Congress is summoned to the crucial task of championing access to government information--a role mandated by tradition, by law, and by the Constitution. There is no question that in the world we live in today, there is some information that must remain secret to protect our national security. Beyond that narrow but important spectrum, however, the Congress, the public and the press should have maximum access to government information. It is essential to the public so that we have true democratic decision-making. It is essential to the press so that it can facilitate the flow of information among the three branches of government and the public. It is essential to Congress so that it can provide proper oversight and accountability. There always has been what some describe as a ``culture of secrecy'' in government. It is a natural thing because information is power; in some instances it is dangerous; in other instances, it may violate personal privacy or compromise an ongoing law-enforcement investigation. Responding to FOIA requests also is a drain on scarce resources. But many restrictions on the flow of information in recent months have gone well beyond those considerations. In addition, there is a theory afoot these days that to share information is to weaken the executive. That theory, in practice, may well be responsible for many of the current restrictions on access. Finally, there is another reason for some restrictions: The horrors of September 11. That tragedy provoked a serious re- examination of our information policies--a reexamination that was legitimate and necessary. There are some secrets that must be kept. But many of the changes in access policies that have come out in the wake of September 11 are not truly related to the war on terrorism; in many cases, they seem designed more to increase the comfort level of government leaders than the security level of the nation. What has emerged is an environment where government is providing increasingly less information to U.S. citizens while demanding increasingly more information about them. Many of these new restrictions impact directly on public access and in many instances the ability of members of Congress to participate in the making of policy and to represent their constituencies properly. To list a few: Just as it was to go into effect, the law providing access to presidential records was severely compromised by an executive order, Many in Congress had to learn about the formation of an emergency government by reading about it in the newspapers, The White House dramatically reduced the number of intelligence briefings for Congress and the number of members who could attend, The executive branch has resisted congressional attempts to obtain information on a variety of vital topics, including the energy task force hearings, the FBI's relations with mob informants, and the decision to relax restrictions on emissions from older coal- fired power plants and refineries, The attorney general's memo on implementation of the FOIA turned a presumption of openness on its head, The Justice Department has stonewalled attempts to get information about the detainees rounded up in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. In addition, Congress increasingly is pressured to ``incentivize'' compliance with old laws and to spice up news laws by granting exemptions to the FOI and whistleblower laws. Examples include legislative proposals concerning critical infrastructure, the Transportation Security Administration and the proposed Homeland Security Department. These developments raise several important questions: Do new laws, policies and executive actions live up to democratic principles, constitutional requirements and the true needs of national security? Are members of Congress providing insight as well as oversight in the formulation and implementation of access policies? How do we best affirm and ensure checks and balances among the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches and include the public and the press in the equation? There are a number of ways Congress can address such questions: By commissioning a definitive study and public report calling for specific action, by creating a bipartisan caucus on access and accountability, by conducting hearings, or by establishing a joint select committee with FOIA oversight. There are other things Congress can and should do to make access to information a priority in governmental life: Demand information from federal agencies and officials. Make information-sharing a priority. Conduct real oversight of FOIA compliance. Make federal agencies' FOIA performance a part of the budget process. Provide incentives for disclosure and penalties for non-compliance. Insist on discipline and rationality in classification authority. Harness technology to make government more transparent. The key to bringing about change, however, is that the members of Congress themselves must care; if it's not important to them, it's not important at other levels and in other branches. Government information must be branded as crucial to democracy, to responsible governance and to freedom. It really is up to Congress to create ways to protect access and to raise its value as a democratic principle. It must embrace the idea that, except for very specific areas, information, not secrecy, is the best guarantor of the nation's security. There is danger in the dark. And it must recognize that there always will be loud and persuasive voices raised on behalf of security, privacy and the protection of commercial interests--especially during times of national crisis--but there are no natural constituencies with the resources and organization to make the case for access and accountability. That role falls rightly to Congress. Democracy depends above all on public trust. Public trust depends on the sharing of power. And the sharing of power depends on the sharing of information. That time-honored principle assuring the success of this ongoing adventure in democratic governance suffers mightily when the system of checks and balances becomes unbalanced and the role of Congress as guardians of access and accountability is compromised.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. James Burton as he ends his tenure as the Chief Executive Officer of the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). As his friends, family and colleagues all gather to celebrate his departure from over 25 years of public service, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the dedicated service of this truly distinguished citizen of Sacramento. Jim Burton came to the California Public Employees' Retirement System in 1992 and was appointed CEO in 1994. During his eight years of guiding the fund, total assets increased 30 percent and now total over $150 billion. His leadership has provided the 1.3 million California public employees, retirees and their families with a secure future. Jim's time at CalPERS will not only be remembered by the funds' outstanding growth, but also by his commitment to the participating employees. Providing enrollees with exceptional customer service was high on his list of concerns. This can be seen in the organization's first strategic plan, which he helped shape. In addition to leading CalPERS through a time of remarkable growth, Jim has served on numerous boards and committees of many prestigious organizations. These include the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, the Council of Institutional Investors, and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. He also is a former Blue Ribbon Commission member of the National Association of Corporate Directors. In recognition of his excellent work in serving the public employees of California, Jim was recently named Outstanding Public Administrator by the Sacramento Chapter of the American Society for Public Administration. His service to the citizens of California, which has spanned the course of four decades, will surely be missed. Yet, his commitment to the employees of California and their families will undoubtedly serve as a model for others to follow. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to one of Sacramento's most distinguished citizens, James Burton. His successes have been great, and it is a wonderful opportunity for me to recognize his many contributions to the people of California. I ask all my colleagues to join me in wishing my friend, Jim Burton, continued success in his future endeavors.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for over twenty years the City of Sacramento, California and Matsuyama, Japan have shared a special relationship as sister cities. This partnership has given birth to cultural exchanges that have enriched the lives of the residents in both cities. A new art exhibition that will be unveiled on July 6, 2002, is a testimony to this ongoing relationship. The Miura Museum of Art in Matsuyama will unveil the ``Serene Beauty: Lucie Rie Retrospective'' exhibit to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the artist's birth. The exhibit features the work of Lucie Rie, one of the most outstanding potters of the 20th--century and a major influence on the world of ceramic art. The exhibit of Lucie Rie's exceptional ceramic work at the Miura Museum of Art in Matsuyama is only the second showing of her work in Japan. This exhibit would have not been possible without the partnership with Sacramento residents who loaned the museum a large portion of the exhibit that will be displayed. Additionally, the museum has invited residents of Sacramento to participate in the exhibit opening and panel discussion honoring Lucie Rie and her passion for creating ceramic art. I would like to commend each of participants who have loaned pieces from their collection in order to share their appreciation of art with the residents of Japan. The sister city partnership has developed into a friendship which complements the diverse background of the residents of Sacramento and Matsuyama and I look forward to the continued exchange of cultural treasures between our two cities.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), who is retiring at the end of this Congress. (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. 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. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 4070, the Social Security Program Protection Act of 2002. At this time, I would like to congratulate and thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the Chair of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, for his cooperation and his work on this particular piece of legislation. Basically, there are three components of this legislation, Mr. Speaker. We have the representative payee issue that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) spoke about, the attorney's fees section as it pertains to supplemental security income, and there are a number of program protections that were added to the Social Security Administration's laws. In terms of the representative payee, Mr. Speaker, as many people may not know, if a Social Security recipient has a mental disability, is young or perhaps is of extreme old age, oftentimes that individual needs somebody to care for his or her Social Security check, whether it is a disability check or whether it is a regular Social Security check. So we have under the law what is known as representative payees. This has been in existence for quite some time. As our hearings and anecdotal information that many of us have received in our congressional districts can attest to, we have had problems with this program over the years because, oftentimes, if the representative payee is not somebody of good character, that person may take the Social Security check, abscond with it, and actually do damage to the normal recipient of the Social Security check. I had that problem some 12 years ago when a woman, Dorothea Puente, had been a caretaker of a home in which about 15 people were living in and she was the representative payee for all these people. She did not need a bond or a license at that time. She actually murdered a number of these people and took their checks. Finally, when one of the relatives found out about the fact that one of the tenants of the rooming house was missing, that is when it was uncovered that many people had been murdered as a result of her activities and she was receiving these checks. Basically, what this legislation would do is to tighten up the circumstances in which one could be qualified as a representative payee. If one is an organizational payee, it requires the organization to be both licensed and bonded. Right now, it only requires one or the other. And it would also require inspections of certain representative payees in terms of visiting with them, talking with them, and making sure that in fact they are carrying out their fiduciary responsibilities. Also, if anyone has been convicted of an offense resulting in prison for more than a year, they would be disqualified, or, obviously, a fugitive or felon would be as well. And it would impose a monetary or civil penalty on a payee who misuses benefits, and there was some obvious ambiguity in the law before this time. One of the most important provisions is that the beneficiary of the Social Security checks oftentimes lose their savings when the representative payee in fact has taken the money. This would, under a certain showing, would require the representative payee to pay the money back but also would allow the recipient of the benefits to be made whole under a showing of certain circumstances. Under the second section of the law, the attorney's fee section, Mr. Speaker, many supplemental security recipients need representation, because oftentimes they must seek their claims through the normal administrative review system. This would allow these claimants to have an attorney. Oftentimes, it is hard to get lawyers to represent them because of the way the fee schedule is arranged and also because the attorneys can never be guaranteed they will receive compensation for their work. This would change that by allowing the Social Security Administration to withhold fees for the attorneys and, at the same time, cut the processing fee, which is currently 6.3 percent of the overall attorney fees, to no more than $100. Lastly, the third element of this program, obviously, would deny benefits to fugitive felons, which is under current law, and persons fleeing prosecution. It would require companies that charge a fee for services under the Social Security Administration, if in fact the administration does not charge a fee, it requires the companies to state it; that, in fact, the Social Security Administration would provide the same services without any compensation or without fee. There are a number of other provisions, like it bars attorneys who have been disbarred or otherwise disqualified from the practice of representing claimants under the Social Security Act. So this legislation would go a long ways in helping recipients, it would undoubtedly help recipients obtain representation, and it would build in a number of protections for claimants in this Social Security Administration Act. I would urge support of H.R. 4070; and I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), for the work that he has done on this particular legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just comment to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) that perhaps the majority should just bring a bill on the floor on privatization, let us debate it, and vote on it. That way we can discuss it if the gentleman is in favor of it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).