Robert Matsui

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge). (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me this time. I am frankly kind of perplexed today. We came into session on Friday, now, and we are taking up one bill, and that bill is to extend the Portman-Cardin pension legislation. Here we had Secretary Paul O'Neill, just 2 days ago, say that on June 28 of this year, next week, the Federal Government will reach a debt crisis. Because what is going to happen is we are going to meet the debt ceiling, and we are not going to be able to pay Social Security checks or veterans checks or meet our obligations. At a time when most Americans are saying, what is the status of our Social Security benefit, because the President went out and scared everybody by wanting to privatize Social Security, we should be bringing up the Republican proposals to privatize Social Security so we can at least find out before November where Members stand and what their values are when it comes to income security for senior citizens. We should bring a prescription drug bill that really does benefit senior citizens instead of the bill that passed at 2 a.m. in the Committee on Ways and Means Tuesday night and is still being worked upon in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. But, instead, we are taking up a pension bill. A pension bill. What is ironic about this pension bill is that whatever we do today will not take effect until the year 2011, 9 years from now. It is 2002 today, 2011 is when this bill will take effect, 9 years from now. So we are not dealing with Social Security, we are not dealing with prescription drugs, we are not dealing with the debt crisis that we are going to see on June 28 that Secretary O'Neill has talked about. We are also not dealing with another more fundamental issue as well. In Business Week of June of this year it has a front page story, and Business Week is not a liberal magazine, and it says, ``Special Report: Restoring Trust in Corporate America.'' This week's Business Week, again not a liberal manager: ``The Crisis in Corporate Governance, a Special Report.'' Fortune Magazine, this week, and I would urge my colleagues to read it: ``System Failure, Corporate America. We Have a Crisis. Seven Ways to Restore Confidence.'' We are not dealing with these issues. Senator Corzine and Senator Sarbanes on the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs just this week passed legislation out of the Senate committee essentially trying to restore Americans' confidence in our soft market by dealing with accounting standards, by changing accounting standards so average Americans will understand when there is an Enron Corporation and they cannot cook their books, or when Arthur Andersen tries to manipulate books, it will not happen because there will be severe penalties under their legislation. We are not dealing with that either. We are not dealing with that. We are ignoring it. In fact, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader of the Republican Party, says we should allow companies to go offshore if they want to save taxes. And that brings us right to Stanley Works. Stanley Works is going to vote in the next month or so whether to go to Bermuda and open up a post office box so it can save $30 million in taxes. It will not go to their employees. It is going to go to top managers. Because we have seen that on Enron and we saw that on Global Crossing, and we will see that on Stanley Works as well. But what is so offensive is not only that this bill that we are dealing with today will not take effect for 9 years, but there is another aspect of it as well. I am going to read a short part of a letter that I received on June 20, and it is available to my colleagues. This is a letter written by a professor of law who deals with pension issues, Norman P. Stein, University of Alabama, again not a liberal school. He says in the second paragraph: ``The original Portman-Cardin bill was an unwieldy package of disparate measures cobbled together by the pension industry.'' On the second page and I read three short paragraphs: ``Many of the bill's provisions were so technically complex that their unlikely impact could only be determined by pension experts. Thus, many in Congress uncritically accepted the lofty expectations of Representatives Portman and Cardin (and industry lobbyists) and persuaded themselves that they were voting for a bill that would increase retirement security for middle-class Americans and particularly women. So far there is no evidence that the bill has done any of that, but there is evidence that many of the technical provisions are being manipulated by pension planners to allow the most affluent Americans to greatly reduce their taxes and to reduce retirement benefits for middle-class workers. If any legislative action should be taken now, it should be to scale back Portman-Cardin's one- sided tax breaks for the wealthy, extend and expand the tax credit to help lower income'' savers ``and to repeal Portman-Cardin provisions that some firms are using to reduce benefits for middle-class and lower-income workers.'' ``In any event, it is certainly premature for Congress to'' take up ``the Portman-Cardin and make them permanent, just one year after their enactment and 9 years before'' we need to. I find it to be absolutely inexplicable that the greatest legislative body in the history of the human race would be spending time when we have a crisis on the debt, when we have a crisis in Medicare and Social Security, to be talking about something that will not take effect until 9 years from now and we know that the provision will hurt the average American and only help the Ken Lays of America.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the amount of time each of us has at this time. I understand the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) still has 10 minutes remaining.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, and that he be allowed to yield said time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I might just say at a time when we have a crisis in corporate America, one of the reasons the stock market is not doing too well, very sluggish, is because basically investors are not sure what companies are doing well and what companies are not, because we cannot get it any longer from the books because obviously after Enron, Global Crossing and a number of other corporations, we just do not know any longer what these books really mean because each individual accounting office like Arthur Andersen might decide on their own how to manipulate these accounts. Business Week had a story Crisis in Corporate Governance, Special Report. Last week they had Restoring Trust in Corporate America, same Business Week. Fortune magazine this week talked about a System Failure in Corporate America. At a time when we should be talking about how we make sure that Stanley Corporation up in Connecticut does not move to Bermuda and open up a post office box basically to save $30 million in taxes, somewhat unpatriotically, at a time when 120 management employees of Enron Corporation were able to take $330 million in terms of retirement benefits right before they decided to file bankruptcy and gave nothing to their thousands and thousands of employees, it would only seem logical that we would try to deal in some fashion with those issues instead of dealing with extending a pension bill that is fatally flawed and will hurt the ordinary worker, not now, but will not take effect until 2011. We need to really understand this bill that is on the floor now will not take until the year 2011. One must ask what is the House of Representatives, this august, wonderful body, doing talking about something that is 9 years away and not dealing with the fundamental problems of corporate governance, corporate responsibility, and the need to make sure that in a flagging democracy such as ours with the kind of marketplace economy, when there is no confidence in the fundamental stock market, why are we doing something with 9 years away instead of dealing with some of the major issues that are facing America today? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I find it kind of interesting because I have a letter from Norman P. Stein, a professor of law at the University of Alabama, not the most liberal institution in the America, dated June 20, 2002. He basically says, and I will quote: ``Many in Congress uncritically accepted the lofty expectations of Representatives Portman and Cardin and industry lobbyists, and persuaded themselves that they were voting for a bill that would increase retirement security for middle-class Americans and in particular women,'' as the gentlewoman from Washington State says. However, he states in the next paragraph: ``There is no evidence that the bill has done any of that, but there is evidence that many of the technical provisions are being manipulated by pension planners to allow the most affluent Americans to greatly reduce their taxes and to reduce the retirement benefits for middle-class workers.'' So I really question whether or not women are going to be helped. In fact, I really believe strongly women are going to be harmed by this. So what is the hurry about extending this package from 2010 to 2011 and beyond? This bill is in effect now. It has no impact for the next 8 years. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of New York, (Mr. Hinchey), a member of the House Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I might just say that when the substitute is offered, actually by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), he will outline the bill. Much of the provisions, such as the IRA expansion, the 401(k) expansion, they are in the main bill and also in the substitute as well. We have one thing in our substitute that is in current law that the underlying bill, the Republican bill, does not have, and that is the tax credit for small savers, the nonrefundable tax credit for small savers. Why that was taken out remains to be seen, because that was probably the only thing for the average worker in that legislation last year. But, nevertheless, we have it in our bill and they do not have it in their bill. I might just also say, Mr. Speaker, there are some provisions in the bill that we do not have in ours, that is, that are in the Republican bill that we do not have in ours, and that is the fine print. They are the provisions that will really give high-management, top-management employees greater benefits than the average worker. We will be talking about those during the motion on the substitute itself. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) to respond.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, under current law, Ken Lay and 109 others from Enron Corporation were able to give themselves pension benefits of $330 million. This is under current law. Basically what this legislation does is loosens it. Obviously, the high-income people are going to get more money. The top 5 percent are going to get 42 percent, and the top 20 percent are going to get 77 percent. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, for closing debate on general debate at this particular time, I just have to say that many of my colleagues have said, well, many of the Members, 400 Members, voted for this when it was up 2 years ago. One of the problems with pension legislation is it is extremely complex. I think we all know that. The gentleman from Maryland said that 90 percent of the bill, or more perhaps, is the same as our substitute. That is correct as well. We support the IRAs, we support the 401(k)s, we want to make sure we have an extension of the 415 multiemployer program to allow portability. All these things we support. That is in our substitute. But the real dangerous part of this piece of legislation, that is, the Portman-Cardin legislation, is the fine print. Many of us did not spend time understanding the fine print. It deals with the top-heavy rules. As the gentleman from Maryland said, it basically eliminates the penalty, because if you put it in a match, then you get credit for it. That basically means that top-management employees, who today could get 60 percent of the benefits and the workers only 40 percent of the benefits, that is under current law, they can get 70, 80, 90 percent and not pay a penalty as long as they paid the match. So you could have a situation where top management gets 90 percent of the benefits, average workers get 10 percent of the benefits, it could be 15 of the top management people and 200 of the workers getting 15 percent to 85 percent, or 90 percent to 10 percent. That is what is really dangerous about this legislation. It does not cost the government any money, but I can sure assure you it will cost the American workers their retirement benefits. That is what is dangerous about this bill. What is really odd, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it is in effect. It has only been in effect a year. What we really ought to do is not extend it and make it in perpetuity. What we ought to do is make sure that we correct some of the flaws in it. We will find flaws in this legislation. A GAO report will be done. We are going to do a lot of things to find out about this bill. We do not want to be embarrassed. We should not put ourselves in a position where we do not have to do something and we do extend it from 2010 onwards. We do not need to do this now. We need to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and we need to vote ``yes'' on the substitute when we have an opportunity.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that it is almost like Alice in Wonderland on the floor of the House, or perhaps it is like the Ringling Brothers Circus where we are in the well here, and the audience is all watching us and the animals and the elephants and donkeys and everyone else. What we are really talking about here, this is not going to have any impact on the stock market. This legislation does not even take effect until 2011, 2011. That is what is so ironic, and our substitute, which is the same thing, would handle everything that the gentleman from Wisconsin, the previous speaker, was talking about. We take care of IRAs, we take care of 401(k)s, we do something on the 415. All that is in our bill. So vote for our bill, and we could take care of all kinds of things, but they did not want to do that. What is really ironic, it will not have any impact until 2011. On the other hand, when we talk about Enron Corporation and the fact that 100 Enron executives took $330 million just before they filed bankruptcy, when we talk about companies going offshore to Bermuda, setting up a post office box, still having all of their work in the United States, but saving hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, we want to close that loophole, they say we are being political. They say, well, we are being political. I have to say that I think we are trying to address the real problems of America. What I think is absolutely astonishing is that after the Enron crisis last December, 7 months ago, we have three problems: One is corporate governance, one is pensions, and one is accounting standards. We have not touched any of them in this body. We have not done anything to deal with the Enron Corporation. Instead, we want to pass a pension bill that will not take effect until 2011. I wonder what the American public thinks of us. No wonder the American public believes that Congress is somewhat irrelevant today. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, in closing, that unless we come to grips with the real problems facing America, the market is going to be sluggish. The economy is not going to revive itself because there is no transparency in corporate America today. We do not know in corporate America today whether or not companies are solvent or not solvent. That is why there is a lack of confidence, but this bill, 2011 does not even come close to addressing that issue. We just spent 3\1/2\ hours on this bill that will not take effect until half the Members of this institution are totally gone. This is unbelievable. It is Alice in Wonderland. Vote for the Neal substitute and vote against final massage to show the American public that we are not going to stand here and take this kind of nonsense. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. I object, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really do not understand why the gentleman is so concerned about the marriage penalty tax expiring. Most of the provisions have not even come into effect yet. The doubling of the standard deduction for couples will not take effect until 2005. The doubling of the 15 percent back for couples will not take effect until 2005. In fact, the only provision in the whole area that has taken effect is the earned income tax credit. So I do not know why we are spending so much time on the whole issue of extending it when it has not even taken effect yet. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I might just point out that when Ronald Reagan was President from 1981 to 1988, and George Bush, the first George Bush, was President from 1988 to 1992, they dipped into the Social Security trust fund; but it was not anywhere near what we are talking about now. What we are really talking about now is, on the 10-year projections under current spending and tax policy, we are going to dip into Social Security by the sum of $1.7 trillion. If we do the estate tax, which the Republicans want to extend, defense authorization, the farm bill, which has been completed, it will add $3.2 trillion in terms of dipping into the Social Security trust fund. We are going to break the bank for our senior citizens when it comes to the retirement benefits that they expect to get. The police officers, the firefighters that are paying payroll taxes right into that trust fund right now, they do not realize that it is going out in the form of estate tax payments, in the form of farm support payments, in the form of so-called marriage penalty. I have to say that I find it inexplicable today that we are spending 3 hours today on this issue. I have to say that here at a time when Stanley Works in Connecticut, Ohio, is attempting to move offshore into Bermuda to save $30 million in taxes, when Neighbors Industries is talking about voting to go offshore into Bermuda to save millions of dollars in taxes, we are messing around with something that will not take effect until 2011. Does this not say something about the priorities and the values that we have here? I think the reason that is the case, if I might just say, is an article that was written on May 26 in The Washington Post, it was a Sunday Washington Post story by Kevin Phillips, who devised the Republican plan, the southern Republican plan for President Nixon back in 1967, he says in this article, and it really is interesting: The Republican House Ways and Means Committee has become a virtual arm of the Washington lobbying community, routinely arranging legislative favors that would make a madame blush. The President and his family have dynastically involved themselves with the rise of Enron Corporation as an inconvenient symbol of the recent excesses. That is what is going on. We should be dealing with tax shelters, some of these things that Americans really care about. Instead, we are talking about some tax law that may or may not come into effect in 2011, and tap into the Social Security trust fund. This is an absolutely outrageous act we are committing today.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I just wanted to respond to the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. I have to say the reason we asked that the meeting be adjourned, but the chairman did grant us, is because the drafter of the legislation that would have dealt with the problem of Stanley Works in Connecticut was the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney). He was not allowed to testify. He was not allowed to testify on his own bill with his own level of expertise. We just thought that it was discourteous for the other side of the aisle, particularly the chairman, not to allow the gentleman who drafted the bill, who could testify with the level of expertise on this issue, to testify. That was the issue itself. If the gentleman could explain why he did not allow the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) to testify, we would like to know it. He never did explain why the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney), a member of the House of Representatives, was denied the opportunity to testify. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, regrettably I would prefer not to do this, but, on the other hand, I think it is very critical in terms of our decorum in this institution. The speaker before the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) made reference to a colleague of ours in what I believe to be a derogatory fashion, particularly right at the end of his remarks. I wonder if the remarks were an inappropriate violation of any rules in the House. I realize this may not be a timely request, but I think it is important we do put on the record the ruling of the Speaker, had it been a timely request.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).