George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for the purposes of his remarks and entering into a colloquy with the chairman of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell us how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, the challenge today is whether or not the House of Representatives is prepared to take the lessons of the Enron scandal and use those lessons to apply to greater security of the millions of workers' 401(k) plans across the country. I would suggest that, in the Republican bill, they have failed to do that. Later, we will offer a Democratic substitute that I believe provides for that greater security, greater control, and greater say by the employees of the assets that belong to them that make up much of their retirement nest egg, so we do not again see, as we saw on Enron, where, because of unethical behavior by corporate executives, where because of greedy behavior by corporate executives, where because of illegal behavior by corporate executives, where because of conflicts of interest by corporate executives, the employees lost everything. They were never given advance notice. They were never told what was really happening with the corporation. They never had a representative on the pension board which was controlling the assets which 100 percent belonged to the employees. So we will have an opportunity with that substitute to reject the Republican bill that fails to learn any lessons and provide those greater protections to the workers of this country, and to, in its place, provide for an employee representative, a rank and file employee representative, on the pension boards so we do not have the situation that we had at Enron and other corporations where members of the pension board who were executive vice presidents have a conflict of interest between their career track and taking care of the beneficiaries, the employees, of the corporation; where they sold their stock but never told the pension beneficiaries that they were selling, or that they thought it was the right thing to do. We are going to make sure that a rank and file member is a member, so they will have access to the information and they will be able to make determinations for their fellow employees. We are going to make sure that, after 3 years, they have a complete right to divest, so if they want to diversify their portfolio, if they want to make other decisions about their retirement, they will be free to do it. In the Republican bill, which you see, it takes 5 years to be fully able to diversify; and every 3 years a new period starts with a new contribution. Three years ago we were in the throws of a bull market, the greatest bull market in modern history. And today, many of those same people have lost much of their retirement because they were locked into it. Three years is a very long time, and a rolling 3-year period is an unacceptable time to lock up people's assets that belong to them so they cannot make a determination about their retirement. We will also make sure people are treated equally. What we see in Enron and many corporations today is that the retirement plans are ensured for the executives. The retirement plans are guaranteed. The benefits of the 401(k) plans are guaranteed for the executives but not for the employees. So while Enron or other corporations go into bankruptcy, the executives are taken care of. They are taken care of. They walk away with millions. The employee, they have to walk around the corner and stand in line at the bankruptcy courts and hope that there is something left over at the end to see if they can put back together their retirement. This is really about a fundamental test, about the workers of this Nation who now have got a rude awakening call; and through the tragedy of the workers at Enron that their 401(k) plan that they are being required to lean on more and more for their retirement as vulnerable beyond their expectations, is far more vulnerable than they were led to believe. Finally, we say yes, investment advice is important; but that advice should not be conflicted. We have just witnessed this week once again the incredible conflicts in the financial institutions of the country where Merrill Lynch was offering retail advice to people to buy their stocks; and in their e- mail traffic they were making jokes about the stock. They were raising ethical concerns about offering these stocks for sale because they knew their company was conflicted because it was earning fees as an investment bank from the very clients whose stock it was touting. The investment advice can be offered and it can be helpful, but it cannot be conflicted. The Republican bill allows that investment advice to continue to be conflicted. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 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. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, yes, I am.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a senior member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this is really about two different approaches to the protection of American workers' retirement funds. Earlier this year, American workers all across this country were jolted by the fact that their 401(k) plans, which they are having to increasingly rely on for their retirement nest-eggs, could be vulnerable and could be wiped out by incredible actions by corporate executives. But that is what happened to the people who worked for Enron, and that is what millions of Americans all of a sudden understood was possible with their plans. So we learned a lot of information about the Enron case and about the vulnerability of employee retirement funds. We learned first and foremost that many employees had no control over many of the assets that were put into their funds because corporations have said that employees have to hold on to them until you were 50 or 55, could not divest them for 5 or 10 years, and could not diversify their holdings. We learned that employees, even though the vast majority of these funds, or in fact all of these funds, were assets that belonged to the employees, that in many instances they were not given a voice on the pension board; and clearly, they were not at Enron. What happened, the members of the Enron pension board sold their stock. They never told the employees that they were selling, or that they thought the stock should be sold. They saved themselves millions of dollars. The employees got wiped out. Why? Because they had a conflict. Nobody represented the rank-and-file employees on the pension board which was made up of executive vice presidents who were trying to get to the corner office. They also found out that the employer's plans at Enron were ensured. They were guaranteed. So as Enron goes into bankruptcy, the executive elites, their retirement plans are guaranteed. They saved millions of dollars for their future use through insurance plans and guarantees. The employees, wiped out, and at best get to stand in line and hope to get something from the bankruptcy court where they have no real protections. We also wanted to make sure when the employer, the executive elites, were making a decision to sell stock, that somebody would tell the employees. There is no requirement in the law today. And yet when Ken Lay was telling people he was buying stock, he was secretly selling stock to liquidate his personal debts at Enron. The employees had no way of knowing that, no timely notification. They lost their assets; the Ken Lays protected themselves. Finally, what we see is these employees have no real right of action for the misconduct of the executives of Enron, for the executives of Enron that have wiped out their retirement plans. We think that they should be made whole, that they should have a right to go after that; but under ERISA, they have no rights. Mr. Speaker, what is the distinction today between the Republican bill and the Democratic substitute? The Republican bill learns nothing from Enron. It lets executives continue to sell stock and not notify the employees. It continues to treat the executive retirement assets completely different than the employee retirement assets. It makes sure that the employees have no voice on the pension board, even though research shows that where employees have a voice on the pension board, they invest more money and, in fact, they do a little bit better on the rate of return on those investments. So they have learned nothing about protecting American workers as a result of the disaster at Enron, as a result of the greed at Enron, as a result of the self-dealing at Enron, as a result of the conflicts of interest. The Republicans have learned nothing because their bill does nothing to provide further protections. Yes, they let them diversify; but it is a 3-year rolling diversification. Three years ago, people were in the last stages of the greatest bull market in the history of this country; and today, people have lost many of their assets. Three years in the marketplace is a long time. How is it that we believe that we can lock up people's assets for 5 years, and then for every 3 years after that? Finally, the final insult to the employees in this bill, and that is the investment advice provisions. For the first time under the Federal laws protecting these pension plans, conflicted advice will be allowed to be offered. That comes just 2 days after we learn of the Merrill Lynch conflicts where Merrill Lynch, as an investment banker, was making tens of millions of dollars on investment advice and arrangements for these companies and then were telling their people who were giving retail advice to investors all across the country that these were good stocks and good for retirement plans, when we find out that they did not believe that at all. Investment advice can be very important to Americans trying to secure their retirement; but it must be advice without hidden commissions, without hidden fees, and without hidden conflicts of interest. America got a rude awakening with Enron, but we have also learned that Enron is not unique. I appreciate that Members want to treat it as a one-time effort. We have seen other corporations that have locked up the pension assets of employees for their own convenience, for the good of the corporation, as opposed to the good of the workers. We have also seen other corporations where huge loans were secretly taken out, where stock was secretly sold, and the employees had no way of knowing it until after it was too late. After the famous ship that the President keeps talking about, where what is good for the captain is good for the crew, the crew was already underwater. The captain did not even have the courtesy for the workers of many, many years, did not even have the courtesy to bang on the abandon-ship horn as he went to the lifeboat. We owe America's workers more. Mr. Speaker, this is the one vote we are going to get about millions of workers, about almost all of our constituents in the workplace, about the security and protection and the advice and the control that they have over their retirement nest-egg. Mr. Speaker, our committee was sadly treated to the testimony, as many other committees were, of workers at Enron and many other corporations who are in their 50s and 60s who thought that they had a great retirement ahead of them; and it has vanished. It was wiped out by incredible corporate greed, by a lack of total ethics by corporate executives, by the double-dealing of corporate executives, by the conflicts of interest in the financial institutions and the accounting institutions. We cannot let that happen again. We must pass the Democratic substitute.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill which directs the Federal Government to extend unemployment benefits to workers in New York and Virginia who would otherwise fail to qualify for unemployment benefits under State law. It is a fine idea, and it is a good bill, as far as it goes; but it does not go nearly far enough to address the real economic pain of millions of American families in other States who are being unfairly denied unemployment benefits. These workers in many of these instances lost their jobs just as directly by the attack on 9-11 as the people in New York or Virginia. The people in San Francisco and Las Vegas and New Orleans, or Orlando, L.A., Dallas or Miami, they lost their jobs almost immediately, matter of hours, matter of days in the hotel and restaurants, resorts, convention centers, and rental car agencies; but most of these people are not eligible for unemployment. So even though they lost their jobs, through no fault of their own, even though they lost their jobs as a result of the terrorist activity, they are not getting unemployment. Historically, unemployment benefits have covered more than half of all unemployed workers. Coverage rates during past recessions have approached 70 percent, but that is not the case in the current situation. Over the last decade, the changes in State laws, and many of those States that I read, significantly reduced the percentage of workers who receive unemployment benefits. Only 43 percent of the unemployed workers in 2001 and only 40 percent of the unemployed women workers received unemployment benefits. In 15 States, less than 35 percent of unemployed workers received unemployment benefits. In 10 States, less than 30 percent of unemployed workers received unemployment benefits. Why does the leadership continue to refuse to bring this kind of legislation to the floor to make sure that all of these workers who suffered as a result of 9-11, all of the workers who lost their jobs directly because of that activity, would get the unemployment benefits, if they are necessary to hold their families together while they are waiting for the economy to recover, while they are waiting for their jobs to return in many of the areas of our country, especially those areas impacted by tourists and convention business? We have employees that are working one shift a week trying to hold on to their jobs for when that recovery comes because they are not eligible for unemployment benefits. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a fine piece of legislation for those people in New York, New Jersey, and in the Virginia area; but it does not address the needs of hundreds of thousands of America workers who were devastated every bit as much as those workers on 9-11. Today, we find that almost 98 percent of all workers in America pay into unemployment insurance, but less than 40 percent of them are covered. It is just an unacceptable fact that these people will be denied the benefit of the money they pay into. The Federal Government ought to step in and have a uniform unemployment system for all Americans.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I support the work of this Committee on the Census and H. Con. Resolution 339, and I am happy to honor the Census Bureau for its work. The Census Bureau tells us not only how many people live in the United States, but the condition of these individuals living in our country. It also tells us about the unmet needs of the people, and as we read the unmet needs of the people as outlined in the census, we are struck by the fact that, week after week, the Republican leadership in the House continues to spend an inordinate amount of time, valuable time that belongs to the people of this country, to continue to pass these kinds of symbolic resolutions, while ignoring the urgent needs that deserve the debate and action of this House, the urgent needs as outlined in the census. It took the House Republican leadership 6 months after September 11 to finally address the economic plight of over 7 million unemployed people, including the 1.5 million men and women who had exhausted their unemployment benefits because of a recession that began months before the terrorist attack. A reading of the real-time census would have told the Republican leadership that 80,000 people a week were losing their unemployment benefits, losing any type of economic support, threatening the loss of their homes, of their apartments, of their children's schooling, of their health care, and yet nothing was done for 5 months. Perhaps a reading of the census could have spurred us on to quicker action on behalf of these Americans. Perhaps it would have spurred us on to pass a bill to help those unemployed Americans, without holding them hostage to hundreds of billions of dollars in tax benefits for the wealthiest individuals and corporations in this country. We still have not been allowed to consider extending unemployment benefits to millions of hard-working Americans who pay for benefits, but are denied them under current law; temporary workers, low-income workers, part-time workers, contingent workers, who, if you read the census, are more likely than not to be women, to be young people, to be immigrants. Why is there not a bill on this floor, instead of this resolution, assuring unemployment protection to all Americans who work hard to provide for the well-being of their families and for this country? A census would show that in fact huge numbers of Americans are uncovered by the unemployment insurance system in this country. A reading of that census would also point out the fact that 40 million fellow Americans, nearly one in seven, live in fear of sickness or injury in the family because they cannot afford basic health insurance. They do not have access to it because they cannot afford it or because it is denied to them. The census would also tell us that over half of those individuals are full-time year-round workers with families, and yet, as we see from the census, they are denied health care; and if they are Hispanic families, their chances of lacking health insurance are more than twice as high, according to the census. We have time to honor the census and the Census Bureau, and it is properly so; but when we come here week after week after week after week and we ignore the basic needs of the American people, the basic needs of the American family, the basic needs of the American working individual, it is time for us to get on with their business and not the symbol, these symbolic resolutions.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, America goes to war against terrorism. America's fighting men and women are put in harm's way. American soldiers lose their lives. And American corporations go to Bermuda. At a time of national emergency, accountants are writing advice to their corporations saying that maybe patriotism will have to take a back seat in the opportunity to maximize their profits by avoiding American taxes on their corporation by taking up illegal residence on the island of Bermuda. With the Republican tax cuts to the wealthy, the burden of paying for this war is falling more and more on middle-class and lower-income Americans. More and more this war is being fought out of the Social Security trust fund that is paid more and more by middle-class and lower-income Americans, but American corporations decide that they will escape any liability, any responsibility for the payment of America's efforts against terrorism by going to Bermuda and taking a tax holiday.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of introducing the ``Insider Stock Sales Employee Notification Act,'' a measure that will require company executives who sell stock to immediately notify the company pension plan officials. The bill would allow all employees to be given early warning in cases where executives begin dumping company stock. Unfortunately, the Enron and Global Crossing scandals have shown us that employee retirement savings are vulnerable to misconduct and abuse by company officials. In the past few months we have learned that Enron and Global Crossing executives sold millions of dollars worth of company stock while encouraging employees to keep company stock in their retirement accounts, and prohibiting some employees from selling their company matched 401(k) shares. Employer-sponsor investment rules are rigged against employees. Companies often have one set of rules for executives--which permit windfall profits from sales of stock without restriction--and another for rank-and file employees, whose freedom to rescue their savings by selling company matched stock is often restricted by employers. Last week, the Wall Street Journal published two shocking stories that further document the inequities that employees endure when companies confront huge losses: loyal employees see their 401(k)'s evaporate while executives continue to pocket vast fortunes. As the Journal reported: ``. . . [T]op executives at many companies, including Enron, Lucent, Global Crossing, Kmart and WorldCom have seemed intent on preserving their lush compensation even as their companies flounder and their employees lost jobs, severance, medical benefits and retirement savings.'' Also, last week the Los Angeles Times reported that ``Global Crossing workers lost about $250 million between 1999 and 2001 when the value of the company stock in ``their 401(k) accounts tumbled,'' and that while the company ``cut off severance pay to thousands of laid-off workers when it filed for bankruptcy . in the preceding months [it] forgave loans and made $15 million in lump-sum pension payments to certain executives.'' I am inserting complete copies of these articles in the Record today. Pension reform must provide equity to employees. Employees have a right to know when their executives are dumping company stock. They should then be able to make an informed decision as to whether they want to sell any of their own company stock in their retirement accounts. They should be able to receive accurate financial information about their company. They should have a right to have equal representation on the pension administrative committee. They should have the right to sell company-matched stock after only one year. And they should certainly be assured that when company officials breach their trust, the will be held fully accountable for their actions. I urge the members to joint me in sponsoring this new measure, and the Employee Pension Freedom Act (H.R. 3657) that I introduced earlier this year. [From the LA Times, Feb. 27, 2002] Ex-Employees Questioned on 401(k) Plan (By Liz Pulliam Weston) The Labor Department is questioning former Global Crossing Ltd., workers about the bankrupt company's 401(k) retirement plan, apparently to determine if any pension laws were broken. Former Global Crossing employees said this week they have been contacted by Labor Department investigators, who asked for copies of documents distributed to workers describing the company's 401(k) plan and its features. The investigators ``said that they were opening an investigation into Global Crossing's 401(k) program and [were] very interested in any additional information that they could glean from any present or former employee,'' said one former employee, who asked not to be identified. Global Crossing workers lost about $250 million between 1999 and 2001 when the value of the company stock in their 401(k) accounts tumbled from a peak of $64 to 30 cents before the company filed the fifth-largest bankruptcy in U.S. history Jan. 28. A Global Crossing spokeswoman said the company had been contacted by Labor Department investigators and was cooperating. ``Our [attorneys] will work to provide all necessary information and answer any questions [investigators] may have,'' said spokeswoman Janis Burenga. The Labor Department routinely examines the retirement plans of companies that have filed for bankruptcy to make sure employees' retirement money is safe and being properly distributed as companies reorganize, said department spokeswoman Gloria Della. Della would neither confirm nor deny that such an investigation was taking place at Global Crossing. The telecom giant, which is based in Bermuda and has executive offices in Beverly Hills, is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the FBI for its accounting methods. In addition, members of Congress have demanded investigations into the company's retirement plans, and employees have sued over losses in their 401(k) accounts. Global Crossing employees said labor investigators also questioned them about the company's severance packages. Global Crossing cut off severance pay to thousands of laid- off workers when it filed for bankruptcy, but in the preceding months forgave loans and made $15 million in lump- sum pension payments to certain executives. Regulators simply may be making sure employee contributions were deposited into the 401(k) plan, said Los Angeles pension lawyer Alex Brucker. Troubled companies sometimes illegally use 401(k) contributions to pay bills, although such behavior is far more common at small, private companies than at large, publicly traded firms, pension lawyers said. Global Crossing spokeswoman Tisha Kresier said all employee contributions have been properly deposited in the plan. Labor investigators also may be probing whether employees were advised of the risks of investing in company stock, which at one point made up more than half the 401(k) plan's assets, pension experts said. Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez) asked the Labor Department last week to determine whether any of the trustees of Global Crossing's savings plan were aware of the company's financial problems and what steps the trustees took, if any, to protect employees. Miller also plans to introduce a bill today that would require executives who sell company stock to alert company employees and pension officials within 24 hours. Rep. Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-N.Y.) has requested a congressional inquiry into Global Crossing's decision to freeze workers' 401(k) accounts for a month before the bankruptcy. This legal but controversial practice, known as a lockdown, was used by both Global Crossing and bankrupt energy trader Enron Corp. when the companies switched plan administrators. Several lawmakers have introduced bills that would limit how long lockdowns can last. Global Crossing's stock already had lost 99% of its value by the time its lockdown began Dec. 14. Global Crossing's 401(k) plan was typical for a large firm, offering a range of investment options including stock and bond mutual funds as well as company stock. Both firms matched their employees' contributions only with shares of company stock, however, and placed restrictions on workers' ability to sell those shares. Consumer and pension rights advocates say such restrictions--also not uncommon among employers--prevented many employees from diversifying their accounts. In December, Global Crossing lifted restrictions on employees' ability to sell company shares in their 401(k)-- long after most of the shares' value had disappeared. Even then, many employees did not sell their shares, saying they were told by executives that the stock price would recover.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to believe that once again, the House of Representatives is leaving Washington without passing an Unemployment Assistance extension bill that could be in effect by the time we return next Tuesday. The Senate has passed the extension bill several times. But the House Republican leadership refuses to take that bill and send it to the President for signature--unless it is loaded up with unjustified and very detrimental tax cuts for the most affluent Americans and corporations., a bill that the Wall Street Journal declared ``mainly padded corporate bottom lines.'' And so, once again, Congress leaves Washington without doing its job for the men and women who send us here to represent them and whose taxes pay our salaries. That may not be very important to our Republican leaders who run this House. But it surely is important to the 378,000 working men and women who filed new unemployment claims last week who wonder if extended benefits will be there for them when their meager weeks run out, as they have for over I million Americans between September 11 and December 31, 2001 and 11,000 more every day of this year! When we left Washington without passing extended benefits for the President's Day recess, over a quarter million Americans lost their unemployment benefits. By the time we return next week after being gone for nearly five full days, another 55,000 left high and dry by this Congress and by the Republican leadership that uses them, and their suffering, as leverage for fat cat tax breaks. Mr. Speaker, where is the compassion of the Republican leadership? Why can we not have a straight up-or-down vote on the Senate's bill to extend unemployment benefits as we have been urged to do by 9 Nobel laureates who say these benefits are the quickest and surest stimulus we could enact? Let's stop the political gamesmanship, get the assistance to the men and women who paid for it with their labor, and then we can continue the debate over tax cuts for the wealthy.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the bill that is before us today is almost savage in its insensitivity to the plight of American families who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, the plight of the American worker who lost their job before September 11 and found job-hunting much more difficult after September 11, the people who have lost their job since September 11 and do not qualify for any unemployment benefits because of all of the loopholes that have been riddled in this system. It is savage in its insensitivity to what these families are going through. I have had an opportunity to meet with unemployed workers in Los Angeles and Indiana and New Jersey, people who have worked for 15 or 20 years, and their job disappeared through no fault of their own because of terrorism, because of an economic downturn, and now they find themselves without any resources. Unemployment is running out, 11,000 people a day. While my colleagues are on recess, 120,000 people will lose their unemployment benefits. More people exhausted their unemployment benefits in December than any time since 1973. What does this Congress do? What does the Republican leadership do? It insists, it insists upon playing ping-pong back and forth with the future and the lives and the well-being of these American families. Thirteen weeks of unemployment insurance for those people running out of unemployment who have exhausted their benefit is available today, but the Republican leadership is going to play ping-pong. We are going to send it back to the Senate and go home. Happy Valentine's Day. Listen to the unemployed. Maybe my colleagues do not spend much time with them. Listen to the people who talk about invading their 401(k)s, their IRAs to try to save the mortgage, to try to say save their automobiles so they can continue to look for work. Listen to these individuals who are lining up never before in their life in food pantries so they can feed their families. Listen to the people who are working at the margins in the hospitality industry. They have no savings. They have no rainy day fund. They have no place to go, no credit. They were working at the margins. When that unemployment check stops, if even they are qualified, the music stops for them and their families. Listen to the young truck driver out there who is working for Sunkist when it went bankrupt, laid them off, 15 years. He finally bought a house in Los Angeles. Now he was scrambling, begging his extended family, his friends to meet the mortgage payment. He invaded his retirement to make the mortgage payment. All he did was lose much of his retirement value down the road. No insensitivity at all on my colleagues' part for these families, for these workers, for these employees who have been thrust into this system where they get no benefits. No, my colleagues are going to send the bill to the Senate and go home, to go home and turn their back on the American worker.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I rise today in the strongest possible support of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill to ban ``soft money.'' Individual rights are the hallmark of our country. As nations across the globe struggle to end oppressive dictatorships, our political system shines as a beacon of equality. Every person, regardless of race, income, or religion is afforded a vote and every vote is equal. Unfortunately, the bedrock of our democracy is compromised by the constant assault of financial contributions to the political system. Instead of one person, one vote, campaign contributions are taking our system towards a one dollar, one vote system. Every aspect of our life is impacted by the influence big contributions are having over elected officials. Enron is a case study in how huge corporate contributions undermine the public's confidence in our democracy. The shadow of doubt grows each day that Vice President Cheney refuses to release meeting records related to the development of the Bush administration's energy policy. We need to reform campaign finance law to ensure that corporations and special interest groups are not able to purchase political influence, turning Congress and the Presidency into a ``cash and carry'' operation. A recent article in the Washington Post tells a story which should send a chill down the spine of every American who cherishes our democratic system. According to the February 10, 2002, Washington Post article, ``Hard Money, Strong Arms and `Matrix': How Enron Dealt with Congress, Bureaucracy,'' Enron turned campaign finance contributions into a science. According to the article, With each proposed change in federal regulations, lobbyists punch details into a computer, allowing Enron economists in Houston to calculate just how much a rule change would cost. If the final figure was too high, executives used it as the cue to stoke their vast influence machine, mobilizing lobbyists and dialing up politicians who had accepted some of Enron's million in campaign contributions. To raise campaign cash, Enron relied not just on individual contribution but also on a well-funded political action committee that distributed money to candidates of both parties . . . Since 1990, Enron's political committees have given federal candidates and parties more than $1 million. Mr. Chairman, campaign finance reform comes down to just one, very important thing--protecting our democracy. Because of large, unregulated contributions, known as ``soft money,'' special interests and corporations often get special representation by elected officials, special representation that often is in conflict with the larger public interest. Critical issues in our society are directly affected by the undo influence of narrow special interests, particularly when there is money at stake. Energy companies, for example, can negotiate a $30 billion tax cut while the Bush Administration submits a budget to Congress that actually cuts the total level of funding for the historic education reforms that just one month ago he signed into law. Pick any issue that you care about. Campaign finance reform is needed to allow those issues to have their day in Congress and the White House. Issues such as health care, making child care affordable and of high quality, protecting the environment, protecting Social Security or providing a real prescription drug benefit through Medicare and care for Seniors. Instead of a system that gives the greatest deference to those in greatest need, the voices of narrow special interests use large unregulated political contributions to drown out the voices of our average citizens. Things have got to change. Today, the House of Representatives will again take up legislation to significantly reform our campaign finance laws. Last year, the Republican leadership resorted to parliamentary tricks to water down bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation which had passed the Senate. However, supporters of clean campaigns were not deterred. It took 218 Members of the House, including me, to sign a ``discharge petition'' that forced the Republican leadership to bring this important matter before the entire Congress again for a vote. While we are assured a vote today, opponents of reform, including the Republican leadership of this House, are working hard to once again use parliamentary tricks to block or weaken meaningful campaign finance reform. My hope is that the collapse of Enron is the straw that will break the back of opposition to real campaign finance reform. We need reform that will shine the light on the shadows of doubt left by the Enron scandal. We need to pass the Shays-Meehan soft money ban today so that tomorrow our children can have a brighter future.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, later this week the House will adjourn for district work period in honor of Presidents Day and give us an opportunity to go home and talk to our constituents. It is a tragedy before we adjourn, we will not deal with the problems of unemployment. Those who were unemployed prior to September 11, who have been unemployed for many, many months, those who were unemployed as a result of September 11 because of the downturn in the economy because of that tragic event against this country, but both of these categories of the unemployed need our help. They are exhausting their unemployment benefits. Close to a million people have exhausted their unemployment benefits. Many of those who were unemployed were working in occupations that were at the margins. They were not able to build up extensive savings accounts or a rainy day fund for their family. They were not able to pay their mortgage in advance or car payments in advance. When the checks stopped, they were in trouble. I have now listened to many of these workers in California, Indiana and New Jersey who have testified that they worked for 15 years, 10 years, 8 years, women in professional jobs at banks, truck drivers, people who worked in the dot-com industry, and now they are in serious financial trouble because they are in the process of exhausting their unemployment benefits. Last week the Senate took the necessary step to extend it for an additional 13 weeks. Last week the House of Representatives did nothing. This week the House of Representatives will do nothing. It is incredible the insensitivity of the Republican leadership to the needs of these hard-working American families. These are people who have really, really good work records. They have been trying to provide for their families for many years. A young man who worked for Sunkist Corporation in California told our meeting that he had been driving a truck for 15 years, he was able to buy a home a few months ago, and now he is scrambling to pay the mortgage. He is invading his retirement benefits and 401(k) to try to save his house. This is not an unusual story. There is also the issue of over 2 million people who have lost health care benefits because of unemployment. Congress has failed to respond. One of the proposals was to help them provide the payment of the COBRA benefit that allows workers to continue the employer's health insurance plan until reemployed. That is an absolute necessity for many of the unemployed because if they cannot continue that plan and they have a preexisting health condition, or their child has a preexisting health condition or spouse does, that individual's break in employment, break in health insurance means very likely that condition will not be covered when reemployed. That is why the COBRA benefit is so terribly important. Yet for those 2 million people, Congress has done nothing. The tax credit that the President offers does not solve that problem for hundreds of thousands of families that are in that situation. Or for those people's whose spouses may have had a bout with cancer, or whose children who may have a childhood illness, that would not be covered. Yet Congress insists it is going to take leave of this town, go home for 13 or 14 days, and we are going to fail to address the needs of these families. We must understand that these families are in dire financial straits. In dire financial straits. They are either adding up their debt because they are living off of what credit card debt they have available to them, they are borrowing from family members, or they are invading their retirement funds. Why in America should a working family that finds itself unemployed through no fault of their own, because of a terrorist activity or because of a downturn in the economy, they showed up and went to work every day, why should they lose all of their assets before we help them with health care or extend them some benefits? Mr. Speaker, we ought to extend the 13 weeks immediately. If there is a break, and a worker has been working in the hospitality industry or low-paying jobs in this country, 2 weeks, 4 weeks without a check is a devastating event. Maybe Members of Congress cannot understand that, but when Members go home for the district work period, Members need to talk to these people. Then Members will begin to understand the desperate straits that millions of Americans find themselves in because of this Congress' failure to extend the unemployment benefits.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage Members of the House and all Americans to pay attention to two very disturbing stories this week that illustrate the tremendous burdens on working families that this Congress continues to fail to address. Yesterday, the House voted a symbolic and politically motivated resolution upholding the grossly unfair and deficit-producing tax windfall for wealthy Americans that President Bush pushed through Congress last year. Over the course of that year, the economy has faltered, millions have lost their jobs or significant parts of their income, and we have rearranged our spending priorities because of the need to combat terrorism. Despite all of this, however, Washington still will not reconsider whether we should spend a trillion and a half dollars in tax cuts mainly aimed at the wealthiest Americans. That Bush tax law has exacerbated the growing inequality of incomes in America that has become en emblem of the Enron decade of the '90s. According to economist Edward N. Wolff of New York University, wealth in America is more highly concentrated today than at any time since 1929. While the number of Americans earning over a million dollars more than doubled in the last half of the '90s, the percentage of their income that the wealthiest paid in federal income taxes actually fell by 11 percent, thanks to tax changes. Meanwhile, those who earned less paid more in taxes, according to the Internal Revenue Service. And now President Bush wants even more permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Yet, while this House has time for legislation to expand tax cuts for the wealthiest, it has failed to pass legislation to benefit the millions or workers who have lost their jobs and exhausted their unemployment benefits. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has just released a report showing that two million working men and women will lost their unemployment benefits in the first half of this year alone, adding to hundreds of thousands who lost unemployment insurance benefits last year and tens of thousands more who were denied any benefits. As a result, the number of exhaustees who have been denied any additional weeks of benefits in the first quarter of this year is higher than in any other first quarter since the early 1970s. That is a crisis that the federal government can and should respond to but has as of now failed to do so. Mr. Speaker, these are very, very disturbing trends: more wealth for the wealthiest, and more tax cuts for wealthiest; growing income disparity and higher taxes for the middle class working family; no extended benefits for the unemployed and no coverage for millions of workers who paid into unemployment insurance but got no benefits when they lost their jobs. The federal government spend tens of millions of dollars trying to instruct people overseas how to build democracy in their countries, and one of the basic lessons we teach them is that you cannot build political democracy without economic justice. Frankly, the policies of this Congress are so inconsistent with any concept of economic justice that we should be concerned about the effect on our own democracy. Attached is an article from today's New York Times. [From the New York Times, Feb. 7, 2002] More Get Rich and Pay Less in Taxes (By David Cay Johnston) The number of Americans with million-dollar incomes more doubled from 1995 through 1999, as their salaries and their profits from stocks soared, government figures to be published today show. The percentage of their income that went to federal income taxes, however, fell by 11 percent. The incomes of Americans who made less grew as well, though by far less, and the share of their income that went to taxes rose slightly, according to Internal Revenue Service income tax data for the five years through 1999, the latest year available. The wealthiest Americans paid a smaller share of their income in taxes because in 1997 Congress reduced taxes on capital gains, which account for a significant share of their income. Congress also cut taxes for the middle class, but only one in five taxpayers qualified for those cuts, which involved new tax credits for children and education expenses. So, as a group, the portion of their income going to taxes rose. For those with million-dollar incomes, the share of their income that went to taxes fell to 27.9 percent in 1999, from 31.4 percent in 1995. For those Americans who did not make a million dollars, the portion of their income going to taxes edged up in those years, to 12.8 percent from 12.5 percent. About 205,000 taxpayers made $1 million or more in 1999, up from less than 87,000 in 1995. The average income of those who made $1 million or more rose by $568,000 to $3.2 million. Critics of the latest Bush administration economic stimulus and tax cut plan, announced this week, regarded the latest figures as evidence that the wealthy have received too many breaks. ``Congress cut taxes on rich people in 1997,'' Robert McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonprofit Washington organization with labor union backing, said. ``The rate that they pay fell by quite a bit, while they didn't do much for everyone else and their taxes went up a little. The law did what Congress intended. Their intent was to make sure the wealthier people paid less in taxes and they weren't worried about the rest of the people.'' President Bush, who won a major tax cut from Congress last year, and his supporters argue that permanent cuts in tax rates encourage investment, which results in more jobs and economic growth. ``We need to pass a bill that will help workers and help stimulate the economy,'' Mr. Bush told reporters on Tuesday. The president's new tax cut plan appeared to die on Tuesday when Senator Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota and the majority leader, moved to shelve it. Those making a million dollars or more, just one of every 625 taxpayers in 1999, more than doubled their slice of the nation's income to 11.2 percent that year, from 5.4 percent in 1995. These high-income taxpayers also captured a quarter of the nation's total personal income growth from 1995 through 1999. The incomes of taxpayers making less than $1 million also rose, though not as sharply. The income of everyone making less than a million dollars averaged $41,000 in 1999, up from $33,500 in 1995, a 22 percent increase, the data, using adjusted gross incomes, showed. The tax return data show that the number of taxpayers reporting incomes of less than $25,000 declined slightly, while those reporting incomes at higher levels increased. The tax return data show that the number of taxpayers reporting incomes of less than $25,000 declined slightly, while those reporting incomes at higher levels increased. William Beech, an economist at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, which supports lower tax rates to foster economic growth, said that these figures may be misleading in several ways. The data fail to capture the growing number of the working poor, and their meager incomes, because many of them are immigrants who work off the books, he said. ``The reported income that the I.R.S. picks up from tax returns reflects people who are making their way up the economic ladder,'' Mr. Beech said. ``If we had fully accurate reporting of income, we would see that within the poorest fifth, the median income would be falling because of the millions of people coming into the United States, who mostly earn low incomes.'' He also noted that among those who file income tax returns, many of who appear poor may actually be retirees with substantial investments. But they need only modest incomes because their mortgages are paid off and their children are grown. The stock market played a large role in creating more million-dollar annual incomes, the figures show. Capital gains over all more than tripled during the five years, with almost three quarters of the increase going to those with million-dollar incomes. The capital gains tax cut of 1997 appeared to favor the 400 richest taxpayers most of all. Harvesting 7 percent of all capital gains in 1998, these very rich Americans paid just 22 percent of their incomes in taxes that year, down from 30 percent in 1994. Although more than half of all families are investors in the stock market, largely through 401(k)'s and similar retirement plans, wealth in America is more highly concentrated today than at any time since 1929, said Professor Edward N. Wolff, a New York University economist.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing Vallejo Fighting Back Partnership's selection as the 2001 Outstanding Coalition Award by CADCA (Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America). In the late 1980s, residents of Vallejo, California, became concerned about the city's growing crime rate--a problem blamed mainly on the prevalence of drug and alcohol use in the community. In 1988, city officials began to examine programs and strategies that would help reduce drug and alcohol use, including the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's plan to start more than a dozen Fighting Back Partnership coalitions across the nation. The coalitions, which would be established in mid-sized communities to reduce the demand for drugs and alcohol, were going to be given funding for a two-year planning period, followed by a $3 million grant to carry out a five-year strategic plan. Although more than 400 communities sent in applications to start a Fighting Back coalition, in 1989 Vallejo emerged as one of the original 14 sites. One of the pivotal moments in Fighting Back's history occurred in the mid-1990s when the coalition--with the help of its partners--developed a sophisticated five-year strategic plan that focused on substance abuse reduction in relation to three areas: neighborhoods, treatment and youth. Fighting Back's primary goals in each area were--and still are--as follows: Revitalize neighborhoods that have deteriorated because of alcohol and drug-related crime and violence; increase the availability for treatment, especially for those with no money or health insurance; work with schools and organizations to reduce the demand and availability of tobacco, alcohol and other harmful substances among youth. To date, there are several indicators that Fighting Back has made significant progress in achieving its goals. In 1997, the Robert Wood Johnson extended the coalition's funding for another five years--an unprecedented move by the foundation at the time. Meanwhile, recent community reports and surveys show across-the-board reductions in neighborhood crime and drug use in Vallejo. Furthermore, the number of residents in certified treatment facilities has increased from 690 to 729, according to the latest statistics available. To date, more than 30 organizations and thousands of individuals have partnered with Fighting Back to develop strategies, aimed at reducing substance abuse in Vallejo. Generally speaking, Fighting Back serves as a neutral convener as opposed to a service provider--especially in the areas of substance abuse treatment and counseling. More than anything, Fighting Back exists because of its many partners. The coalition, which could be described as a vehicle for collaboration, is grateful for the large contingent of partnering agencies and individuals who help create and carry out strategies in the community. In fact, Fighting Back's good standing in the community is evident by the vast number of agencies and individuals who are willing to partner with the coalition on an ongoing basis. Fighting Back's partners include individuals and agencies in the field of healthcare, law enforcement, community service (churches, neighborhood volunteers, etc.), public education, substance abuse treatment, and public and private businesses. I know I speak for all the members when I congratulate Vallejo Fighting Back Partnership for its effective efforts to reduce substance abuse and for its selection as the 2001 Coalition of the Year by the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as we honor President Regan's birthday today, it is fitting that we remember one of his most famous lines, ``There you go again.'' Well, tragically, there you go again and here we go again. In the early 1980's President Reagan forced through a massive tax cut and military spending hikes that resulted in budget deficits over the next 12 years. The American tax payers paid trillions of dollars in additional interest costs. Long-term interest rates remained high. The penalty was on workers, on their families, on their children and on the poor of this Nation. Sounds familiar? There he goes again. President Bush's budget priorities. In spite of everything we have learned, as the previous speaker said, the world has changed since September 11. Everything has changed, the President said. Everything but this tax cut that was considered in an entirely different time. What do we see? We see Governors all over the country postponing tax cuts because the reality of their State budgets is they cannot continue to provide tax cuts and provide the services that their States need, whether it is education or highways or infrastructure repairs. What do we see now? Republican Governors postponing tax cuts. I do not think they think they are raising taxes. They think they are doing prudent economics on behalf of the citizens of their State. We should reject this proposal.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the following is a summary of the Employee Pension Freedom Act. I. Improved Disclosure Annual Benefit Statements: pension plans would be required to provide annual pension benefit statements to participants and beneficiaries including notification of employee and employer contributions that consist of employer stock and the importance of a well balanced and diversified investment portfolio for long term retirement security. Accurate Financial Information: in all pension plans where participants make investment decisions, the employer and plan administrator must provide all material investment information to participants as required under securities law to make investment decisions. Prohibits the employer or plan administrator from making any misleading statements to participants regarding the value of employer stock or other investments available under the plan or from omitting information relevant to the value of the stock or other investment options. II. Strengthened Employee Diversification Rights Unrestricted Employee Choice Over Employee Contributions: in pension plans where participants make investment decisions, participants will have the right to allocate employee contributions to any plan investment option (eliminate current law rule permitting employers to require 10% employer stock holdings). Unrestricted Employee Choice Over Employer Contributions When Vested: the plan administrator must notify all participants upon vesting of the right to transfer employer stock matching contributions to other plan investment options; the plan administrator would have up to 30 days to effect any requested transfer; in an ESOP, employees may diversify employer matching contributions after 10 years of service. III. Improved Employee Account Access Faster Vesting for Employees: covered employees will be vested in their employer contributions after completion of one year of participation in the plan (many plans currently vest after five or more years and some, like Enron, do not permit employees to transfer employer contributions even following vesting). 30 Days Advance Notice of Plan ``Lockdowns'': the plan administrator must provide at least 30 days advance written notice of any plan change that would restrict a participant's access to his or her account. No More Than 10 Business Days for Lockdowns: an employer or plan administrator may not limit participant access to his or her account for a period of more than 10 business days. IV. Adequate Legal Protection for Employees Fiduciaries Must Have Insurance or be Bonded: all defined contribution plan fiduciaries shall maintain sufficient fiduciary insurance or bonding to cover financial losses due to breach of fiduciary duty as determined by the Secretary of Labor. Employee Pension Plan Representation: in pension plans that permit employees to direct control of their pension investments, the plan must include an equal number of employer and employee trustees to oversee the plan. Many plans today have no employee trustees overseeing employees' funds. No Waivers of Legal Rights: Employers may not require participants to sign waivers of statutory pension rights as part of a termination or severance agreement. Right to be Made Whole in Court: in cases of fiduciary breach of duty by a fiduciary or knowing participant in a breach, the plan or participants may be made whole by the court. Improved Labor Department Assistance: the Department of Labor shall establish an office of the Participant Advocate which shall monitor potential abuses of employee pension plan rights and assist pension plan participants in preventing and resolving abuses. Feasibility Study for Guaranty Insurance: the PBGC shall study and report to Congress no later than 3 years after enactment the options for and feasibility of developing an insurance guarantee system for defined contribution plans.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to announce that later today I will be introducing the Employee Pension Freedom Act, a measure that is urgently needed in light of the recent Enron scandal and other threats to pension security affecting millions of American families. I will be doing that with over 50 original cosponsors. Over the past month, this Nation has been shocked at the revelations of how the Enron Corporation employees lost their entire savings through the actions of high-ranking company officials and how they lost their future retirement. As the value of the Enron stock plummeted last fall, Enron employees were prohibited from rescuing their own savings, estimated at over $1 billion, by company-imposed lockdowns on the Enron shares and by the outright prohibition of selling company-contributed shares until the employee had reached age 55. The spectacle of company executives hiding billions of dollars of debt from investors and from employees through the secret offshore partnerships of Enron while simultaneously cashing out company stock for themselves is an audacious assault on our pension security laws and offends the sense of fairness and justice in every American. These executives ignored their responsibilities to investors and to their own employees by cooking the books, making misleading statements about the company's health, and locking down the ability of employees to save themselves from the Enron collapse. Employees at other corporations, like Kmart, face other penalties and restrictions on the sale of company stock in their 401(k) plans. For example, in some companies if you sell company stock in your 401(k) plan before a certain age, the company withholds an employer contribution to your plan for 6 months. The question is why should the employer be able to penalize you for exercising dominion over the assets that belong to you. It simply is not fair. Now the questions of whether Congress will respond or will the employees get rhetoric and a few tweaks that leave the antiquated pension laws pretty much in place to the employees' disadvantage. Clearly, there are two sets of rules when it comes to company stock. Ken Lay and other executives would get one set of rules, where they can get rid of their stock almost at any time, and the average employees get another more restrictive set of rules when it comes to the company stock and their 401(k)s. The executives are free to rescue their value and their family assets tied up in stock should they smell the company is in for a bad time in the stock market. The employees are artificially locked down. It is money that was given to them for compensation in working for the corporation, yet when they seek to rescue their family's retirement, when they seek to make a decision that maybe this stock should not be held any longer, that maybe they should buy something else or buy a mutual fund, they are prohibited from doing that. What we really need is freedom for employees to be able to exercise complete and total control over the contributions, the assets, the money in their 401(k) plans so that they can do as we have told them to do, to diversify for the security of their retirement, to make retirement plans and investments based upon their age. The older one gets, the less risk they may want to take. The younger they are, the more risk they may want to take. That is the way it is supposed to be, but that is not the way it is. These companies have come along and placed restrictions and penalties on the ability of the employees to get rid of some of the assets within that plan. The Employee Pension Freedom Act that I am introducing today with over 50 cosponsors makes several important changes to our pension laws. The most important change my bill makes is to provide employees 100 percent control over their investments and their 401(k) plans. Employees would have total control over the investment of the money they earned and contributed to the retirement plans and that their employer contributed to their plans as part of their compensation. This change is critical to help avoid the problems we have just witnessed with Enron. It will help provide employees the ability to rescue their nest eggs, to diversify and manage their investments consistent with the advice of financial professional people throughout the country and consistent with the aims of their families. My bill ensures that employees are informed about the real health of their pensions, it gives them the decision-making power to guide their investment, and it guarantees their representation on boards that guide their future economic security. My bill guarantees the right of employees to make decisions about their pension contribution by repealing current rules that prohibit employees from deciding where to invest the money that belongs to them. Pension money and assets, whether invested by the employee or contributed by the employer, represent compensation to the employee and the employee is not to be denied the control of that. It is not compensation to the pension plan or manager; it is compensation to the employee for services rendered to the corporation. I urge my colleagues to join in the cosponsorship of this legislation that is designed to provide employees the pension freedom that they need to secure retirement for their families.