Robert Matsui

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would have to imagine there must be some rules in mischaracterizing a colleague's voting record or a colleague's vote; and clearly there was because the Democratic substitute which the previous speaker voted for did have a marriage penalty tax relief package in it. It just had a pay-for in it. I would have to believe there is some rule in mischaracterizing a Member's position or vote, and I would like a ruling from the Chair on that.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I think that is understandable. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry, but I have to say, Members need to protect themselves when distortions are given.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguish gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many other speakers he might have.

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

Mr. MATSUI. I would imagine there are no other speakers except the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have to say I really do not understand why we are here today debating this issue. We should be taking up prescription drugs. We should perhaps even take up the President's three proposals that his Social Security Commission has come up with, because obviously we want to debate the whole issue of whether or not Social Security should be privatized or partially privatized. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) has a piece of legislation on Social Security that privatizes the entire Social Security system over a period of years. We should be debating that issue now. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, has a privatization of Social Security bill. We should be discussing that. If not those things, which are very important to the American public, at least we should be discussing why at a time of war we are allowing U.S. corporations like Stanley Corporation to go offshore and save $30 million in taxes because now they have become not a U.S. corporation but a foreign corporation in Bermuda; and we all know that all they are going to do is just open up a post office box, a mailbox perhaps, and then be able to save $30 million in taxes. And this is not going to help their employees. This is going to go into the pockets of the owners. So why not debate these issues? Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what is happening here is the fact that my colleagues want a political issue, I think as the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) mentioned, I think as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) mentioned, as a number of Members on our side of the aisle mentioned; and I have to say that this is really a strange debate because I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about all of the savings for the American public, and there are three components, and perhaps people do not know this, of the marriage penalty relief. One is doubling the standard deductions for couples; doubling the 15 percent bracket for couples; and then the other is the earned income tax credit, which is not really a marriage penalty issue. The only one that is currently in effect is the earned income tax credit. The doubling of the 15 percent tax bracket does not take effect until the year 2005, and of course the doubling of the standard deduction for couples does not take effect until 2005, 3 years from now. So we are worried about extending these credits, and they have not even taken effect yet. So the irony of this is that we are debating something that is really not real. It is an illusion. It is a falsehood. It does not make any sense. And the real tragedy, however, is in spite of all these games, if in fact it did take effect, if in fact it did take effect in the year 2011, you would have a drain on the Social Security trust fund of $457 billion. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that should be defeated. We have a substitute we are going to offer that addresses these issues to preserve the Social Security trust fund. I urge a ``no'' on final passage.

Mr. MATSUI. I object, Mr. Speaker. I would like a ruling from the Chair, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say we will concede for the moment the fact if the other side wants to extend this legislation, we will extend it with them. We will take the bill from the other side of the aisle, their legislation, and say we will extend it. However, we would just put a provision in there that they should accept because last night when we had the motion to instruct, they did the same thing when it came to energy taxes, and that is 1 year before the proposal is to be extended, that is 2010, a full 8 years from now, we are talking about some 8 years from now, in 2010, the director of the Office of Management and Budget would have to certify that over the next 10 years, none of the funds to pay for marriage penalty relief would come out of the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, that way my colleagues on the other side of the aisle could have it both ways. They could say that they have extended the marriage penalty relief for all Americans, and take care of all those people that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) showed the picture of, and at the same time they will protect the Social Security trust fund. Seven times in the last 3 years my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted for a so-called lockbox to preserve the Social Security surplus so it could not be used for tax cuts or spending. And so it is a very simple amendment, something that I believe that they support, something that certainly we support because we think one of the most important aspects senior citizens have is a guaranteed benefit at the end of the day, a Social Security benefit that frankly is actually only worth about $860 a month for the average senior citizen; but for many, it is the only thing they have. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle vote against my substitute, then they are basically the police officer who is defending us, the firefighter who is protecting us, the teacher who is teaching our children, as they pay their payroll taxes into the Social Security trust fund, that that money is not necessarily going to go to them when they retire. We all know this. Right now there are 60 million Americans that are receiving Social Security benefits. In the next 15 years, we are going to add 40 million more to a total of 100 million people because the baby boom population in the year 2012 will begin to retire. We need to protect those funds for our senior population. We should not be using them for estate tax relief, spending programs, or anything else. My amendment will make Members really fess up. Do they really want to protect Social Security, or are they just kidding people? Do they want to make sure that senior citizens are protected in their old age, or are they just doing a bait-and-switch? That is what this issue is all about, Mr. Speaker. Our bill will let them have their relief in 2011. We will continue the marriage penalty relief, but only if it does not come out of the Social Security trust fund to do damage to the retirement benefits of our senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. I object, Mr. Speaker. I would like a ruling from the Chair, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I demand that the words of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) be taken down. I think the gentleman has used a Member's name in a way that is diminishing to the Member, and is putting the colleague up to contempt and ridicule. If I may have a ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MATSUI. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. MATSUI. I object, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), so he may be able to characterize his own comments, rather than have someone else do it for him.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am glad people are concerned about the Constitution of the United States. I wish we were concerned about it in a lot of other cases, as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). (Mr. BISHOP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, again, I just want to reiterate some numbers here before the last speaker closes, if I may. At this time, we have tapped into the Social Security trust fund, in other words, money that is payroll tax, money that people think is going into a trust account to pay for their retirement benefits, by $1.7 trillion. That includes debt service, and it includes spending programs that we will have over the next 2 or 3 months. If we extend the tax cut, if we pay for the defense bill, the farm bill, the President's Medicare proposal in terms of his prescription drug proposal, we could add to that another $1.5 trillion, and make a total of $3.2 trillion. If in fact we do those things, and I think most people will agree we are going to have to do many of these things, we are going to make it impossible to solve the Social Security problem in America. We are going to make it impossible to make sure that we continue benefits for our senior citizens. It is my hope that good judgment and common sense will finally come to us in this institution. If in fact we are going to deal with something 8 years down the road, at least we ought to have the common sense, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that it does not further invade and raid the Medicare and Social Security trust fund. The only way we are going to be able to do that on this bill, Mr. Speaker, is if in fact we support my substitute, which basically says that we will let this marriage penalty relief go into effect in 2011; however, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget must certify that no funds over that 10-year period will invade the Social Security trust fund, as we are doing now. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that we vote for this substitute and turn down final passage of the bill if my substitute fails. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, which I believe is 5 minutes, to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).