Robert Matsui

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MATSUI

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

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the remainder of the time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

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

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

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a distinguished 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 gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the State of California (Mr. Farr), a Member of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. FARR of California 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. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Indiana (Mr. Roemer), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. ROEMER 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, I would just have to say in conclusion here on general debate that if the Pomeroy-Thurman bill, which will be offered as a Democratic substitute, became law, it would actually create a situation where only 10,000 estates in the entire country, 10,000 estates of 260 million people, would be taxed. So we are basically talking about, in the Republican bill, 10,000 individuals or 10,000 estates that we are talking about. That is what the tragedy of this debate is. I have frankly never, in my entire 23 years in this institution, seen a larger transfer of wealth than on the floor of the House of Representatives today. The reason for this is we have no surplus. The $5.6 trillion surplus is zero. It is gone. It is totally eliminated. As a result of that, whatever we use to pay for this estate tax repeal will come out of the payroll taxes of the average American, the 6.2 percent payroll tax that every American pays. We calculated this. In order to pay $103 billion a year, which it is over a 10-year period once it is fully in effect, the estate tax relief, we are talking about 55 million Americans that are making $30,000 a year, 55 million Americans, their FICA tax that they think is going into the Social Security trust fund, that money is actually going to pay some of the richest Americans and their estates in this country. It is a huge transfer of wealth that we are talking about. It is unconscionable. Mr. Speaker, it would be my hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would see this for what it is: a transfer of wealth from the middle class, from the suburban Americans, to the very wealthiest of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this and a vote in favor of the Pomeroy-Thurman substitute.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to the 2001-2002 Sacramento Kings, one of the most exciting and formidable teams in the National Basketball Association. The 2001-2002 Kings completed the greatest season in franchise history by taking the two-time defending World Champions, the Los Angeles Lakers, to the brink of elimination in a fiercely contested seven game series. Although the season ended short of a Championship, the 2001-2002 Kings demonstrated remarkable courage, determination, and promise that have surely made them a great source of civic pride and a perennial NBA powerhouse for years to come. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in saluting the remarkable 2001-2002 Sacramento Kings. Throughout the course of the season, the 2001-2002 Sacramento Kings showed tremendous character in overcoming numerous obstacles. Despite losing star players Chris Webber and Peja Stojakovic for significant portions of the season, the Kings finished the regular season with a league best mark of 61 wins and 21 losses. The Kings won the franchise's first division championship since relocating to Sacramento in 1985. By combining a high-octane offense and a tenacious defense, this year's Kings posted the best overall record, home record and road record in franchise history. It is clear that the 2001-2002 Sacramento Kings are the most successful team in the franchise's illustrious 54 year history. The Kings began their postseason campaign in fine form, as they only needed four games to conquer their old nemesis, the Utah Jazz. In the next round, the Kings overcame significant injuries to Peredrag Stojakovic and Doug Christie to defeat a talented Dallas Mavericks team by a four games to one margin. In the Western Conference finals, the Kings locked horns with the Los Angeles Lakers in one of the most hotly contested and memorable playoff series in NBA history. Although the Kings would lose the series after stretching the ultimate seventh game into overtime, their outstanding performance throughout the playoffs cemented the Kings' status as one of the preeminent teams in the NBA today and the dominant team of the future. The 2001-2002 Sacramento Kings are comprised of an outstanding blend of superstar players, seasoned veterans, and exciting young players. This Kings team is spearheaded by the all around excellence of All- Stars Chris Webber and Peredrag Stojakovic. On defense, the Kings are lead by defensive stalwart and All NBA Defensive Second Team member Doug Christie. Skillful big men Vlade Divac, Scot Pollard, and Lawrence Funderburke provide consistent play in the paint. The boundless energy and exuberance of Mike Bibby, Bobby Jackson, and Hidayet Turkoglu fuels the Kings trademark high-power offense. High-flying rookie Gerald Wallace and the talented Mateen Cleaves provide an enticing glimpse into the team's future with their enormous potential. To round off the roster, solid veterans Chucky Brown and Brent Price provide steady and valuable leadership on the floor and in the locker room. This dazzling group of players, combined with a selfless commitment to team play, are major reasons why the Kings enjoyed such unparalleled success during the 2001-2002 season. In addition to a wonderful roster, the 2001-2002 Kings also benefited greatly from the tutelage of one of the best coaching staffs and the leadership of one of the most progressive front offices in the NBA. On the bench, the 2001-2002 Kings were lead by head coach Rick Adelman and assistant coaches Pete Carril, John Wetzel and Elston Turner. These coaches were able to harness one of the greatest collections of talented players in the NBA into a balanced scoring team that is epitomized by team play and an unyielding commitment to defense. In the front office, the Kings are led by the visionary ownership of the Maloof Family and the astute personnel moves of team president Geoff Petrie. Under the ownership of the Maloof Family, the Kings have taken great steps to forge one of the most unique and strongest relationships in all of sports with their team supporters. Given the Kings' front office's commitment to the city of Sacramento, it is no wonder why Kings fans are widely regarded as the most spirited and most loyal fans in America. Mr. Speaker, as the Sacramento Kings conclude its greatest season in franchise history and prepare to achieve greater triumphs in the future, I am honored to pay tribute to the many hard working men and women of the Kings organization who brought so much joy and pride to the people of Sacramento and Kings' fans everywhere. Their successes are considerable, and it is a great honor for me to have the opportunity to pay tribute to their accomplishments. I ask all my colleagues to join with me in congratulating the Sacramento Kings on a wonderful season and wishing them greater success in future seasons.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, today I am offering a bill to modify the way in which penalties are imposed on states that are attempting to comply with child support system computer automation requirements. Child support automation penalties provided an effective and necessary impetus for my home state of California to make important changes in their child support program. But, now these penalties have become an obstacle to meeting the objectives of the revamped system and should be modified. The Child Support Reinvestment Act would do two important things. First, it would change the base year that the penalty is calculated on. This would remove the disincentive for states to increase investments in their child support program because these increases would no longer be reflected in the calculation of the penalty. Second, the bill would allow increasing amounts of these penalties to be reinvested in the child support program if the state increases spending by specified percentages. My bill is supported by the National Women's Law Center and the Center for Law and Social Policy. In addition, ACES, the Association for Children for Enforcement Support, and the California Chapter of the National Organization for Women is supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include the letters of support from these organizations in the record. California has made significant strides and is on target to have a fully automated child support system in 2005. They have also invested considerable money in improving collections and customer service. Last year, California collected $2 billion in child support, sending two- thirds of this money directly to families. This progress, however, is being jeopardized by ongoing and increasing federal penalties. Unfortunately, it is the children in families who receive child support that suffer. My bill would correct this problem. The Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc., Toledo, OH, June 4, 2002. Hon. Robert Matsui, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Matsui: The Association for Children of Support (ACES) would like to offer its support for your proposed modifications to the current calculation of child support automation penalties. Your legislation, the Child Support Reinvestment Act of 2002, would remove the disincentive to states, like California, to invest additional dollars in their child support system. The penalties imposed on the child support program in California were necessary and provided the encouragement needed by the state to change the system. We believe that California's significant progress, increasing collection rates, and improved customer service warrant reasonable changes in the child support computer automation statute. Particularly, we support your bill, because it would change the way penalties are calculated by redefining the penalty base to avoid penalizing the sate for their increased investment in the child support program. We also support the provision that would permit the reinvestment of a portion of the penalties in the child support system. ACES believes that it is mothers and children who ultimately suffer if the bill is not enacted. Thank you for your leadership. Sincerely, Geraldine Jensen, President, Association for Children for Enforcement of Support.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. It is my pleasure to acknowledge the tremendous achievements and contributions that the Asian Pacific American community has made to our society. Asian Pacific American (APA) Heritage Month provides us with an opportunity to reflect upon the diversity that makes our nation so strong, and the particular accomplishments of the APA community. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all those who remain dedicated to advancing the goals of the APA community. I commend all of the APA organizations across America for enhancing the voice of APAs in the political and social arena. Their tireless efforts inspire others to achieve their dreams. All Americans, regardless of their ethnic background and heritage, benefit from their work. This year, many organizations are choosing to celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month by focusing on theme, ``Unity in Freedom.'' This theme resonates deeply in the wake of September 11th. Following the attacks, the APA community has been a leading voice in the fight to protect the civil liberties of all Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion. This deep and enduring commitment is a testament to the remarkable resilience of APAs throughout American history. It is quite fitting that our great nation takes the time each year to honor the exemplary contributions of APAs. This month allows us a moment to reflect on the past successes and struggles of the APA community, as well as the promise the future holds. As we examine and celebrate the distinct heritage of Asian Pacific Americans, it is important to acknowledge that the diverse fabric of our nation is bound together by a shared set of values: freedom, liberty, and equal opportunity. The APA community has long exemplified these values. It is an honor to highlight Asian Pacific American Heritage Month on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. First of all, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from the State of Florida, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, for bringing forth this bill; and I appreciate the fact that he has taken the opportunity to do so. I think it is a step in the right direction. Obviously, the bill before us today is a good piece of legislation. It will, in fact, increase benefits for 120,000 additional widows, basically widows in which the other spouse, the spouse that passed away, took early retirement. It deals with widows who have become disabled. It obviously deals with widows that were divorced in terms of shortening the time in which they may be able to collect benefits. So this is a good piece of legislation. Obviously, we can do more; and I introduced a bill 2 weeks ago that would actually provide greater benefits. Instead of 120,000 widows, our bill would in fact cover and increase benefits for 4.7 million additional widows by guaranteeing these widows a 75 percent benefit of what they previously had when both spouses were alive. Right now, under the Social Security Act, widows receive only about 50 to 65 percent of what they received when the other spouse was still alive. We all know from studies that when one spouse dies, even though the income goes down, the day-to-day fixed costs, like rent, like house payments, like food, remain very high. In fact, we estimate that the average cost is about 80 percent of what they expended prior, when they were both living. So when one spouse dies, it does not drop to 50 percent, it only drops down by 20 percent. So 80 percent of the expenditures still exist. Our bill would basically give every widow in America at least 75 percent of what both spouses had before one of the spouses passed away. So this is a guaranteed benefit. This bill that we would like to offer today as an amendment, as I said, would take care of 4.7 million widows instead of 120,000. Unfortunately, because of the way the situation has been set up, this being a suspension calendar, we cannot offer that amendment. Mr. Speaker, I did offer it in subcommittee. It failed on a partisan vote. Five Democrats voted for it; seven Republicans voted against it. It was never taken to the full committee, so we could not bring it there for a vote; and now we are left without an opportunity to bring it again for a vote. It is unfortunate. The bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) does move us in the right direction. It picks up 120,000 widows and increases their benefits, so we are all going to support it. But by the same token, I wish we would have had an opportunity to vote on the bill that I had introduced. The bill that I introduced is being supported by the National Council of Women's Organization, an umbrella group of 150 women's organizations, the AFL-CIO, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and the National Women's Legal Consortium. All of these groups support our legislation. If I may just conclude, one of the problems that I have, I might make this observation, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) raised his privatization legislation. He says that he has embodied the terms of his legislation in that bill. I have to say that one of the concerns that I have and the reason we should pass the bill that takes care of 4.7 million widows in America today is once we move down the road to privatization after the November election, we are going to be cutting benefits. The gentleman's bill will cost over the next 20 years $8 trillion in general fund monies going into the Social Security system. We do not have that. We do not have even a trillion dollars in general fund money available. How are we going to come up with $8 trillion in general fund money? That being the case, there is no question. We are going to be cutting Social Security benefits if we adopt a bill like the gentleman's or adopt one of the three President's bills that he came up with during the commission discussion. As a result of that, we need to take care of these widows today. We will not take care of them when we do Social Security reform if in fact we move as the President wants to move in the direction of privatization of Social Security. That will not take care of these widows. As a matter of fact, it will result in significant massive benefit cuts. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record letters in support of my legislation. National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Washington, DC, May 6, 2002. Hon. Robert Matsui, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Social Security, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Matsui: On behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, I wish to express our support for the provisions contained in your legislation, The Social Security Widow's Benefits Guarantee Act. We are pleased that your legislation would increase the current benefit for surviving spouses to 75 percent of the combined benefit received by two spouses when both were living. Under current law, widows are effectively limited to 50-67 percent of what the couple had been receiving jointly. This change would have a dramatic positive impact on benefits for as many as 5 million Americans who are overwhelmingly women. As you know, four out of ten older women rely on Social Security for over 90 percent of their income. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. We look forward to working with you to advance this legislation in the 107th Congress. Cordially, Barbara Kennelly, President and CEO.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the bill the gentleman has is a privatization bill. The gentleman can call it anything he wishes, but it is a privatization bill. Dr. Peter Orszag, a professor at the University of California Berkeley, currently at the Brookings Institute, has studied the gentleman's bill, the DeMint-Armey bill and the three proposals presented by the President through his commission; he said all of them are privatization bills. What the bill of the gentleman from Florida does, it deals with arbitrage. Money is borrowed at 6 percent, and then is lent out at 10 percent. We all know arbitrage is a huge risk, and it could blow up. Once Americans have these privatization accounts, then there is a claw back. When they are ready to retire, they have to give 95 percent of the money that is accumulated to put back into the Social Security Administration. If in fact the arbitrage falls apart, the money will not be there. It is jeopardizing the Social Security system. In addition, it is a private account that is being set up that affects the Social Security benefits. So it is a privatization plan. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, Mr. Speaker, I support the gentleman from Florida's legislation. I think it is a good piece of legislation. It will take care of 120,000 additional women and I think that is a step in the right direction. I only wish we had an opportunity to vote on my bill, as a number of speakers on my side of the aisle have indicated they would have liked that opportunity, because we think it is important to deal with this issue today given the fact that there is a lot of uncertainty out there of what might happen in 2003 after the election. The President's people, Mr. Rove and others, have said that they do not want to bring this issue up this year, they want to bring it up in 2003 after the election in terms of the whole issue of privatization. The real danger I see there is that once we embark upon that direction we are not going to be able to take care of these 4.7 million widows that my bill would take care of because we are going to be cutting benefits. I do not think there is any question about that. The President's bill, for example, has three alternatives. One of the alternatives would require $6 trillion of general fund moneys, which we do not have at this time. In addition, it would have 46 percent cuts in benefits over the next number of years in terms of recipients of Social Security. Each one of his proposals either requires an infusion of general fund moneys or cuts in benefits. The gentleman from Florida's bill is a riverboat gamble essentially. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic whip.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will sum up by making one other observation. I see the gentleman from Florida has a pay-for in his legislation. His bill will cost $4 billion over the next 10 years. The interesting thing about the pay-for, however, is that it comes directly out of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights legislation in which he used the same pay-fors to pay for the revenue offsets in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights which passed in the sunset bill about the middle of April. In addition to that, I understand the bill that is coming up tomorrow, the welfare reform package, they are using the same offsets to pay for that as well. So it will be kind of interesting to see how they really use their pay-fors in order to actually make this bill fully funded. I might just finally point out that our bill does not take any money out of the Social Security Trust Fund. It comes out of general revenues, the same general revenues that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have taken in October of last year when they passed their first GOP stimulus bill, in which 16 of the largest low- taxed corporations in America would have gotten an immediate tax break of $7.4 billion basically that would have been retroactive 16 years of the alternative minimum tax. Altogether it was $25 billion in tax reduction for major corporations in America that really do not need it, including $254 million to Enron and $1.4 billion to IBM. All of these would have received tax cuts without a pay-for. We would take our pay- for out of the same source that the gentleman would have given major tax cuts to. I see he paid for his. On the other hand, it is coming from the Taxpayers Bill of Rights or tomorrow's welfare reform package, so I find it somewhat inconsistent in terms of where his pay-for is actually going to come from. We support this bill. We wish we could have had a vote on our bill in the form of an amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, today I am offering a bill to make long overdue improvements in Social Security benefits. My bill would provide higher benefits for an estimated 5 million widows and other elderly beneficiaries. At the same time, it maintains fiscal responsibility by assuring that the bill does not affect the financial solvency of the Social Security system. Elderly non-married women, including widows, rely heavily on Social Security benefits. Three out of four depend on it for at least half of their total income. And four in 10 depend on it for 90 percent or more of their income. At the same time, widows are among the poorest of all Social Security beneficiaries. Over the last 30 years, poverty rates among the elderly have fallen from 29 percent in 1966 to 8.5 percent in 2000. But among widows, the poverty rate remains high--at 15 percent in 2000. The incomes of elderly women are very modest. The median income for non- married elderly women, including widows, was about $12,000 a year in 2000. The time to address this situation is now. Republicans want to spend trillions of dollars to privatize Social Security, and they want to wait until after the election to do it. Democrats are proposing to invest less than one-twentieth of that amount to improve benefits for the neediest beneficiaries, and we want to do it now, without delay. Democrats want to improve Social Security and help its neediest beneficiaries, rather than destroy it by risky privatization schemes that require trillions of new dollars and deep benefit cuts. Bill Summary The bill would create a new ``widow's guarantee'' for Social Security beneficiaries. Widows and widowers would be guaranteed a benefit equal to 75% of the combined benefits the couple had been receiving prior to the death of one spouse. The widow's guarantee would provide higher benefits than widows receive under current law--which only provides benefits equal to what the husband had been receiving prior to his death. Under current law, widows are effectively limited to only 50-67 percent of what the couple had been receiving. Yet under federal guidelines, a one-person household is estimated to need 80 percent of the income of a two-person household. This bill would reduce the drop in Social Security income that would otherwise occur upon the death of a spouse. For example, the average retired worker on the rolls today receives a benefit of $874 per month. If that worker has a spouse who is entitled to Social Security spousal benefits, their combined benefit is $1311. Under current law, the widow would receive $874 after her husband dies. Under the 75% widow's guarantee, the widow would get a benefit of $983 a month--an increase of $109 a month, or 12 percent more than she would receive under current law. To assure that the increased benefits are concentrated on those with the greatest need, the increase would be subject to a dollar cap of $1000 a month, which would be indexed in 2003 and later years. The benefit increase is estimated to help 5 million widows and widowers, one million of whom are currently living in poverty. This bill also includes benefit improvements to help certain groups of disabled widows, elderly widows whose husbands died shortly after retirement, and divorced spouses. Over 120,000 beneficiaries would see increases as a result of this section of the bill. Finally, this is fully financed through general revenue transfers to Social Security. This makes the Trust Funds whole for the cost of these vital benefit improvements. This legislation promotes the needs of our poorest and most vulnerable elderly. It improves and strengthens Social Security's guaranteed, dependable monthly income. It assures that widows and widowers will have at least a minimally decent standard of living in old-age. I am pleased to introduce the Social Security Widow's Benefit Guarantee Act.