Robert Matsui

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, this is just for a question, because if he plans to do this this year, why do we need a lockbox? We can just do it. I mean, we only have 3 more months in the year. Why do we not try to get this done?

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, it was about January or February of this year that we had a resolution offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a new Member of Congress, who spoke earlier. In that resolution he basically said we should save Social Security. We all voted for that. That was about 5 months ago. And now we have this proposal, this so-called lockbox proposal. We have been debating this now for about 4 hours. Mr. Speaker, do our colleagues not think it would be better if we just went to a markup and starting marking up a piece of legislation? We have a real problem on our hands with respect to Social Security. Over the next 35 years benefits paid out will exceed revenues coming in by 25 percent even if the Social Security money is set aside. We have to come up with a solution. We should not be playing around with resolutions and with little gimmicks about setting aside money. We should go to a markup. And I have to say, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) are really trying. They have come up with a bill that maybe I might disagree with, but it is credible. Why do they not just go to a markup with that bill? Why do they not put it in legislation? The problem is that their Republican leadership and Mr. Lott on the Senate side do not support it, and as a result of that, we are now playing around. We are not going to come to any resolution of this this year because the polling data that the Republicans showed says that we should not do Social Security because it is too difficult. But I tell my colleagues the American public wants Social Security done, but if we are going to do a lockbox, we ought to do it right because the legislation of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) does a deal with just 62 percent of the Social Security surplus. They actually use general fund surpluses in order to make sure that the benefits in this, revenues coming in on Social Security over the next 35 years, balance out. So what we are going to do is we are going to say, ``You have got to set aside the Social Security surplus, but the surplus that is on budget we can spend. Well, in the Archer-Shaw bill, one has to use that to save Social Security, so there is an inconsistency in what we are doing now. I just want everyone to know that we are going to vote for this, but we are going to vote for this on the basis that, why not, it does not do any harm, just like the gentleman from Wisconsin's resolution earlier in the year did no harm. But I have to say that when the day is over, we are not going to extend Social Security by 1 day, or we are not going to actually increase any more revenues or cut expenditures on Social Security. We are not going to do anything. We are really misleading the American public and pretending, and this Congress has to finally come to grips with the fact that we have been brought here to do the people's business. We probably will not even get an appropriations bill out this week. We will probably leave for the Memorial Day recess without getting one appropriations bill out, even though three were promised, and now we are talking about Social Security on Wednesday night after 3 hours, and we are not going to do anything. It is not going to make one senior citizen or one member of the work force feel any better. And so let us not kid ourselves. Let us pass this, but let us not tell anybody that this is really going to save Social Security. It is going to set aside money, it is not going to do anything; and we know it and you know it and everyone else knows it as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today in tribute to Michael R. Nelson, Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of California. As he celebrates his retirement, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in saluting his outstanding public service career. Mr. Nelson has been the Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of California for the past 10 years. He has overall responsibility for all operations and administrative programs within this major judicial district. With almost 30 years of experience within the Marshals Service, Mr. Nelson has brought a vast range of knowledge, experience, and management skills to his current position as chief deputy. His tenure in this position has been highlighted by his proactive approach to negotiating with local law enforcement agencies and jails. He has worked hard to eliminate most federal prisoner housing shortfalls within the Eastern District. Mr. Nelson has always been concerned first and foremost with the safety of his deputy U.S. Marshals. He has initiated several programs within the district to ensure that all personnel are properly trained and given the tools necessary to survive in a hostile confrontation or critical incident. He has worked hard to implement policies which provide for greater survival, firearms, and simulation training for the deputy U.S. Marshals in his district. Mr. Nelson also created an award winning Special Response Team in the district. This team, with all of its special training, has won numerous competitions against other local, state, and federal agencies. The district's Critical Response Team is another example of Chief Deputy Nelson's extraordinary management capabilities. This team works closely with the Marshals Human Resources Division and Employee Assistance Program to ensure that the needs of Marshals personnel are met following any critical incident. In 1989, Mr. Nelson received the Marshals Service Director's Award for Outstanding Manager based on his innovative approach and great management skills. He has always been highly regarded by the local law enforcement community, the federal judiciary, and fellow employees alike. I especially commend Mr. Nelson for his outstanding handling of the difficult logistics associated with the Unabomber Trial in Sacramento. U.S. Marshal Jerry Enomoto and Chief Deputy Nelson managed complex security arrangements with exceptional professionalism during this period. While the new Federal Courthouse was being constructed in Sacramento, Mr. Nelson took an active role in making sure that the special requirements of the Marshals Service were included throughout the building. His thorough knowledge of the relevant security needs and on- site weekly inspections proved invaluable to the overall construction process. Since taking over as Chief Deputy in 1990, Mr. Nelson has proved to be an excellent manager and budget officer. HIs prudent approach to budgeting limited resources is especially noteworthy. Mr. Speaker, Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal Michael Nelson has been a great public servant in the Eastern District of California. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in thanking him for his exceptional service and wishing him every success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Alex and Shirley Fahn, of Sacramento, California. Mr. Speaker, the Sacramento community, and especially the community of the Kenesset Israel Torah Center understand why Alex and Shirley deserve our recognition and our heartfelt thanks. These extraordinary individuals display the inspiration of the Talmud and serve as examples to those near them. Alex and Shirley show us by their faith and commitment that this kind of courage is possible and they surround us with their strength. Perhaps the most remarkable example of Alex and Shirley's commitment to build in our community is their belief in the Kenesset Israel Torah Center. Mr. Speaker, Alex and Shirley's work to take a dream and make it a reality touched so many people that they will be honored with a gala dinner in Sacramento later this week. I know I speak for those back home when I say that one evening of recognition could not possibly repay Alex and Shirley for their constant sacrifice. The Talmud say, ``Every blade of grass has an angel that bends over it and whispers, `Grow, Grow.' '' Alex and Shirley have been the angels of the Kenesset Israel Torah Center--dedicating their time and enthusiasm to every aspect of creating the Center. Since the initial planning stages, they never hesitated to offer their home to host meetings and events. They served on the Center's Board of Directors and began a tradition of generosity by donating to the building fund and dedicating classrooms. This amazing couple unconsciously grew into a leadership position in the development and life of Kenesset Israel. We are grateful for Alex and Shirley's involvement as congregational and community leaders in a variety of organizations and capacities. Their leadership experience and personal integrity provide an example for the rest of us trying to navigate a true course. Over the course of their service in Sacramento, Alex has served as president of both the Jewish Federation and Mosaic Law Congregation. Shirley has been active in the philanthropic sorority Theta Delta Xi. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the constant contributions from Alex and Shirley Fahn and their commitment to truly give all they can. It is with great pleasure that I honor them today and offer my most heartfelt gratitude and best wishes for the future.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Madam Chairman, I first would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his very kind remarks and all of his help over the last decade, but particularly over the last 3 or 4 years that he has given me, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) as the subcommittee ranking member, obviously, and thanks to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for all of the help he has given me as ranking member of the full committee as well. I would like to turn to my colleagues on the other side, the other side of the aisle. Certainly the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) has been extremely helpful in trying to put together a consensus for all of us in the Sacramento region. I want to express my gratitude and thanks to him, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), who has been tireless over the last 3 or 4 years on our behalf. The staffs of both majority and minority have been extremely helpful, as well. I do want to express my appreciation. I also want to express my apologies to members of the subcommittee and certainly the Members of the entire House of Representatives. As we know, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) have said, this bill had been delayed from the last Congress to this Congress. It was basically because of the Sacramento problem, and particularly about the flood control issue. I know it was very difficult for the Members of this body, but I appreciate the fact that there was tolerance to me and my constituents. I certainly would hope that I would never have to put my colleagues in that kind of imposition again. I would like to, if I may, just comment a little bit about my problem in Sacramento County. We have about a 100-year protection, now. This bill would get us up to about 137 years protection, because it would modify the existing Folsom Dam in Sacramento County. The problem with this, as all of us know, is the fact that we still would be by far the lowest community in terms of flood protection in this Nation. Just to read off a few, Kansas City currently has 500-year protection; St. Louis, 50-year protection; Dallas, Texas, 500- year; New Orleans, 300 years; Topeka, Kansas, 500 years; and Omaha, Nebraska, Tacoma and the quad cities all have 500-year protection. We now will have, with this bill, 137 years. We wanted to get up to about 170 years, and we are, of course, afraid, because of the rainfall in northern California and the continuing uncertainty of our climate, that we could fall again in terms of hydrology studies. We have approximately 600,000 people at risk. We have over six major regional hospitals. We have 100 public schools. All of these are at risk with respect to Sacramento County. This bill will go a long way, obviously, in making sure that we are given some additional level of protection, but we need more. I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know this, and would want to help us. I would hope that as we proceed along over the next few weeks and perhaps months that we not confuse this issue. Sacramento County needs flood protection, and one of the real concerns that I have is that we have been tied into the whole issue of water supply. I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the previous speaker, that Northern California needs more water. We are the fastest growing region in America. We need more water. But we are trying to work that through right now with the State-Federal compact. We have Bruce Babbitt from the Interior Department. Obviously, former Governor Wilson and now Governor Gray Davis are attempting through Cal- Fed to come up with a solution, because there are various competing interests in California with respect to the limited supply of water. We do need to solve this problem, but it has to be done in a methodical way. But please, I urge my colleagues not to tie flood protection for 600,000 people with this issue that has been raging in the State of California for over 125 years. We are not going to solve the issue of water supply in California as long as it is tied to the whole issue of flood protection, which we need immediately. The issue of water supply has to be an issue that is going to be dealt with from a larger perspective, from a Federal-State perspective, with all the water districts in California. I am not, however, suggesting that my colleague up north of me, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is incorrect. Placer County is growing and it will need water in a few years. But that issue is one we need to work together on, not in an adversarial role on, and flood protection, unfortunately, puts us somewhat at odds. So I want to express my thanks to my colleagues, all of them, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and all of them for all of the tolerance and help they have given my community and myself over the last few months, and I urge adoption of this bill.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Western Propane Gas Association on the auspicious occasion of their 50th anniversary. Western Propane Gas Association has spent the last fifty years breaking down the barriers and building bridges between its members in the West and legislators in California and Washington. From legislative advocacy to economical insurance, its efforts promote industry awareness and provide a great service to their members and to the legislators representing our shared constituency. Western Propane Gas Association maintains constant communication with state regulatory agencies through its interaction and lobbying. At the state level, WPGA is a pivotal voice at the California Assembly and Senate hearings, presenting the industry position on legislative topics. Through their Government Affairs Committee, WPGA informs its members of valuable federal regulatory alerts, safety bulletins and an industry specific bi-monthly newsletter. WPGA provides its members with professional and knowledgeable assistance on numerous issues that impact the propane industry. Recently WPGA accepted the responsibility of managing the propane industry's interests in the growing field of Clean Air Alternate Motor Fuels. They assembled a Clean Fuels Task Force to bring their members research, testimony, and technical information from regulatory boards and engine manufacturers. WPGA's leadership in alternative fuel regulations is crucial not only to the success of their members, but also to the safety and preservation of its environment. In addition to its legislative review and advocacy agenda, the Western Propane Gas Association also provides liaison advisory services to its members. For example, WPGA maintains contacts and facilitates interaction with statewide organizations such as the California Highway Patrol, the Air Resources Board, The Department of Industrial Safety, and many other local regulatory agencies. In an industry where change is constant and technology is king, WPGA has taken a leadership role in developing standards for safety and training. The Association holds educational seminars on topics ranging from an Emergency Response Rollover Program and the Certified Employee Training Program to the Gas Check Program. WPGA also brings crucial situation training to its members through its Fire School Seminars. The fast-changing regulations and technologies of the propane and fuel industry needs a membership organization dedicated to upholding the highest standards of safety and service, and WPGA has proven its commitment to its industry and community. Mr. Speaker, Western Propane Gas Association brings a united, regional voice for local businesses that might otherwise be lost amongst today's regulatory environment. I rise today to commend the organization and its members for their successes and offer my best wishes for the future.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding citizen, Mr. John M. Ellis, of Sacramento, CA. John began his career March 3, 1966 with the U.S. Army at the Sacramento Army Depot and in 1969 transferred to the U.S. Air Force at McCellan AFB, CA. After 33 years of dedicated Federal service he is retiring on April 30, 1999. John is among the most successful and tireless advocates of Federal managers and his success is widely acknowledged. He has a widespread and richly deserved reputation as a passionately involved caretaker of federal employees. Through his personal efforts, Federal workers in the Sacramento area knew that someone was fighting for their cause. His colleagues recognized his strong leadership and vision and chose him to serve in a long list of distinguished elected positions. Few people have given to their community with the vision and commitment that John offered to us. He founded the McClellan Defense Task Force (MDTF) in early 1992. The task force organized local community letter writing campaigns and produced almost 400,000 letters supporting McClellan AFB. He personally delivered 127,000 letters to Department of Defense Secretary Les Aspin and 270,000 letters to the BRAC commission during their hearings on Capitol Hill in 1995. During his career, John became known as an expert on base closures and Federal employees' issues by many local Sacramento radio and television stations. He was a highly sought after panelist for interviews and logged many hours on live and taped, local and national television and even international radio. John always shared his time and knowledge, and made many appearances as a guest speaker at local schools, societies, and government agencies. He founded the Alliance of Government Managers (AGM) at the beginning of 1987 to protest Federal managers pay, entitlements and benefits. John's organization also included an emphasis on participation and worked to support beneficial legislation and programs, avert destructive administration issues, and promote Federal managers' prosperity and public harmony. John served as president of Chapter 77, Federal Managers Association for 5 years. During his tenure, he implemented many innovative programs and provided members with an unprecedented level of support. He never hesitated to go to any means necessary when his members needed help. John received a Gold Card (lifetime) membership from the Federal Managers Association for his extraordinary leadership in their organization. The extremely selective nature of this award may not be immediately apparent, but some of us know how few in the history of FMA have earned this level of gratitude. In 1983, John cofounded the Nor-Cal Federal Coalition (NCFC) and became their first President. The NCFC offered Federal labor unions and management groups an outlet for common interest matters. Through his efforts with the many organizations he founded and presided over, John consistently championed the rights of Federal employees to make a stronger more united Federal community. John never settled for anything less than his best. He is a friend, a successful Federal manager, a political activist, a husband, a father, a grandfather, and an inspiration to thousands of people in and around Sacramento, CA. I would like to offer my heartfelt congratulations to John on his very distinguished career and I wish him and his family my best. Although we will sorely miss his presence, we wish him great success in his future endeavors.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, joined by my colleague, Mr. Bonior, today I introduce the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 1999. This legislation will expand the safety net for American workers by reauthorizing and improving existing adjustment programs for workers who are adversely impacted by trade. It combines the best features of the existing Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and the NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) programs into a consolidated TAA program and improves the effectiveness and timeliness of services provided to American workers hurt by international trade. The bill would authorize the consolidated TAA program for 5 years through fiscal year 2004. Most importantly, the consolidated program would expand eligibility to workers who lose their jobs due to shifts in production by their firm to other countries. Currently, TAA eligibility is restricted to workers hurt by imports and NAFTA-TAA is limited to workers adversely affected by imports from, or shifts in production to, Mexico or Canada only. Our bill will ensure that comprehensive assistance is available to workers who lose their jobs due to imports from, or shifts in production to, any foreign country. The legislation also ensures that rapid response and basic readjustment services will be made available to workers upon the filing of a petition for TAA eligibility. These services are critical to facilitating rapid reemployment of workers and providing important information relating to the resources available at the Federal, State, and local level to assist them. The measure also requires a one-third reduction in the time period for the Department of Labor to process eligibility petitions under TAA in order to ensure that benefits are made available to trade-impacted workers as soon as possible after their displacement. To ensure that these workers get the assistance they need, the bill provides a much-needed increase in the annual cap on training expenditures to $150 million; a portion of which supports the training costs associated with the expanded ``shift in production'' provision, and a portion of which is needed to fund the significant increase in program caseload currently being experienced. The legislation also harmonizes the differing rules of the current programs relating to requiring enrollment in training as a condition for receiving income support. The new rules retain the program's emphasis on linking income support to training but permit specified exceptions where appropriate to assist certain workers. In addition, the bill would reduce the hardship currently experienced by workers who attend community colleges by expanding the period for scheduled breaks in a training program during which a worker may continue to receive income support. In keeping with an increased emphasis on integrated service delivery, the legislation seeks to enhance coordination between the consolidated TAA program and the dislocated worker program under the recently- enacted Workforce Investment Act. In particular, the bill would significantly improve the accountability of the consolidated program by ensuring that TAA and the dislocated worker program have common performance outcome measures; i.e. information on the placement in employment, earnings, and retention of employment by participants. The legislation also assures that information will be collected and maintained that identifies the countries to which production is shifted to and, to the extent practical, from which articles are imported. This will include information on the number of certifications relating to imports from, or shifts in production to, Mexico or Canada--which will assist in making eligibility determinations under related NAFTA programs and in assessing the adequacy of the consolidated program. In addition, this legislation provides for the extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Program administered by the Department of Commerce under chapter 3 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974. And finally, the bill establishes a Presidential Commission on Workers and Economic Change in the New Economy to make further recommendations on program improvements. Mr. Speaker, while much of the country is enjoying a booming economy, there are geographic areas and industries which are experiencing significant worker dislocation. It is critical that the Congress support programs that give workers the tools they need to find and prepare for good-paying jobs in the new economy. One of the important ways we can begin to develop a broad consensus on trade policy is to address the negative consequences of globalization by reaffirming and improving on our longstanding commitment to assist workers impacted by trade. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting these reforms.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Mr. Steven W. Easter. He is retiring as vice president for member and government relations at Blue Diamond Growers in Sacramento, CA. As Mr. Easter is ``roasted'' by his many friends and business associates, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in saluting his remarkable career. Mr. Easter was born in Merced, CA, in 1941. He is a fifth generation Californian whose family has long been involved in agriculture and agricultural educational endeavors. He was raised on a small farm in the San Joaquin Valley where his father was an agricultural educator. After growing up in Dos Palos, CA, he attended the University of California at Davis, where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Agricultural Economics in 1963 and a Master of Science degree in Agricultural Business Management in 1964. Blue Diamond Growers, a 4,000-member cooperative that is the largest processor and marketer of almonds in the world, first employed him as a field representative in 1967. His subsequent positions with Blue Diamond included that of assistant membership manager, field manager, and membership manager. In 1975, Mr. Easter was given the additional responsibility of corporate secretary at Blue Diamond Growers. He assumed his current position as vice president, member and governmental relations in November 1980. All told, Mr. Easter has served as a corporate officer at Blue Diamond for 23 years; his total employment there spans 31 years. I am honored to salute his outstanding dedication to one of Sacramento's finest corporate citizens. Mr. Easter's business excellence also extends beyond Blue Diamond Growers. He currently serves as a director of the Almond Board of California and is past president of the Almond Hullers and Processors Association. He also recently served 2 years as chairman of the Board of the American Institute of Cooperation. He is also a member of the Advisory Committee on horticultural trade to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Trade Representative. Mr. Easter is presently chairman of the Agricultural Council of California. Additionally, he has served as chairman of the American Institute of Cooperatives, as well as chair of the Agricultural Council Education Committee. Locally, Mr. Easter has served on the board of the Sacramento Country Day School for 15 years, including a term as Education Committee chairman. Steve Easter has contributed enormously to Blue Diamond Growers and the Sacramento community-at-large. He has helped Blue Diamond grow its sales to $500 million per year and seen it develop and open markets in more than 90 countries around the globe. Mr. Speaker, as Steve Easter is ``roasted'' by his many friends and colleagues today, I am honored to pay tribute to one of Sacramento's great citizens. His tireless contributions to the member growers of Blue Diamond as well as to the Sacramento community are commendable. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in wishing him every success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, Social Security is probably the most important program Americans have had over the years. It takes care of the senior citizens of America. As anybody knows, if we did not have Social Security today, half the senior population would live in poverty. One-third of the benefits of Social Security go to families that have the bread winner disabled or perhaps dies. So many children who no longer have a mother or father who are the bread winners in that family can still go on to school and perhaps college. This is a very, very critical program. What the budget of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) does is adds 18 more years to that program so that it will be solvent to the year 2050, 50 more years of solvency total. The Republican plan does not add one year to that solvency. As we continue this debate, it is my hope that the Republicans respond to the March 13 letter from the actuary of the Social Security, Mr. Harry Ballantine of which everyone bases their conclusions on. In that letter, in the second paragraph, he says, The proposal of the Republicans would not have any significant effect on the long-range solvency of the Social Security program under the intermediary assumptions of the Trustee's report. Thus, the estimated long-range actuarial deficit of 2.19 percent of taxable payroll and the year of combined trust funds exhaustion would not change. So when we hear that the Republicans are saying they extend the life of Social Security by protecting the money, they do not. In fact, they can use the money for a tax cut. They can use it for a tax cut. So bear in mind what this is all about, this debate, is to protect Social Security, and the Democratic bill does that.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the introduction of ``The Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999.'' This legislation is designed to help Social Security Disability Insurance and SSI beneficiaries participate more fully in our nation's economy. It provides new opportunities and new incentives for people with disabilities to return to the work force. The Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 enjoys widespread support. It has gathered bipartisan sponsorship in the House and has already been approved by a bipartisan majority in the Senate Finance Committee. Many, many beneficiaries urgently want to return to work and to make the most of their talents and abilities, but they are simply unable to do so for a variety of reasons. For instance, while people with disabilities possess the clear desire to work, they often require vocational rehabilitation, job training, or some other form of assistance in order to find a job and to hold that job over the long run. This bill would create incentives for providers of services to offer necessary assistance and to stay involved with the individual to assure as he adjusts to the work force. At a hearing before the Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee last week, the General Accounting Office reported that the single most important barrier to work for people with disabilities is the fear of loss of medical coverage. People with disabilities are discouraged from securing employment, as they lose not only their SSDI or SSI benefits but also their medical coverage if they are successful in returning to work. This legislation would extend medical coverage for people with disabilities who wish to return to work. The bill that the House passed last year by an overwhelmingly bipartisan margin--the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Act--made admirable progress in this regard. But I believe we can, and should, do more. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee to remove this barrier to work. Rather than maintain the current barriers to work, we should strive to facilitate the transition back to the workforce for people with disabilities. Rather than penalize people with disabilities once they do return to work, we should ensure that they do not have to bear the costly burden of health insurance before they are able to do so. The Work Incentives Improvement Act accomplishes both those goals. The Act would provide disability beneficiaries with a ``Ticket to Work,'' which could be presented to either a private vocational rehabilitation provider or to a State vocational rehabilitation agency in exchange for services such as physical therapy or job training. The ``Ticket to Work'' would afford SSDI and SSI beneficiaries a much greater choice of providers and would thus enable them to match their particular needs with the capacities of private entities or public agencies more readily. Moreover, the Ticket program would spur providers, both public and private, to offer the most effective services possible, since, under the Ticket program, providers share in the savings to government that arise when a SSDI or SSI beneficiary returns to the workforce and no longer receives benefit payments. The Work Incentives Improvement Act would also help to remove the most formidable obstacle that people with disabilities face in returning to work--the loss of their health care coverage. Last year's House-passed bill would have extended Medicare coverage for an additional two years beyond current law for individuals who leave the disability rolls to return to work. The Work Incentives Improvement Act that I am introducing today would build upon the foundation laid last year in a number of ways. First, it would extend Medicare coverage to 10 years for disability beneficiaries who return to work. Second, it would allow states to offer a Medicaid buy-in to people with disabilities whose incomes would make them ineligible for SSI. Taken together, these provisions offer people with disabilities the support and the incentives they need as they strive to return to work. Consequently, I hope Members of both parties will join me and the other sponsors of the Work Incentives Improvement Act in enacting this innovative legislation this year and in helping to improve the lives of people with disabilities, people who want to work and who want to contribute, even more than they already do, to a brighter future for all Americans.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. If I may just indulge for a minute, I noticed that sitting in the Speaker's seat, as Speaker pro tempore for the day today, is a new colleague of ours, the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose). Actually, he comes from the Sacramento area, as many of my colleagues know who have met him. He has just taken our distinguished colleague Vic Fazio's seat, who retired. I would just like to acknowledge the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and say that I am honored to be on the floor of the House in the gentleman's first opportunity, since he has been elected to the Congress, as Speaker pro tempore of the House. So I just wanted to say, and probably breaching some kind of rule here, but I just wanted to acknowledge the gentleman this evening and say I am very, very pleased that he is here and part of this. It is a very historic moment, obviously, for the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and his family.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MATSUI. It is out of their tax dollars. I will conclude by being very brief, because I would like to talk a little bit about this program that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) spoke about today very briefly. It is very interesting, because Martha McSteen is the chair of the National Committee to Save Social Security and Medicare. Martha McSteen had been a Social Security administrator for 39 years before she retired in 1986. She was the acting administrator of the entire Social Security program from 1983 to 1986, just before she retired. Believe it or not, that was under the Reagan administration. She was part of this press conference. And also John Mueller. And I want to just mention John Mueller's background. He is an economist, and he was the chief economist for the Republican Conference, that is the Republican caucus, under the leadership of then chair of the caucus Jack Kemp. They put together this report to look into the whole concept of whether or not we should privatize Social Security. In other words, allow private accounts of either 2 percent or 5 percent or 4 percent, maybe 3 percent, whatever it might be, or maybe all of it. They have concluded, in their very comprehensive study, that in terms of winners and losers almost every American alive today will be losers under this program of private accounts, private individual accounts. The only winners will be single males born in the year 2025, 25 years from now and beyond. The reason for that is because, as all of us know, we have an $8 trillion unfunded liability because Social Security is basically a pay- as-you-go system. It is a system in which current generations pay for the retirement of past generations, and it is not funded. It is paid out of the payroll taxes and immediately paid out of the Treasury. As a result of that, if one moves to a new system, where there are private accounts, essentially what happens is that the current generation of workers will be paying two taxes: one for their own retirement maybe 20 or 30 years down the road and the retirement of their mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles and perhaps even their grandparents. So once we move over to private accounts, we are going to end up doing great damage to every American that is alive today and probably will be alive, born in the next 20 years. The only beneficiary will be somebody who will be born in the year 2025 and beyond. It will be basically a male who is single. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) can talk about the impact of this on women. It is a major study. We hope that people will look at it because it confirms the Galveston plan, which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is so familiar with, in which they do private accounts. A GAO study showed that the Galveston plan is not working.

Mr. MATSUI. Well, there is no question. I think the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) is absolutely correct. They are basically taking money so there is immediate gratification but at the expense of folks down the road, 5, 10, 15, 20 years down the road.

Mr. MATSUI. It just goes to the very, very high income groups.

Mr. MATSUI. There is no question about that.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) for yielding. The distinguished gentleman from Texas, as many people know, is on the Subcommittee on Social Security; and his expertise obviously is greatly needed for not only this entire institution but obviously for the country. I appreciate today that he has put together this opportunity for a number of us to speak on the floor of the House on this very, very critical and important issue of Social Security. I might just mention the importance of Social Security to all Americans. It is probably the most significant program that the Federal Government has put together in the last 100 years, perhaps in the history of our country. Every American is touched by Social Security; and, unlike what many people think, Social Security is not just a program for those people 62 or 65 and older. One-third of the benefits of Social Security goes basically to women, surviving spouses, and minor children, either through the form of survivor's benefits when the breadwinner of a family dies before reaching the age of 65 or, alternatively, when the breadwinner becomes disabled. All of us understand and know the fact that, without Social Security, many young people in America today would not be able to go on to community college or State college or perhaps a university if, in fact, that breadwinner is injured or perhaps dies. So this program is perhaps the most important program that this Congress, perhaps in our lifetime as Members of Congress, will have to deal with. Yes, there is a problem with Social Security, demographically. When Social Security was first established, it was considered then a widows' and orphans' fund back in the 1930s, as the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) has said. There were about 30 people working for each retired individual. Today, there is about three in the workforce for every retired individual; and sometime in the year 2025 there will only be a little over two. So we must change, we must make modifications, but we must also preserve Social Security as we know it in America today. I have to say that one area that has me greatly concerned is in the area of tax cuts. The story in the Washington Post and the New York Times, major newspapers throughout the country, over the weekend, is that the Republican leadership would like to lift the so-called spending caps so that we can accommodate additional spending in the defense budget, perhaps additional spending in other areas. That would be fine, I suppose, and we will have to debate that issue when we prepare the budget, hopefully by April 15 when it is due under the budget rules. There is also talk about a significant huge tax cut, and everyone relates this tax cut to the surplus. We heard the chairman of the Committee on the Budget talk about a $700 billion tax cut over the next 6 or 10 years. We have heard the Senate Budget Committee chairman talk about an $800 billion or $900 billion tax cut over the next decade. The problem we have, of course, is that over the next 5 or 6 years only $86 billion of the hundreds of billions of dollars of surplus will be in the form of income tax, both income taxes from corporations and income taxes from individuals. The greatest percentage, 90 percent, of the surplus will be from the Social Security payroll taxes. We cannot afford to use those sums, basically coming out of that very regressive payroll tax, to pay for tax cuts that essentially go to higher income folks. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means already said that. It is going to go to people in the high income bracket because he says they pay more. In fact, we estimated that somebody that makes $300,000 a year will get about a $30,000 tax cut, whereas somebody making $30,000 a year, one-tenth of that, will get about a $99 per year tax cut, or maybe $8 a month.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment on the comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). First of all, the gentleman is correct. We have had four full committee hearings and we have had three, I believe, subcommittee hearings. But I have to say, and I think most people would confirm my comments, and I have sat through almost all of the hearings except maybe 3 hours of the 20 hours of hearings, and most of the purposes of these hearings and most of the people talking at these hearings have been basically just trashing the President's proposal. The Republicans asked that the President come up with his proposal last year. The President has come up with an outline that everyone understands. There is no complexity to it. We have just been spending all our time just trashing the President. We have spent very little time on real substance. And I think what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) was referring to is a comprehensive study that actually was done by John Mueller. John Mueller, for those who were here in the 1980s, was the economist for the Republican Conference under the leadership of then Jack Kemp; and Mr. Mueller came in with the idea of doing this study with a bias actually toward private accounts. What basically happened is that he completed the study and now he believes that private accounts would really do bad damage. This was commissioned, by the way, by Martha McSteen, who happened to be the administrator for the Social Security Administration in 1983 to 1986, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan. So we had two Reagan people, one Reagan and one Jack Kemp, and they basically have said private accounts are the wrong way to go. It is easy to figure out why. There is $8 trillion of unfunded liability, $8 trillion of unfunded liability. If we go with private accounts, we have those people living today in the workforce and paying for the retirement of their parents or grandparents. That means they are going to be paying twice the amount for half the benefit. That is the real problem with private accounts. You can talk about private accounts all you want, but the real person that is going to benefit from private accounts will be born 25 years from now in the year 2025, and he will be a single male. Every other economic group will lose. The biggest losers, believe it or not, are going to be women. Because women live longer than men, they are going to have to set up an annuity, they will get less even though they may have made the same amount in the workforce. In addition, we all know that women make about 70 percent of what men make normally in the workforce. So they are going to start off way behind, anyway. This is going to do damage to Democratic women, Republican women, conservative women and liberal women. This is not an issue of ideology. It is a question of getting the facts and making sure we know the facts before we move. I am afraid all those hearings and everything we have been doing over the last 2 months have been basically to create a partisan division against the President's plan rather than to do anything really substantive and trying to understand this issue. But I do appreciate what the gentleman has done. He has come up with this resolution. I think, as the previous speaker said, resolutions really do not mean much. On the other hand, I guess we might as well do something since we are not doing much else. We are going to be out at 3 o'clock today so we might as well use some of that time at least pretending like we are doing something significant, but we all know that this resolution will not advance the cause of reforming the Social Security system one second. As a result of that, we will pass it with a unanimous vote, but let us not kid ourselves. We have got to come up with a proposal. The President has. I like the President's proposal. Let us hear from the Republicans and let us see how they deal with an $8 trillion transition cost if they want to go to private accounts and protect women and minorities and middle-income people and suburban people at the same time. You will not be able to do it. I hope you try but you will not be able to do it. Instead what we should be doing is picking up the President's plan, moving forward with it and at least solving this problem for the next 55 years. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)