Robert Matsui

Mr. MATSUI

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

Mr. MATSUI. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. MATSUI. Yes, Madam Speaker.

Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, one of the issues I think that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) raised of why are we doing this now, if we would have done it 3 or 4 years ago, we would have had either taken it out of Defense or perhaps other domestic programs or else increased the deficit. We have a surplus now. As a result of that, we were able to do it without cutting other programs, including the Defense budget. In addition, I would just add that, over the length of the Social Security program itself, we will not see any lost revenues because there is a pick up of revenues in terms of the credit that is given. So the reason we did it is quite simple, we have a surplus. We did not have a surplus before.

Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I think President Reagan did, but I do not know if President Bush did. I am not quite sure.

Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to just reiterate what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means, has said. First of all, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) for his bipartisan approach on this legislation. And, of course, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his leadership on the Democratic side. I want to pay particular thanks and commendation to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security. I think he did a tremendous job on moving the bill from the subcommittee to the full committee and the floor of the House. Obviously, Democrats and Republicans working together made sure that the other body kept their amendments to a minimum. We just appreciate the cooperation and the bipartisan spirit, I think, that both sides of the aisle have had. But I do want to take that moment to make that observation. Madam Speaker, I would just like to very briefly reiterate some of the things that have been said before. The Senate had two technical amendments to our legislation. Both were very technical in nature and actually improved the basic underlying legislation. As a result of that, we think that this bill should have, as it had when it left the House, unanimous approval. 422 Members voted for it and no Member voted against it. This will go a long way in encouraging senior citizens who are so needed when the unemployment rate is under 5 percent, to stay in the workforce. These are people that undoubtedly have years and years of experience and a wealth of knowledge to pass on to their co-workers, and to ensure that they can stay in the workforce and garner the same wages without any penalty is something that the Congress is now about to do in sending this bill to the President. Certainly, I think it is a major achievement. Obviously, we have a long ways to go in terms of ultimately the comprehensive Social Security reform. And I think the gentleman from Florida and myself and others such as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) that have been working on comprehensive reform know that that is a task that looms before us. This action, in and of itself, should not deter us from trying to grapple with that very difficult and complex subject. And we know that there is partisan undertones to it. We also know that it is very difficult to deal with. But we are going to have to address that particular issue. So, again, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this conference report so we can send it immediately to the President. And, again, I want to commend all individual Members who have worked on this legislation, including, I might add, I saw him come in, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and, of course, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) on the Democratic side who were the original two cosponsors of this legislation. Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleagues for all their hard work on this bill. I am very pleased to be here today to see this bill through another step toward becoming law. Our vote today signals the end of the Social Security retirement earnings test for people who have reached the normal retirement age. This is a remarkable event because as the title of the bill indicates, we are freeing our seniors from the work limits imposed by current law. No longer will the most experienced members of our labor force have to experience a reduction in their Social Security benefits if they choose to work. No longer will seniors have to calculate just how many months and days each year they can work without hitting that earnings limits. This is good for senior citizens who want to work, good for our workforce which benefits from the experience and knowledge of older workers, and of course good for the economy. Repealing the retirement earnings test will allow thousands of Social Security recipients to work without a reduction in their benefits. The Social Security Administration estimates that in 1999, 793,000 beneficiaries between the ages of 65 and 69 had some or all of their benefits withheld because of the retirement earnings tests. By allowing beneficiaries to work without suffering a reduction in benefits, more older workers may decide to remain in, or to return to, the labor force. Repealing the retirement earnings test will not affect Social Security's finances over the long run and would not change the date by which the Social Security Trust Funds are projected to be exhausted. Repealing the retirement earnings test for beneficiaries above the normal retirement age has a short-run cost, but over the long run, that cost is entirely offset. Further, repealing the retirement earnings test will make the Social Security program easier and less expensive to administer. The Social Security Administration estimates that savings from the cost of administering the earnings test could be as high as $100 million. I am particularly pleased that the only modification to the bill that the Senate accepted was a relatively minor one and one that improves the bill. The amendment adopted by the Senate changes the way in which the bill applies to Social Security beneficiaries during the year in which they reach the normal retirement age and ensures that no one will be worse off under this bill than under current law. I am certain that no Member of the House will have an objection to this change and I look forward to sending this bill quickly to the President for his signature. I'd like to point out that not a single Member of Congress has voted against this bill, a clear testament to the bipartisan support it has received. When the bill was first considered by the House, it passed 422-0. When the bill was considered by the Senate, it passed 100-0. I expect the outcome of our vote today to be the same. Additionally, our support for H.R. 5 sends a clear signal that by working together, Democrats and Republicans, we can accomplish much more than we could by working at odds. Over the past several weeks, as this bill moved through the Ways and Means Committee, the House floor, and the Senate, Members have set aside their differences so that this bill could proceed and we could achieve a victory for seniors who need to work without penalty. I am proud of our accomplishment. I am extremely pleased that the Congress has addressed the earnings test in a bipartisan manner, and I remain hopeful that the Congress might address other much-needed Social Security legislation in the same fashion to deal with the shortfall that the system will face in the coming decades. Again, I want to thank my colleagues again for all their hard work. This is truly an historic day and a big victory for our senior citizens. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would again just urge my colleagues to vote for the conference report. Only two changes were made that were technical in nature. Obviously, we want to move this bill on to the President, who strongly supports this legislation. Again, I want to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for a job well done and for the bipartisan cooperation I think that we saw on both sides of the aisle. That is why we were able to get 422 votes when the bill left the House. I am sure the vote will be unanimous here. So, again, I urge a yes vote. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Committee on Agriculture, who has been really one of the leaders in the whole Social Security reform issue.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), certainly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and members of the committee, and also the two prime sponsors of this bill, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson). They have obviously done a great job in getting cosponsors of this bill and explaining it to Members of this institution. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reiterate some of the words of the chairman of the committee. The earnings test is obviously something that has been misunderstood over the years. It is basically a penalty on those senior citizens that have earned their Social Security benefit but want to stay in the workforce beyond the age of 65. The fact that we have had this earnings test actually has deterred over 800,000 Americans a year from the workforce. In fact, we have had some studies done by a University of California San Diego professor that has said that this will actually, by eliminating the earnings test, increase the labor pool in America by 5 percent. In addition, the Social Security Administration has estimated that the administration of the earnings test plus the delayed earnings credit essentially costs $100 to $150 million a year; and because of the earnings credit, we have seen errors in the range of $500,000 to $600,000 per year just in administering this program. As a result of that, it is obvious we should repeal it at this particular time. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope also as we talk about repealing this earnings test, which will be done, we not be unmindful of what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) said in terms of some of the long-term issues of Social Security that I am sure all of us in this institution want to deal with. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) yesterday when we marked up this bill indicated he will be holding in the month of March, this month, some additional hearings dealing with poverty among women, the blind and the disabled, and I want to thank the gentleman for holding those hearings as well, because I think that will further the procession of making sure that we create incentives for work under the Social Security system for those that need to work and receive benefits at the same time. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this particular bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) a member of the committee.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the committee.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).

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

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. MATSUI

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

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I will take just a moment, but I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Arizona. I looked at their proposal. It has been out there now for a year and a half. I have to say it is a very credible proposal. It is probably one of the most realistic proposals that we have before us. The fact that you have raised this before this matter is brought to the floor is timely, and I am very pleased that you have done so. I would want to say, however, that both the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) have a proposal, the President has a proposal, and perhaps there will be a time in the next few months where we can bring a number of them, all three, four or five of them, whatever number there are, together to begin to discuss them. Obviously the solving of the Social Security deficit problem is the number one problem we are all facing. But I appreciate the fact that the two gentlemen have raised this issue.