Robert Matsui

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, it allows them to do this, but with a potential conflict of interest, obviously the disclosure conflict of interest, but the problem is that the employer is held harmless from liability. That is what the problem with the bill is.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a distinguished member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, ranking member of the committee, who will actually address this issue.

Mr. MATSUI. I have an additional speaker here.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, 1 minute, to close. If I may, Mr. Speaker, because a lot has been said to address the issue of the independent advice that my colleagues seem to be really hung up on, it is a question of definition. The way they say independent advice is that if the independent adviser says I may have a conflict of interest, one time, then after that it is Katy, bar the door. They can say whatever they want. Most employees do not just work 3 days a week, on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, like we in the House of Representatives do. They have kids to take to school. They have a lot of obligations. They do not remember when people say I may have a conflict of interest. And as a result of that, it is meaningless what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing. There will be conflicts of interest; but the real problem is, obviously, that the employer will be held harmless from liability when the conflict of interest actually does damage to the employee. I am just going to conclude by saying this. This bill will not help the average American, this will not help individuals who have 401(k) plans, and it definitely will not help the baby boom population that is about to retire now and who has inadequate funds for their income security. We need to address this in a much larger context and actually not do the kinds of damage that this bill will do under the so-called ruse of being good government. This is not a good government bill. It will do more damage than the status quo.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in tribute to a man with a truly distinguished career in academia. To say that Dr. Donald Gerth has made an indelible mark in higher education would only begin to skim the surface of the many wonderful contributions that he has made as an educator since he took his first teaching job in 1947 as a substitute high school math teacher. After more than a half-century of outstanding public service, Dr. Gerth will soon retire from the post of President of California State University, Sacramento. As his family, friends, colleagues, and admirers gather to celebrate Dr. Gerth's illustrious career, I ask all my colleagues to join me in saluting one of Sacramento most outstanding citizen leaders. Dr. Gerth earned his Bachelor's of Arts, Master's, and Doctorate degrees in Political Science at the prestigious University of Chicago. Upon completion of his education, Dr. Gerth applied his great expertise in Asian political systems by serving as an Air Force Intelligence Captain from 1952-1956. After his stint in the Air Force, Dr. Gerth joined the staff of his alma mater, University of Chicago. In 1958, Dr. Gerth and his wife, Ms. Beverly J. Gerth, moved west to California and began his forty-five year association with the California State University system. From 1958 to 1963, Dr. Gerth served as Associate Dean of Students and member of the Department of Government from 1958-1963. In 1964, Dr. Gerth accepted the post of Professor of Political Science at California State University, Chico in 1964. During his twelve-year tenure at California State University, Chico, Dr. Gerth also served as Vice President for Academic Affairs from 1970-1976. In addition, Dr. Gerth also lent his valuable services to the university through his roles as Dean of Students, Coordinator of the Institute for Local Government and Public Service and Public Administration, and Co-Director of a Danforth Foundation Research Project on improvement of undergraduate teaching. Dr. Gerth's willingness to tackle a variety of challenges is a testament to his steadfast commitment to bring about positive changes in higher learning. In 1976, Dr. Gerth was appointed the President of California State University, Dominguez Hills, a post that he would hold for eight years. In July of 1984, Dr. Gerth was named the President of California State University, Sacramento. California State University has experienced significant increases in enrollment and number of degrees awarded under Dr. Gerth's stewardship. California State University, Sacramento is now the sixth largest campus in the twenty three-campus California State University system. In recent years, California State University, Sacramento has initiated many new opportunities for learning such as some year-round programs, evening and weekend offerings, offcampus sites, and technology-based classes via computer or television. It is evident that Dr. Gerth's leadership has played an instrumental role in making California State University, Sacramento one of the most important universities in the state of California. In addition to his duties as President of California State University, Sacramento, Dr. Gerth is also one of the most influential policy leaders in higher education. Dr. Gerth is the past President of the International Association of University Presidents from 1996-1999. He also served as a member of the Advisory Committee on Higher Education to the Director-General and as a member of the seven-person Steering Committee for the World Conference on Higher Education held in 1998. Dr. Gerth was recently appointed by the U.N. Secretary General and the Director-General of UNESCO to a six-year term on the United Nations University Council, the governing board of the United Nations University is headquartered in Tokyo. It gives me great comfort to know that Dr. Gerth will continue to share his wealth of knowledge and experience in higher education with the world in his retirement. Mr. Speaker, as Dr Gerth's friends, family, and colleagues gather to celebrate his great career, I am honored to pay tribute to one of Sacramento's most honorable citizens. Dr. Gerth's continuous leadership is a true testament to public service. If a template for commitment to education could be made, it would surely bear the resemblance of my dear friend Dr. Donald Gerth. Although his tenure as university President may soon be over, his involvement in community service and education is, fortunate for us, far from over. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in wishing Dr. Donald Gerth continued success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from the State of Florida (Mr. Shaw), the Chair of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means. We entered into a bipartisan discussion, and we have a bipartisan bill at this time. The gentleman mentioned the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration. The Social Security Administration and the beneficiary community all came together last year to put this piece of legislation together. It was essentially the same bill that passed last year, and just 2 weeks ago it came again before the House Committee on Ways and Means and passed on a 35 in favor of to two against vote count. So this is a good bill. I hope we have final passage in favor of this piece of legislation. I might just very briefly go over the points of the legislation. One, it deals with representative payees; and basically what this means is that when we have a person who is perhaps mentally disabled, a minor, or somebody who is a frail elderly, they may not be able to collect the benefits themselves or know how to handle their benefit, Social Security benefits, that is. So we have a representative payee that will take the money and make sure that proper accounting of the money is taken care of. Essentially in some cases we have had representative payees where they have actually absconded with the money. This would tighten up the laws on representative payees and, secondly, would make sure that beneficiaries are held harmless and receive the full benefits even when the representative payee takes the money from them. It also would provide a greater legal representation for SSDI recipients, those people that are seeking disability benefits under Social Security, by providing for greater legal representation by changing some of the requirements for lawyers under the Social Security Administration Act. Lastly, it would deny benefits to fugitive felons. Right now under the law, through the quirk in the law, unfortunately, fugitive felons are able to receive Social Security benefits, and this would deny those benefits to fugitive felons. There are a number of other technical provisions in the legislation. One area I might just spend a few moments on is the one that my colleague from Florida talked about, and that is the government pension offset issue. As the Members know, this legislation was passed in 1976. It did not take place until the mid-1980s. It was not fully put in place until the 1980s. It was basically to take care of the disparity where one of the spouses has two employments over a period of their lifetime of work, one in the local or State government and one in the private sector. So one would then be eligible for both Social Security benefits and also eligible at the same time for a government pension. Under the law that currently is in place, a surviving widow or widower in this circumstance would have a reduction in their benefit level, depending upon the size of their pension. It was a law to try to correct an inequity. Unfortunately, the government pension offset has in some cases been fair but in many case has been unfair. One, many of the recipients do not know until actually their spouse dies that they are subject to that rule, in which case all of a sudden their lives have become totally disruptive. In fact, we have calculated, and studies have shown this, that when one spouse dies, it still requires 80 percent of the former income that the couple had in order to live comfortably, and this in many cases drops that income level down to 30 or 40 percent of what they received when they were both alive. So there is a problem with this piece of legislation. What the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I have attempted to do was strengthen the potential loopholes that some call it loopholes and some say it is only a way to make sure their benefits are collected properly. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has indicated that he intends to hold hearings on the government pension offset issue, and we really appreciate that because I believe that some action should be taken in this Congress on that issue. Obviously, we cannot reinstate full benefits, but perhaps there is some way we can at least help these recipients that are subject to this rule so that they will be able to continue on when one of the spouses passes away. It is, however, a situation now where some of my colleagues feel that they have a problem with this particular provision. This provision was not in the bill last year to close this provision on the government pension offset; it was added to the bill in this Congress, and many of my colleagues have questions about it. It would have been my hope that we would have dealt with this issue and the larger issue of trying to deal with the government pension offset, because in this situation it would put pressure on all of us to try to deal with this comprehensively. But we do have it before us at this time, and as many of us know, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) will have an amendment in which he will move to strike that one provision out of this legislation. I intend to support his motion to strike this by way of an amendment but, at the same time I would hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would support the final passage of this legislation, because it is a good bill and certainly we do believe that the other provisions of this legislation must move forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just make a couple of observations, if I may. I appreciate the Chair of the subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, his discussion. I just want to point out, the President had said during the campaign of 2000 that he wanted to reform Social Security. He came up in 2001, December of 2001, with a commission report and three recommendations all dealing with privatization of Social Security. The gentleman himself has come up with a privatization plan. We still have not seen Social Security reform in the committee, nor have we seen it on the floor of the House. Initially, I was hoping to take care of the GPO under Social Security reform. Obviously, we cannot do it because there is no intention of bringing Social Security reform to the House floor until after the 2004 election, after the President presumably is reelected. So it is unfortunate we have to deal with this issue now. I also want to say that with respect to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), he was trying to deal through the whole issue of corporate shelters with things like the Bermuda inversion issue, in which companies in the United States went offshore in order to avoid U.S. taxes, thereby increasing taxes for individual citizens. These are the things that he has been working on. Lastly, this is about the government pension offset, to a large extent; it is not about loopholes. The reason I say this, just 3 weeks ago the gentleman voted, the gentleman who just spoke voted in committee on a piece of legislation actually in which we were going to try to give benefits to our young men and women overseas, in the Persian Gulf at this time, by adding little provisions like eliminating taxation on foreigners who actually bet on U.S. gaming and horse races. These are the kinds of things that are real loopholes. These are the things that are loopholes. These are ordinary citizens who are just trying to deal with their own livelihood when one of their spouses dies. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. MATSUI. If the Speaker may inquire whether the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has any further speakers?

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This is a good bill. I want to commend the gentleman from the State of Florida, the Chair of the subcommittee. We put together a bipartisan bill. Obviously with the Social Security Administration, with the beneficiary groups and certainly with the Inspector General's office, and certainly this is a good piece of legislation. I hope that each of my colleagues, as I, will vote for final passage of this legislation. Obviously, we do have one controversy here, and it is the government pension offset issue; and the gentleman from Florida has indicated he will address this issue through a hearing of the subcommittee sometime in the near future, I believe after the April recess; and so I look forward to working with him with the idea of perhaps given the time constraints and other problems that we might have that we can really address this issue in a comprehensive way. I do hope that there will be some way that we can vote in favor of the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Green) amendment when it is offered in about 40, 45 minutes because I think that will keep the pressure on the institution, both bodies and the executive branch of government, to address this issue. There is no question that many people are caught unaware when one spouse dies that they did not know about the government pension offset. It results in a reduction of their level of income by 40, 50, even in many cases 60 percent, and secondly, we do have to deal with the inequalities of the proposal. There is no question that in some cases it does actually help and it creates inequality in terms of people that have multiple jobs. On the other hand, it does create some inequality, and as a result of that, we really need to address this issue in a comprehensive way; and given the fact we probably will not deal with Social Security reform in this Congress, it is incumbent on us at least to address this issue and perhaps a few other issues, as well, as long as they are not extremely costly. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on final passage, a ``yes'' vote when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) offers his amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District's noteworthy 30th Anniversary. Its regional approach to wastewater management has ensured a higher quality of life for Sacramento residents and our neighbors downstream. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in saluting this important milestone in protecting the environment and serving the public. Three decades ago, Sacramento-area leaders, realizing the tremendous potential for the area's growth, joined forces to form the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD). Back then, this represented a unique approach to the conveyance, treatment and discharge of wastewater in the Sacramento region. Until that time (and until the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant was completed in 1983), wastewater treatment and disposal were handled by up to 22 individual treatment plants, many located along the Sacramento and American rivers. These small treatment plants, some built in the 1950's and '60s, had become enveloped by neighborhoods and urban population centers. As the region's population grew, Sacramento County clearly needed a more comprehensive approach to wastewater management. Sound planning, vision, and the Clean Water Act of 1972 helped the District stay ahead of the rapid changes fueled by Sacramento's expanding population. This massive growth was factored into plans for a regional wastewater treatment plant, which serves the needs of most of the region's residential, business and industrial customers. Construction of the treatment plant and SRCSD's extensive interceptor system were made possible by federal Clean Water Act funds, as well as state and local funding to finance construction. Thirty years later, SRCSD represents a truly successful regionalized sanitation effort that serves an entire urbanized area with efficient and high qualify wastewater treatment services. As a result, the entire region benefits from cleaner waterways, sending all its wastewater to one point of discharge, away from important drinking water intake locations. Mr. Speaker, as Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District celebrates its 30th Anniversary, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to its significant accomplishments and dedication to excellent public service.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor David and Cheryl Vienna as they prepare to begin their well-deserved retirements. For more than two decades, they have served dozens of clients before the Federal and State governments and, in doing so, have maintained standards of excellence that we would do well to recognize. In 1978, David founded a Federal Government affairs company called David Vienna and Associates, and Cheryl joined him a year later. Together, they have made what is now known as Vienna, Gregor and Associates into one of the premier small firms in the Washington area. Among other clients, they represent several from my own State--the California State Senate, the California Franchise Tax Board, and the California Public Employees' Retirement System, the largest pension fund in the Untied States. My staff and I have worked with the firm many times and we know firsthand the level of knowledge, skill and integrity they bring to every task. While operating one business successfully is enough of a challenge, David and Cheryl opened a second in 1981. Public Affairs Support Services has, for more than 20 years, filed federal and state campaign finance reports for the political action committees of some of the largest businesses and associations in the country. In this venture, as in their government affairs work, they have demonstrated the expertise and attention to detail that is the hallmark of every successful business owner. Both David and Cheryl had extensive experience in this very building before starting their companies. David was on the staffs of two Senate subcommittees and worked closely with Senators Abe Ribicoff and Scoop Jackson, while Cheryl was director of legislation for senator Sam Nunn. In their public service, they showed the outstanding character and ability that foreshadowed their future success in the private sector. Mr. Speaker, I would ask all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating David and Cheryl Vienna on their distinguished careers and wishing them continued success in their future endeavors.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we were to take up a bill today, which was H.R. 878, and the bill would have basically provided tax relief for our young men and women who are in the armed services, particularly those in the Persian Gulf at this time, 240,000 of them. It would have eliminated capital gains tax if and when they would sell their private residence. And if in the event that one or two of them would pass away or die, it would provide nontaxability of any survivor benefits that they would receive. This bill needs to be passed very quickly, because the President plans to go to war within the next 2 weeks or so. We are almost certain of that. One of the problems is that last week, as the bill was in the House Committee on Ways and Means, my Republican colleagues added to the legislation a number of special interest tax breaks. Unfortunately, now it will slow the bill down. They took it off the floor of the House today because they could not even get enough votes on their side of the aisle to pass it. And, secondly, if it should pass, it will get bogged down in a House-Senate conference.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Speaker, these tax breaks would provide for foreigners who place bets outside the United States on horse races a tax break. It would provide special tax breaks for the blend of diesel fuel and water. It will provide a special tax break for manufacturers of fishing tackle boxes. In all, $300 million worth of tax breaks like these would have been provided. A wide variety of these tax breaks would be given to these different companies, many of whom have contributed to the colleagues who in fact have offered them. I think this is tragic. We have a situation where our young men and women are put in harm's way. We want to give them some relief so that at least they can have some peace of mind when it comes to selling their house. And many will have to sell their homes. That is one of the reasons we gave this tax break, mainly because their income is going to go down, and many have families back home. As a result of that, we are slowing this process down now. So I would just hope they would bring the bill back, stripping off these special tax provisions. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding to me.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to commend the Chair of the Subcommittee on Social Security, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), for the bipartisanship in which we were able to put this legislation together. As many know, and as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) mentioned, we passed this bill last year, in the last Congress, but unfortunately, it was dropped during the waning hours of the joint House-Senate conference committees in the month of October. So now we are bringing the bill back. It essentially has four parts to it. We added one provision which has become somewhat controversial. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) says, it has strengthening of the representative pay provisions of the law. Obviously, when someone is mentally disabled or one is a child, one needs a representative payee. This bill strengthens that law to protect the recipient, the beneficiary. Second, it provides anti-fraud provisions in the legislation, including denying benefits to fugitive felons and also those who have violated their parole. Thirdly, it provides for SSI recipients more of the advantages of having a lawyer or others represent that person as they are going through the administrative process, essentially by creating the same kind of withholding of benefits by the attorney or other representative of the claimant as we currently have in the Social Security System. So SSI beneficiaries will have the same kind of rights as the Social Security recipients. And, in addition, it caps attorneys' fees, the processing fees, to $75. So it will make it much easier for people to actually go through the administrative procedures. It has 18 technical provisions in the legislation, or in the bill last year. The one area in which we have added to it is it closes a loophole in which some have attempted to get around the GPO, the government pension offset provisions that are currently in the law. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has indicated to me and to others that he intends to have hearings on the whole issue of the government pension offset issue. And as a result of that, I am very satisfied with this legislation. As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues have problems with it on my side of the aisle. They intend to speak on this issue today. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on it, but I certainly can understand some of those that might have some differences of opinion on that one provision. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.