Robert Matsui

Mr. MATSUI

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

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 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 to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

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

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Kuni Hironaka, one of the region's greatest champions for protecting and promoting Asian American hiring and promotion policies. Kuni played an instrumental role in securing the inclusion of Asian Americans as a protected minority in the affirmative action hiring and promotion process that is used by all federal civilian and military agencies. As his friends and family gather to celebrate Kuni's wonderful achievements, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in saluting one of Sacramento's most dedicated citizen leaders. In 1967, Kuni realized that there were only three categories of protected minorities specified for the affirmative action program at McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento, these were: black, Hispanic, and women. Kuni was particularly alarmed by the fact that there were no Asian foremen on the maintenance side of the workforce and no Asian supervisors on the management side of the workforce. Many Asian employees failed to rise through the ranks despite their considerable experience and education. Kuni's decision to explore the issue with the civilian Affirmative Action Officer was greeted with an unsatisfactory response. At the expense of jeopardizing his own employment and promotion future at McClellan Air Force Base, he boldly pursued the matter up the chain of command. In the course of standing for his principles and furthering the interests of Asian Americans in the workforce, Kuni would come to bring about change on a national level. Kuni was appointed by Phil Hiroshima, President of the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) at the time, to represent the JACL in meetings with top military officials to make the case that the affirmative action category should be expanded not only to include Asian Americans, but also Native Americans as well. As a result of Kuni's remarkable dedication to the cause and a relentless pursuit of justice, the process of leaving Asian Americans out of the affirmative action hiring and promotion process was eventually examined by the United States Department of Defense. Ultimately, the term ``oriental'' was changed to Asian American and Pacific Islanders and McClellan Air Force Base began to promote qualified Asian Americans within the maintenance and civil workforce. Kuni's decision to challenge the establishment to bring about equal treatment for Asian Americans at McClellan Air Force Base had a resounding impact nationally. In addition to military installations, Asians Americans also came to be recognized as a protected minority by all federal civilian and military agencies. Kuni played a crucial role in paving the road for his and future generations of Asian Americans by breaking down the glass ceiling in the workplace. Kuni truly represents the real spirit of community service. Throughout his life, Kuni has demonstrated the importance of giving back to his community. Kuni's commitment to helping others and improving his community is an inspiration and example to his fellow citizens. Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Kuni Hironaka's friends and family gather to celebrate and honor his many contributions, I am honored to pay tribute to one of Sacramento's most honorable citizens. His successes are unparalleled, and it is a great honor for me to have the opportunity to pay tribute to his accomplishments. I ask all my colleagues to join with me in wishing my dear, dear friend Kuni continued success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I pleased today to join with Congressman Clay Shaw, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, to introduce legislation to make important improvements in the Social Security program. These improvements would better protect vulnerable beneficiaries who cannot manage their own benefits; expand access to professional representation for disability claimants; and reduce the vulnerability of the program to fraud and abuse. The bill is very similar to H.R. 4070, which was adopted unanimously in the House last year. Unfortunately, even though the bill later passed the Senate with some minor changes, the House did not take it up again before the 107th Congress adjourned. This bill was developed as a result of hearings our Subcommittee has held over the past several years, recommendations from the Social Security Administration and its Inspector General, and the concerns of beneficiaries and their representatives. It makes the following changes: Representative Payees: Some Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiaries are unable to handle their own benefits, because they are too young, too frail, or otherwise unable to manage their own funds. In such cases, SSA appoints a ``representative payee'' to manage their benefits. The payee can be a family member or other individual, or an organization. The bill makes improvements in the representative payee system to prevent misuse of beneficiary funds by payees, to increase oversight of payees, and to expand the ability of SSA to repay benefits which are misused by a payee. Attorney Fees: The bill extends SSA's fee-withholding system to attorneys who represent SSI claimants, so that they could be paid directly by SSA out of the past-due SSI benefits. In this way, more individuals would be able to gain access to professional representation in pursuing their claim. It also caps the user fee that SSA charges for processing attorney payments at $75. Program Protections: The bill increases penalties for misrepresenting facts relating to benefit eligibility; denies Social Security benefits to fugitive felons and those in violation of parole or probation; requires companies that offer for a fee services that SSA provides for free to say so in their solicitations; and makes other changes requested by the Office of Inspector General to prevent fraud and abuse. The bill also makes other miscellaneous, technical and conforming changes to the Social Security Act. I want to especially highlight the importance of the attorney-fee changes. Professional representation is a valuable--and indeed vital-- service. The disability determination process is complex. Claimants without professional legal representation appear to be far less likely to receive the benefits to which they are entitled. For example, among claimants represented by an attorney, 63.6 percent were awarded benefits at the hearing level in 2000. In contrast, only 40.1 percent of those without an attorney were awarded benefits. Under current law, when an attorney successfully represents a Social Security disability claimant and that claimant is entitled to past-due benefits, SSA retains a portion of those past-due benefits in order to pay the attorney for the services he or she provided. This system of direct-payment, which is only available to attorneys representing applicants for Social Security disability insurance benefits, helps to promote access to representation by assuring that attorneys receive payment for their services while protecting beneficiaries by capping allowed fees. The bill makes two important changes to the attorney fee system. First, it extends the direct-payment system to attorneys representing claimants for SSI. Without direct fee payment, SSI claimants are often unable to obtain needed legal representation, as there is no way for attorneys to be assured of payment for their services. Such claimants are often particularly in need of professional assistance, as they have no other sources of income to fall back on should their claim for disability be wrongly denied. Second, the bill caps the processing fee deducted from the attorney's payment at $75. Since the adoption of the processing fee in the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-170), our Subcommittee has conducted two hearings on the long delays involved in paying attorney fees. We have had some success in speeding up payment, but there remains much room for improvement. It is only fair to cap the processing fee if SSA cannot assure timely payment of fees. Hopefully, this cap, in combination with the other provisions of the bill, will also mitigate the loss of experienced representatives from the disability bar, who have been forced to close their practices as a result of delays in fee payments and the imposition of the processing fee. In closing, I look forward to working with Chairman Shaw on this piece of legislation in the same bipartisan manner that characterized our successful efforts on the Work Incentives Improvement Act, the repeal of the retirement earnings test, and our ongoing efforts to protect the security and privacy of Social Security numbers. With this sort of collaboration, I am certain that we can pass this bill as well.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join my good friend and colleague, Representative Dave Camp, today in introducing legislation that will repeal the Special Occupational Tax (SOT) on taxpayers who manufacture, distribute, and sell alcoholic beverages. The special occupational tax is not a tax on alcoholic products but rather operates as a license fee on businesses. Believe it or not, this tax was originally implemented to help finance the Civil War. I began the fight to repeal this unfair tax back in 1992. This is an inequitable tax that has outlived its original purpose and is a clear example of an antiquated approach to federal taxation. The SOT on alcohol was dramatically increased during a budget process in 1986 and has unfairly burdened business owners across the country. Repealing the SOT would provide immediate and visible relief to thousands of small businesses in every congressional district. According to the ATF, there are 480,427 locations nationwide that pay this tax every year, including 458,603 retailers. These retail establishments account for $114 million out of $126 million in SOT revenues. In my district, repealing the SOT will save convenience stores approximately $50,750 annually. Repealing the SOT will save California wineries approximately $750,000 annually and California restaurants approximately $20 million annually. This tax is hardest on small businesses. A one-store operator pays the same SOT as a Wal-Mart Super center. In fact, a chain of four neighborhood food stores pays the same annual tax as the nation's largest single site brewery or distillery--$1,000. This is not what Congress had in mind 150 years ago, and I don't believe it is a situation we want today. Repeal of the SOT on alcohol is supported by a broad-based group of business organizations and enjoys widespread bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. Senators Max Baucus and Jim Bunning are introducing similar legislation in the Senate today. The Joint Committee on Taxation has examined the efficacy of the SOT several times and found it fundamentally flawed, and has recommended its repeal in its 2001 tax simplification report. With small businesses being hardest hit by the recent economic troubles, repeal of the SOT will provide much needed assistance to these important employers. It is time for us to move forward and enact legislation to repeal the SOT on alcohol. We urge our colleagues to join us in this endeavor.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Dr. William D. Crist, one of Sacramento's most outstanding citizen leaders. Dr. Crist has served his term as the President of the Board of Administration for the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) with great distinction. As his friends and family gather to celebrate Dr. Crist's numerous achievements, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in saluting one of Sacramento's most accomplished citizens. Dr. Crist first joined the CalPERS Board in 1987 and became its President in 1992. During his fifteen years of service, CalPERS achieved tremendous growth in its pension fund. As a result of his considerable contributions, CalPERS became the standard in the health benefits arena and a leader in corporate governance and shareholder rights. Under his leadership, CalPERS was able to secure a brighter future for 1.3 million California public employees, retirees and their families. CalPERS has been a powerful advocate for strong corporate governance requiring the attention and dedication of company officers, directors, and shareholders. Dr. Crist has long been a leader in calling for corporate governance activism. All in all, Dr. Crist has steadfastly promoted the interests of CalPERS and its enrollees with great success for the past fifteen years. Long before his illustrious career with CalPERS, Dr. Crist enjoyed a distinguished career in academics. Dr. Crist, a Professor of Economics at California State University Stanislaus, rose to the rank of chair of the Department of Economics from 1986 to 1990. In addition, he also held a number of Academic Senate and faculty association positions during his academic career. Dr. Crist was the State President of the California Faculty Association from 1976 to 1985. As a scholar, Dr. Crist made a number of significant professional and scholarly contributions to a variety of important subject matters. Dr. Crist authored scores of articles regarding collective bargaining in higher education, public retirement systems, and corporate governance. Dr. Crist's innovative ideas and sterling reputation earned him a number of prestigious distinctions: co-chair of the Council of Institutional Investors, CII Executive Committee member, a seat on the International Corporate Governance Network Board of Governors. Dr. Crist's unparalleled success in the classroom and the boardroom truly makes him one of California's most accomplished and treasured citizens. Dr. Crist's outstanding service to Californians, which has spanned the course of four decades, will surely be missed. Yet, we can all take comfort in knowing that his commitment to help improve the lives of others will undoubtedly serve as a shining example to others who follow his leadership. Mr. Speaker, as Dr. William Crist's friends and family gather for his retirement celebration, I am honored to pay tribute to one of Sacramento's most honorable residents. His successes are considerable, and it is great honor for me to have the opportunity to pay tribute to his contributions. I ask all my colleagues to join with me in wishing Dr. William Crist continued success in all his future endeavors.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Judge Alice A. Lytle, one of Sacramento's most capable jurists and dedicated public servants. After 20 remarkable years on the bench, Judge Lytle will be retiring from the Sacramento County Superior Court at the end of the year. As her friends and family gather to celebrate Judge Lytle's illustrious career, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting this outstanding judicial officer. After graduating with a Bachelor of Arts degree in physiology from Hunter College in New York City, Judge Lytle headed out west to attend Hasting College of Law. Judge Lytle was successively secretary and president of the Black Law Students Association, member of the Student Facility Curriculum Committee and the Student Faculty Academic Standards Committee. Throughout law school Judge Lytle was also employed as a law clerk for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and various attorneys in private practice. Soon after completing law school, Judge Lytle became an instructor of Criminal Law at New College of Law in San Francisco. At the same time, she also served as a Rural Housing Specialist with the National Housing and Economic Development Law Project. Eventually, Judge Lytle would make her way to Sacramento where she would serve as the Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary in the office of Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. As a result of her strong civil rights background, Judge Lytle was appointed by Governor Brown to head the Division of Fair Employment Practices with the Department of Industrial Relations. In this capacity, Judge Lytle managed a staff of approximately 200 workers in 10 offices within the state. She would ultimately be appointed as the Secretary of the State and Consumer Services Agency, a Cabinet-level agency in the State of California that exercises general management, coordinative and liaison responsibility over 13 departments and program entities. In 1983, Judge Lytle was appointed to the Sacramento Municipal Court, sitting in trial court hearing misdemeanor trials, felony preliminary hearings and civil court as well as jury trials. From June 1988 to September 1989, Judge Lytle served as presiding Judge of the Municipal Court. Judge Lytle also served as the Master Calendar judge for unlawful detainer matters. Currently serving on special assignment as a Superior Court judge to the Juvenile Division of the Superior Court, she is the Lead Judicial Officer for juvenile dependency cases. Judge Lytle has remained especially giving with her time and energy through financial contributions and services to programs that benefit youth and the underprivileged. Judge Lytle received funding from the Wellness Foundation to create a mentor program for delinquents called the SacraMentor Program. Judge Lytle also established the Healthy Teen Mothers program and served as a mentor for pregnant teens while working with the Birthing Project. Mr. Speaker, as Judge Lytle's friends and family gather to celebrate her great career, I am honored to pay tribute to one of Sacramento's most honorable citizens. Her successes are considerable, and it is a great honor for me to have the opportunity to pay tribute to her contributions to the city of Sacramento. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in wishing Judge Lytle continued success in all her future endeavors.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, with the passing of Dr. Chan-Lin Tien, the Asian American community as well as the entire nation, has lost an extraordinary educator, scientist, and leader. I rise today joining many friends and admirers across the country and around the world in expressing my deepest sympathy to Dr. Tien's wife, Di-Hwa and his three children, Norman, Phyllis and Christine. Dr. Tien's remarkable legacy is evident in the fact that his presence could be felt in many fields of study. But Dr. Tien's contributions went far beyond the academic. By bringing his passion, enthusiasm, and personality to each new endeavor, Dr. Tien touched countless lives and inspired people from all walks of life to achieve excellence. As the University of California at Berkeley's seventh Chancellor, Dr. Tien became the first Asian American to head a major research university in the United States. As Chancellor, Dr. Tien was known for the energy and personal touch he brought to his job. A leader in the right for affirmative action in the UC admissions process, Dr. Tien understood the great value that diversity brings to institutions of learning and to the fabric of our nation. All members of the University community--staff, faculty, students, and alumni--were enriched by Dr. Tien's vision and warmth. Though Dr. Tien was first and foremost a man of science and learning, he was also deeply committed to opening doors for Asian Pacific Americans in all areas of public life and leadership. As a founding board member of the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies (APAICS), his efforts will undoubtedly continue to inspire future generations of APA leaders. Dr. Tien strove to cultivate excellence in the academic world, in government, and in the APA community. Dr. Tien truly was a giant in his field, and his loss will be deeply felt in the hearts of those who had the privilege of knowing and working with him. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the award-winning Camellia Symphony Orchestra as it begins its 40th season in Sacramento, California. For four decades, this organization has been a crucial part of cultural life in California's capital city. One of the nation's outstanding community orchestras, the Camellia Symphony Orchestra is comprised of a wealth of dedicated musicians from the greater Sacramento area. The Orchestra was established to provide an opportunity for Sacramento area musicians to express their many talents and musical interests. The musicians all share a common commitment to the mission of the Orchestra--to present concerts and programs of high artistic merit, and to foster community involvement through education and outreach activities. The Orchestra provides opportunities for people of all ages to learn about, participate in, and attend events that enrich the quality of life. Their creative programs expose children to new forms of music in a joyful manner that encourages the learning process. Under the leadership of Conductor Eugene F. Castillo, the Orchestra has challenged audiences to explore the connections between music and society, as well as art and everyday life. The Orchestra often premieres new compositions, or presents traditional pieces in a different way, symbolizing the diversity of the community. This past summer, the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts here in Washington recognized Maestro Castillo as one of the most promising young conductors in America when he was selected for the highly competitive National Conducting Institute. The Washington Post described his Kennedy Center performance as having ``a beautifully gauged climactic build . . . [which Castillo] drove to the finale in an ecstatic white heat.'' The citizens of Washington last summer caught a glimpse of what we in Sacramento have come to value for both his leadership and creative talent. Maestro Castillo is the first Filipino-American to be appointed music director in a major American metropolitan city. Castillo is--in his own words--``a servant to music and a servant to the community.'' He has been a tireless advocate for youth music education and a staunch promoter of the orchestra's role in public life. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in saluting Maestro Castillo and the Camellia Symphony Orchestra for outstanding contributions to the Sacramento community and extend congratulations upon its 40th anniversary.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for House Resolution 468, which this body overwhelmingly passed on October 7, 2002. This resolution expresses the support of the House for enlargement of NATO that will take place at the Prague Summit next month. The resolution endorses the candidacy of countries that satisfy the membership criteria of the alliance and are willing and able to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic community and the war against terrorism. An enlarged NATO that is prepared to grapple with the challenges presented by conventional and unconventional threats is in America's vital interest. Only a vibrant and strong NATO will be able to meet these formidable challenges. And this requires the candidate countries to remain committed to the shared democratic values of respect for the rule of law and minority rights. The full protection of minority rights of the ethnic communities of Central and Eastern Europe will extend the zone of democracy and ensure the security that is a direct consequence of genuine stability. An important but not exclusive element of the respect for civil and minority rights is the restoration of religious and educational properties to those ethnic communities, such as the Hungarian minorities in Romania and Slovakia, where they had been confiscated by earlier totalitarian regimes. Restitution of these communal properties has been too slow. I urge these new democracies to immediately and vigorously pursue the process of restitution until satisfactorily and fully completed. Resolution of this important question will constitute the kind of demonstrable commitment to democracy and shared Western values that will serve these countries well both before and after Prague. It will also be favorably received by the United States that deems fair treatment of religious and national minorities to be indispensable for a democracy.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the United States is both blessed and burdened with enormous power. We have a responsibility to our constituents, to our country, and to the world, to ensure that the United States wields this power wisely. That's why I rise today in support of an amendment offered by Representative Spratt of South Carolina, which recognizes the threat posed by Iraq and ensures that Congress deals with this threat appropriately. This amendment challenges the United Nations to live up to its responsibilities by forcing Iraq to abide by its commitments to the international community. It places value in multilateral action, but also recognizes the reality that sometimes the United States must be prepared to act alone. This is an amendment that each of us can support with a clear conscience. The amendment encourages the President to continue working with the U.N. to craft a tough Security Council Resolution that leaves no room for Saddam Hussein to delay or impede weapons inspections on his territory, under the threat of immediate multilateral force. Should the U.N. shirk or fail in its duty, Congress should then consider, in an expedited fashion, the authorization of force to be used against Iraq. That way, we will vote with the full knowledge that all diplomatic efforts have indeed failed. It is at that time and at that time alone, that we, as Members of Congress entrusted with the solemn and terrible duty to send our young men and women to war, should be called upon to cast that vote. In short, Congress should vote to authorize force when and only when there is no other option. We are fortunate to have before us the opportunity to craft a sensible and responsible policy for the United States, one that reflects, I believe, the very reasonable view of the majority of Americans. Americans are not hungry for war. We do not seek conflict, but neither do we shrink from our responsibilities. We will go to war only when we must--but not a moment before. But now Congress is faced with a vote on a resolution that asks us to authorize a war that may not be necessary at this particular time. That's not how Congress has dealt with issues of war and peace in the past, and there's no reason to violate that precedent now. A premature authorization of force is inconsistent with the traditions of the Congress and the character of this nation. Mr. Speaker, we can and must act to deal with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. But Congress should not grant this authority prematurely, nor should we seek to do so. The Spratt amendment treats this matter with the gravity and circumspection it deserves. I urge my colleagues to consider carefully the alternatives before them, to vote yes for the Spratt amendment, and no on the majority resolution. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her comments and certainly the gentleman from Missouri, the Democratic leader, for helping put this together this morning. This is not a theoretical debate. The whole issue of Social Security privatization is a real discussion, something that really will, in fact, occur in 2003. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the Chair of the Republican Campaign Committee, said in the month of August that privatization will be a 2003 issue, they intend to bring it up. Paul O'Neill, the Secretary of the Treasury, has said that he intends to have the President bring up privatization of Social Security in 2003 after the November 5 election. The reason this is a theoretical debate is because this is hard to believe, but my Republican colleagues have five real plans to privatize Social Security. We have President Bush who convened a 14-member commission of experts that essentially came up with three plans to privatize Social Security. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means, has drafted a privatization of Social Security plan; and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, has come up with a plan to privatize Social Security as well. So we have five plans, one of which will undoubtedly be the plan that will be brought up and attempted to be adopted by the President in the year 2003. I thought it would be important for us to talk about this because obviously, if this comes up, the American public should know exactly what we are talking about before the November election. My Republican colleagues will say, well, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentlewoman form Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) are just trying to scare seniors; but by explaining these plans, we hope we are not attempting to scare seniors, but what we are trying to do is explain to the American public exactly what these plans are, because it will be coming up in the year 2003. For example, the Shaw plan, which is a privatization plan, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has not explained to us that within 30 years, by privatizing Social Security, it will require $6.9 trillion or approximately $7 trillion of general fund moneys. We know that those general fund moneys do not exist so we wonder where this general fund money is going to come from, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) also in his plan is basically an arbitrage plan. They borrow the $6.9 trillion and then invest it in the stock market and hope the rate of return will be better and higher than the rate of loss in borrowing that money; and so if, in fact, the market drops, it will result in a cut in benefits. The same thing with the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Armey) and the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. DeMint) plan. In a 30-year period, they are going to have to borrow $10 trillion; and that basically would mean tripling, tripling the national debt of this country, to put that in perspective. It would triple the national debt of this country. Then we have, of course, the President's three plans, some of which, $3.3 trillion, that would require up to a 54 percent cut in benefits not only for seniors but also for the disabled and survivor's benefits for families with minor children and a surviving spouse. So we are talking about plans that will either cost trillions of dollars by tripling the national debt; or we are talking about a combination of those, plus massive cuts in benefits for the American public. I have to just say, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have tried to obscure this issue by saying that personal savings accounts are not privatization. Personal savings accounts are, in fact, privatization. They were talking about, let us not really bring this issue up this year because we do not want to alarm the American public. But then why have they introduced five pieces of legislation and why has the Secretary of the Treasury talked about bringing this issue up in the year 2003? This is an issue that the American public should be aware of today because it will be massive cuts in benefits, particularly given the fact that the market has collapsed at this time and given the fact that that is the only defined benefit that most Americans have.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, just so everyone understands exactly what we have before us on the floor of the House today, this is a resolution. And this resolution basically asks the Senate to consider a bill that we passed some months ago and sent to the Senate. And what is somewhat interesting about this resolution is that when one sends a bill to the United States Senate, one expects the Senate to understand that since the majority of Members sent it over there, that we support it as a body and, therefore, we request that they take action on it. And so what we are doing today basically is meaningless. It has no relevancy. And it is just basically taking up a lot of our time because the other body knows that we want a piece of legislation that was sent over there to be passed. We do not have to tell them again. And if some people feel anxious about this, which obviously some people do, the best thing to do is walk over there. It takes about 5 minutes to walk to the other body and suggest to the other body that they take it up. And if the other body says, I do not want to take it up, then ask why, and then you can begin a dialogue. But to send over a resolution that is meaningless, that has no relevance, again, is wasting our time. Now, I have to say that there are three issues that we have to decide before we adjourn in another week or 2 weeks. One, obviously, is the issue of Iraq, a very important issue and one that we all have an obligation to address. The second issue, obviously, is our war against terrorism. And hopefully we will be able to take action on that in terms of the Homeland Security Department and others over the next couple of weeks. The third, obviously, is our national economy. And that means we have an obligation to the American public, to those people that are working so hard in the Federal Government, to pass the 13 appropriations bills and get them to the President of the United States so that he can sign them. And what is interesting is the fact that as of October 1 we have started a new fiscal year, but we have not yet sent one appropriations bill to the President. Now, I believe we have passed five in this body and we have sent them over to the other body. But we have eight more that we have not taken up yet. In fact, some are very ready to go because they have passed the subcommittee and Committee on Appropriations, but they are still not brought up. And this all relates and pertains to the economy, Mr. Speaker. The economy in this country today has major problems. And for us to be talking about a marriage penalty, by the way, which, incidentally, even if we were bringing up the legislation and not a resolution today, this bill that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is talking about really will not take effect until the year 2010, 8 years from now, 2010. And so what we are doing is not only not relevant, but, secondly, it is not relevant for at least 8 more years or the year 2010. And so what we really should be doing is focusing on our national economy. Just this last week there were over 400,000, 400,000 claims for new unemployment benefits in this country. The stock market since President Bush has taken the oath of office in January 2001 has gone down 4,000 points, about 38 percent. The average American and many pension funds have lost in excess of $17 trillion, $17 trillion because of the 4,000- point drop in the stock market. And as a result of that, we should be taking up issues that the American public will be helped by, that will become relevant to the American public, not issues that are 8 years off, not issues that are somewhat meaningless in terms of the individual problems that people have at this particular time. We should be taking up issues, frankly, that have meaning to this economy, the average American, and to those many Americans who have lost their health insurance benefits and also their unemployments benefits. We have that obligation. That is why we were sent here, to represent the American public on issues that are long term, not marriage penalty that will come into effect in the year 2010, but long-term problems such as Iraq, such as the homeland security issue, and also problems facing the average American today like our national economy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to myself. Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman from the State of Illinois (Mr. Weller) was kind enough to advise me of the amount of marriage penalty relief in the year 2010 and beyond that Californians will receive, I thought it would be important just to reciprocate and advise the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) that in the State of Illinois 169,000 unemployed people would be benefited just by extending the unemployed benefit insurance program by a few months. And it would seem to me that that is what we should be doing now, taking care of those people that are unemployed so they can begin to spend money and maybe jump-start our economy and create a little more consumer purchasing power. Second, I might just point out too, and we do not need to get into the substance of this issue but perhaps it does make some sense, we are predicting deficits as far as the eye can see. And a vote in favor of this resolution, just as a vote we took some months ago on extending the marriage penalty beyond 2010, will invade the Social Security trust fund, thereby further jeopardizing Social Security recipients that are currently receiving benefits. And I think that the American public should be aware of that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Trade. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to make an observation to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) who I have a deep amount of respect for and is really a wonderful colleague of mine. I might just point out that he had said his son was getting married in a few months. My son got married three months ago, but I do not think it makes him feel any better if I tell him that we just passed a resolution to instruct the Senate to take action on a bill that will not take effect until 2011. I do not think that makes him feel he is anymore richer or anymore secure in terms of his economic well-being. That is what we are talking about: doing something that is irrelevant at a time when in California, I might also point out to the gentleman who just spoke, we have 404,000 Californians that have lost their unemployment benefits; in addition to that, their health insurance benefits. And so unless we take action to extend these unemployment benefits, it is going to be catastrophic to many of these people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, a member also of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over welfare reform.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), 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 Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), a member of the House Committee on Appropriations.

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

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