Robert Matsui

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to St. Andrew's African Methodist Episcopal Church of Sacramento. On October 1, 2000, St. Andrew's will be celebrating its 150th anniversary. It is the oldest church of its kind on the Pacific Coast. As the Congregation members gather to celebrate, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in saluting this monumental achievement. St. Andrew's was founded in 1850, three months before California was admitted as the 31st state to the Union. It is the first African Methodist Episcopal Church and the first African-American religious congregation established on the Pacific Coast of the United States. In the beginning, a small group of worshipers gathered in Sacramento at the home of Daniel Blue. Under the leadership of Barney Fletcher, this group would form the church that would later be known as St. Andrew's A.M.E. Church. In the fall of 1850, Reverend Isaac Owen, pastor of the Seventh Street Methodist Episcopal Church, participated in the formal organizing of the church. The first trustees, James R. Brown, John Barton, George Fletcher, John L. Wilson, and Chesterfield Jackson purchased part of the lot in the square between G and H Streets. At this site, the first church was erected and named the Methodist Church of Colored People of Sacramento. In 1851, the members of the church petitioned the Indiana Conference for admission to the African Methodist Episcopal Church and officially became the Bethel African Methodist Church. Later in the 19th century, the church acquired its current name, St. Andrew's African Methodist Episcopal Church. St. Andrew's has been a pioneer in organizing an educational and religious haven for people of color. In 1854, the first A.M.E. Sunday School in the far west was organized. This also became the site of the first public school organized for children of African, Asian, and Native American descent. In 1855, the church was the site of the first statewide convention of the colored citizens of California. This was the first organized political activity by people of African descent in California aimed at securing citizenship rights. During the following years of westward expansion in the United States, St. Andrew's became a pivotal point in the far west for African Methodism, and it hosted numerous political, secular, educational, and cultural activities for African Americans. The church helped to develop educated and trained leaders of the African American community, even before the end of slavery. Today, St. Andrew's continues to shine as a pillar for the community. In 1995, the church was recognized as a California Registered Landmark for being the oldest African-American Church on the Pacific Coast. For 150 years, the church has admirably served the ethnically diverse Sacramento community. Mr. Speaker, as the exceptional people of St. Andrew's African Methodist Episcopal Church gather to celebrate their 150th anniversary, I am honored to pay tribute to one of Sacramento's most outstanding institutions. Throughout their proud history, the people of St. Andrew's have maintained an impressive tradition of service to the African-American community and other minority communities in greater Sacramento. I ask all my colleagues to join with me in wishing the people of St. Andrew's continued success in all their future endeavors.

Mr. MATSUI

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

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the State of 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 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the amount of time each side has?

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) from the Committee on Ways and Means, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Trade. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for yielding me this time. So far, in the last 6 months, my Republican colleagues, in all of their tax bills that they have gotten through the House of Representatives, basically have spent $739 billion, almost $1 trillion if we count the debt service that goes with this. The breakdown of these tax cuts is if one makes $350,000 a year, one will be getting about $15,000 annually on these tax cuts. If one makes $40,000 a year, which most Americans do, that average tax cut will be about $350 per year. So everybody gets a little, but we know the wealthy are going to get tremendous tax breaks out of this. Now, what this bill does, basically, is reduces the amount of taxation on Social Security benefits. The problem with this, the problem with this bill is that all of the revenues from this goes into the Medicare trust fund. Now, the Republicans are saying, well, they are going to make this up with the budget surplus, and all of us have heard that we are going to have over the next 10 years about $2.2 trillion in budget surpluses outside of the Social Security system. The problem is that my colleagues, our Republican friends, have spent that money already. If we look at this graph here, we have $2.2 trillion in budget surpluses, we have $361 billion that has to be set aside for the Medicare trust fund. They spent $739 billion on tax cuts, plus another $183 billion for extension of the alternative, changing the alternative tax and changing the expiring tax provisions. Then, if we just talk very moderately and conservatively, since the Republicans have been in control how much they have spent on appropriations bills, we have to add another $284 billion; and we have $54 billion for additional exceptions that we already had, and then we have the prescription drug benefit program my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed, $159 billion, then farm support programs; and then we have additional spending for health care benefits, a reimbursement that everybody is going to agree to by the end of this year. That brings us to a total of $2.2 trillion. They have already spent the surplus. In fact, we have a deficit over the next 10 years of $88 billion. Mr. Speaker, we cannot do anything for Medicare, we cannot do anything for Social Security, we cannot even pay down the debt. This means that the false promise that they made, that they are going to reimburse the Medicare trust fund with general fund monies will not happen, and that means our senior citizens are going to have to pay more in premiums. That means our senior citizens are going to have to either pay more in premiums or they are going to end up having lower benefits at a time when they are going to need health care the most. This means that probably prescription drugs will be limited to $159 billion over the next decade, and that means seniors will not get prescription drug promises, which all of them anticipate. Mr. Speaker, this is a false promise. This will not happen. This will do major damage to the Medicare system of America and damage our senior citizens.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I will vote against it, though, if it is in a package like this, because that is obviously overspending the surplus; and we will create a real problem for future generations.

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

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, today I honor a woman with a remarkable career in public service, Mary Miyashita. To say that Mary has a flair for politics would only begin to skim the surface of the extraordinary contributions that she has made to numerous candidates and causes over the years. Mary first got involved in politics during the 1948 gubernatorial campaign of Adlai Stevenson and has been a dedicated social and political activist ever since. The best way to describe Mary's political interests and involvement is exhaustive. I consider her presence to be a staple in the Democratic Party. She carries with her enough charisma to charm a crowd as well as the political savvy and assertiveness needed to fight the good fight. She has been selected as a Delegate to the Democratic National Convention five times in the past 30 years, served as Co-Chair of the California Affirmative Action Committee in 1976 as well as Co-Chair of the California Democratic Party Budget and Finance Committee in 1976. She has done everything from Chairing the 1980 Kennedy Caucus to hosting political leaders at her home. In fact, the only thing that stretches farther than Mary's dedication is her knowledge of the political scene. By just glancing at her impressive list of political involvement, it is easy to attest that Mary is a true champion of public service. Over the years, Mary has been recognized by a host of organizations for her Herculean efforts. In 1975 she was named Democratic Woman of the Year and Key Woman of the Democratic Women's Forum in 1960. This year she is being recognized once more, this time by the esteemed publication Asia Week for her many years of public service. As a founding member of the first Asian Pacific Caucus in 1976, Mary helped to pave the way for equal and just treatment of Asian Pacific Americans. Time and time again she has succeeded in ensuring that the interests of the Asian Pacific Community are heard and protected. She has been the shining light that has inspired scores of youth to get involved in politics. I can think of no one else more deserving of this honor than Mary. Her involvement is not exclusive to strictly politics. She is an active member of the PTA, ACLU, Women for Peace and the League of Women Voters to name a few. Programs such as Meals on Wheels, and the Woman and Children Crisis Shelter would not have found the success that they have enjoyed without Mary to support them. Her continuous leadership is a true testament to public service. If a template for leadership could be made, it would bear the resemblance of my good friend Mary Miyashita. Her career thus far as a social and political activist is commendable, and happily far from being over.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join with Congressman Shaw to introduce bipartisan legislation to help restrict the use of individuals' Social Security Numbers by both the public sector and the private sector. Our legislation builds upon a number of bills introduced by House Democrats earlier this session. I'd like to thank Congressmen Ed Markey, Gerry Kleczka, and Bob Wise for their contributions on the privacy protection issue and for introducing exemplary legislation on the topic this Congress. The Social Security number is almost as old as the program itself. Created in 1936 to keep track of workers' earning records, the uses of the Social Security number have since extended far beyond its original intent, to the point where it is now commonly used as a personal identifier. Indeed, the Social Security number is increasingly used as the key to unlocking some of people's most vital--and most private--financial information. Its prevalence in today's society helps facilitate the host of private and public transactions in which people engage every day. That same prevalence, however, leaves people exceptionally vulnerable when their SSN's fall into the hands of those who wish to exploit that information for their own gain. While we should be aware of the contributions that the use of the SSN makes to program administration and to business efficiency, we must be careful that we do not allow some of our most fundamental rights--the right to privacy and the right to control our personal information--to be abridged in the name of expediency. Our legislation strikes the correct balance. Our bill would prohibit Federal, State, or local government entities from selling lists of people's SSN's and would prohibit government entities from displaying SSN's to the general public--for example, on drivers' licenses or on government checks. Just as importantly, our bill would restrict private businesses' use of the SSN. Just as the Clinton Administration proposed earlier this year, our bill would authorize the Federal Trade Commission to ban the inappropriate sale or purchase of Social Security numbers. Our bill also prohibits businesses from requiring that you disclose your Social Security number in order to do business with them. Just as our bill enhances privacy protections, it also provides new protections for Social Security beneficiaries who rely on representative payees to manage their finances. Social Security beneficiaries who rely on representative payees to receive their benefits and to complete financial transactions on their behalf represent some of the most vulnerable members of our society. They are the very young, the very sick, and the very old. They are individuals who live in nursing homes and in State mental hospitals. Thus, when representative payees misuse the funds that have been entrusted to their care, they are not simply defrauding the Social Security Trust Funds--they are harming the very people that Social Security was designed to help. Our bill would help prevent the misuse of beneficiaries' funds and would make it easier for beneficiaries to be compensated in the event that their funds are misappropriated. Our bill would require SSA to re- issue benefit payments to beneficiaries in all cases in which ``fee- for-service'' representative payees have misused the funds entrusted to their care; strengthen the requirements fee-for-service organizations must meet in order to act as a representative payee; prohibit organizations from receiving fees for serving as a representative payee for any month in which that organization is found to have misused beneficiaries' funds; and finally, treat any misused benefits as an overpayment to the representative payee and, therefore, allow SSA to use the collection tools at its disposal to recover such overpayments. I want to thank my colleagues again for this bipartisan effort and I urge my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and certainly the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). They made a good try and made a good effort on this legislation. However, I have to say that there are fundamental flaws in this legislation. First of all, it does make significant changes, although the authors talk about technical changes, in the top-heavy rules and the anti-discrimination rules. But these changes are actually substantive changes and, in fact, what they will do is make it more difficult for lower- and middle-income wage earners, employees, to be able to get pension benefits. In addition, statistically, a number of outside groups, because we do not have a joint tax committee distribution table, but a number of outside groups have said that the top 10 percent of the taxpayers will get 62 percent of the benefits in this legislation, and that is taking into consideration the additional employees that will be covered under the original Portman-Cardin legislation. But this is not unusual, because all of the tax bills that we have seen coming from my Republican colleagues over the last 4 or 5 months have been basically for upper-income folks anyway. So I would not make that as a major argument. The marriage penalty and all of these others have been basically for them. But it is very important that if this legislation passes, and I believe it will, that we add on the substitute provisions here. Because at least then, it will help the distribution of where the benefits will go and it will actually then, in fact, help wage earners and not the top management employees or the employers themselves. But nevertheless, this bill is a bill that if it is unchanged, is not a good piece of legislation. Let me just conclude by making one observation. There was an add-on to this bill. Right now, people that want to have IRAs can have up to $2,000 per individual per year on IRA accounts, individual retirement accounts. This will increase that number to $5,000. So a couple will be able to then put $10,000 a year into an IRA. Now, I will tell my colleagues that there are not many Americans that even put $4,000 a year into IRAs. This means that a small business owner will probably say, I will just eliminate my entire pension program, because why should I give to my employees and share my profits? Why not just take two IRAs out at $5,000 each, husband and wife, and essentially then, I can take care of my retirement and let my employees deal with it themselves. So to a large extent, this legislation will actually reduce, in my opinion, the opportunities for small business to cover their employees. That is why this legislation standing by itself is not a good piece of legislation. It will be vetoed by the President if it stands by itself, and that is why this substitute is so critical to make this legislation work and to make sure that we take care of the average American taxpayer.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was asked about 15 minutes ago to manage this bill. We apparently on this committee could not find anyone to manage this piece of legislation. No one thought it was significant enough to take the time to manage so I kind of am stuck with this responsibility. My understanding of this legislation is that right now on the W-2 forms there is an aggregate number of the FICA tax and the HI tax, and what this basically will do will break it up into employer/employee taxes. Now, bear in mind that the information is already provided by the Social Security Administration. Beginning this year, the Social Security Administration will be sending out, on an annual basis, to everybody that pays the payroll tax the aggregate amount over the lifetime of the individual of both the HI tax and the payroll tax, the FICA tax, and broken down from management, or the employer and employee side. So that information is provided. There is no secrecy involved in it. It will be provided to every taxpayer, every employee, on a lifetime basis every year. So there is no secret to it. In fact, what this will do is probably put an additional small burden on the employer, because now the employer perhaps will have to go back to the computers and make some adjustments, but I guess that is not an unfunded mandate although I am not quite sure. It could be an unfunded mandate, but I do not think anybody will object to it because it is not that big of a deal. Most employers will probably be able to do it. I might also say, just to have no misunderstandings about this, that we are not going to oppose this legislation. The more information to the public, the better off we are, and if breaking it down from employer, employee side gives more information to the average citizen, more to it. The only problem is that I did hear on the other side, as I was coming in, that the whole issue of true costs, then people will be able to figure out the real true costs, and obviously rate of return they are going to get but this really will not have any relevance to that because I have done a lot of studies on Social Security. And the fact of the matter is that right now the overhead costs on one's Social Security benefits, the money coming in and going out, is about 1 percent. We have done some studies, had some hearings in the Committee on Ways and Means, the Subcommittee on Social Security, and we find that actually the costs of maintenance, if one privatizes and actually invests in the private market, is about 20 percent, because there are fund managers and all of that, and we are not going to put that on that W-2 form because that would be too much trouble. Then once there are the aggregate benefits in the trust fund and one is ready to retire then they have to amortize the account. That will cost another 20 percent. So we are talking anywhere from 35, 40, maybe even 45 percent, in terms of the overall cost if the Social Security system is privatized; whereas the overall cost is 1 percent in terms of the current Social Security system. So this does not give anybody any comparison. Again, as I said, the more information the better off we are and so we are not going to oppose this. Just in conclusion, it would be my hope that we begin to focus on the real issue of Social Security, is that how do we deal over the next 35 years with the fact that we are going to have a 25 to 30 percent shortfall in the Social Security system? That is a big issue, and we need, on a bipartisan basis, to come up with a solution to that, because that is going to hit us much sooner than we expected. The reality is that we cannot leave the uncertainty in the system that we currently have. Mr. Speaker, I urge a yea vote on this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Packard and the Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky, and the Members of the Committee, for their support of Sacramento flood control projects included in the FY 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Flooding remains the single greatest threat to the public safety of the Sacramento community, posing a constant risk to the lives of my constituents and to the regional economy. Thanks to your efforts and the efforts of this Committee, Sacramento can continue to work toward improved flood protection. With a mere 85-year level of protection, Sacramento remains the metropolitan area in this nation most at risk to flooding. More than 400,000 people and $37 billion in property reside within the Sacramento flood plain, posing catastrophic consequences in the event of a flood. While Congress will continue to consider the best long-term solution to this threat, funding in this bill will provide much needed improvements to the existing flood control facilities throughout the region. Specifically, this legislation will allow for the continuation of levee improvements and bank stabilization projects along the lower American and Sacramento Rivers, increasing levee reliability and stemming bank erosion. Additionally, I greatly appreciate the Committee's willingness to provide funding for projects--including the Strong Ranch and Chicken Ranch Sloughs, and Magpie Creek--aimed at preventing flooding from a series of smaller rivers and streams that present substantial threats separate from those posed by the major rivers in the region. Importantly, the Committee's willingness to include funding for the American River Comprehensive Plan will allow for ongoing Corps of Engineers general investigation work on all area flood control needs, including a permanent long-term solution. As this legislation moves to a House and Senate conference committee, I also would like to ask conferees to support two ``new start'' projects of critical importance to the long-term safety of the Sacramento region that were included in the 1999 Water Resources Development Act. The first would make modifications to the outlet works on Folsom Dam, improving its flood control efficiency. The second would begin construction on the South Sacramento Streams, which will provide a 500-year level of protection for a portion of south Sacramento that has long been vulnerable to rising flood waters.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me say this: The gentleman from Iowa said that we think this is tough to vote for this. I do not think any Member on our side of the aisle said anything about this being a tough bill. If anything, this is one of the easiest pieces of legislation in my 22 years in this institution to vote for, because it does not mean anything, it is irrelevant, and it is, I guess, kind of fun sitting up here for 40 minutes talking about something that is meaningless, when we have all these appropriations bills we have to pass by the end of next week. But, nevertheless, I guess we will do it. There is nothing else to do here. But I would like to just reiterate what my colleague said from South Carolina, that, you know, we should probably make this for 10 years, because if in fact we have the wrong presidential candidate elected, we are going to spend two or three times over the surplus here. As I said in my opening remarks, Mr. Bush intends to reduce the surplus, if there is a surplus, by $2.7 trillion over the next decade, and right now we only are projecting $877 billion in surplus. We may get another $1 trillion, according to CBO and OMB. So he will still be twice over the surplus. So perhaps we should make this a proposal that will go for the next decade, because, after all, we saw what happened in the early 1980s when we let our emotions get ahead of our discipline. We finally got the budget under control under President Clinton. I would hate to see us lose control over it when he leaves office, but we very well could. So perhaps we should use some kind of gimmick like the debt limit to impose discipline, since it appears the majority party cannot use that discipline on its own. I might just conclude by saying what Nancy Reagan said when it came to drugs: ``Just say no.'' That is leadership.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I say this in no disrespect to any of my colleagues on the floor of the House of Representatives, and certainly I intend to support this legislation; but I have to say that I think we are going to spend perhaps up to 40 minutes debating something that is not particularly relevant and it is probably somewhat a waste of our time. The reality is that any surplus over and above the current surplus that we have, and most people predict that for this coming fiscal year it will be about $15 billion, will go into debt reduction in any event. The only thing that could change it is if the majority party decides not to show the kind of fiscal discipline that I think the rhetoric kind of indicates they intend to. And so we will be doing this, we are all probably going to vote for it, but again as I said this is more of a political act than it is an act of substance. Under current law, if at the end of the fiscal year we do not spend any of the additional surplus that we have, it will go automatically for debt reduction. Under this bill, it is appropriated into a fund set up by the Treasury Department that will go for debt reduction. And so it will not hurt, but it does not really help either. If for some reason the Senate or the House or any party should decide through a majority vote that they want to spend more money, then obviously that would change the situation. But then that is a judgment to be made by Members as time goes on. Again, as I said, we will vote for this; but it really does not do a lot of good. But it does give me an opportunity actually to bring out some things, if I may. Governor George W. Bush indicated earlier this year that he has a tax cut proposal and over the next decade his tax cuts will be $1.7 trillion. He also suggested individual Social Security accounts which would take away from the current beneficiaries. And he suggested somewhere in the range of 2 percent although he has not really elaborated on it. But assuming it is 2 percent, that basically then means that you would have to make that up for current beneficiaries, and that comes as somewhat a little over $1 trillion. So we are talking about $2.7 trillion of additional debt or money out of the surplus over the next decade. Right now the projected on-budget surplus is $877 billion. And so essentially the Governor will spend over the next decade three times what that surplus will be. Now, we understand by the end of this month, OMB and CBO will come in with another $1 trillion worth of surpluses over the next decade, and so that means that you can actually say that actually he will only then be overbudgeted, or over the surplus by $1 trillion. Now, if we were really being honest about this, what we would do is not just make it for this fiscal year but we would do it for the next 10 fiscal years. But this is only for the next 18 months or so. So we will save $15 billion, but that money is going to be saved in any event. Obviously we are going to recommend that our colleagues vote for this; but the reality is again, it is a political act. It is not a substantive act. I am just kind of sorry that we are spending our 40 minutes of debate time on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before I call on the next speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I might just point out to the gentleman and previous speakers on the other side of the aisle that the public debt for the fiscal year 2000 is $5.628 trillion, $5.628 trillion; and under the Republican budget in 2005, 5 years from now, the public debt will go to $5.936 trillion, so it is going to go up under the Republican budget. I might just point out that instead of all of this talk about reducing it, it is actually going to increase. I might want to emphasize that it is going to increase. I just hope that they would look at the budget document; and perhaps they could clarify it if they so choose. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)