Robert Matsui

Mr. MATSUI

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

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that I am not sure if the gentleman and I are reading from the same bill, because he talks about stimulating the economy; but as I read these tax provisions for corporations, that is not what this does. He has a provision in there that would eliminate the alternative minimum tax, not for individuals, but for corporations. As the Congressional Budget Office has said, this helps corporations from their past activities, it does not stimulate the economy. There is a provision in there that encourages corporations to keep their earnings overseas and not invest in the United States. That costs about $13 billion or $14 billion over the next 10 years. That does nothing to stimulate the economy. In fact, it works in the opposite direction. The tax provisions in this particular bill do very little to stimulate the economy of the United States. In fact, they are really corporate handouts as a result of a commitment made to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last year when the chamber decided not to put corporate tax breaks on their individual tax cut bill. So what they are doing is using as a bootstrap the unemployment benefits, aid to New York in order to get these corporate tax breaks. In fact, the corporate tax breaks and the acceleration of the 28 percent rate, which helps basically the higher-income people, is about two-thirds of the $175 billion in tax cuts over the next 10 years. The real tragedy is the Senate, the other body, passed their bill to give an additional 13 weeks' unemployment benefits to the American unemployed unanimously. Democrats and Republicans alike worked together to do this. Think about this for a minute. There are 8 million people unemployed today; there are a million that have lost their benefits since September 11, and in the next 6 months there will be another 2 million. They are losing them at a rate of 77,000 a year. The gentleman from California, the Chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, knows that the Senate will not act on this bill. So we are basically telling the unemployed that because of politics, because they want to help their corporate friends, we are not going to be able to help the unemployed in America. I want to conclude by making one other observation about this, Mr. Speaker. This money, this money that is being used to pay $175 billion worth of corporate tax breaks over the next 10 years comes from the payroll taxes of the average American, the waitress that serves us in the House dining room, the elevator operator that gets us up to the second floor so we can vote. These are the people that the money is coming from. The payroll taxes are paying for corporate tax cuts, mainly because we are now in a deficit. We had $5.6 trillion worth of surpluses. We have eaten them all up. It is gone. At the end of this fiscal year, we are going to have deficit spending. So this is not a fiscal stimulus bill; this is a bill to help the corporate tax breaks of America. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), for a grand total of 4 minutes.

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

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

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

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones). (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from 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 myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we can handle this very logically and expeditiously. I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) mentioned that there are three issues here: Obviously, how we deal with the New York problem; how we deal with the unemployment benefit; and how we stimulate the economy. We agree on the first two. We should just pass a bill right now that would take care of New York's problem. We could do it and send it over to the other body. They will pass it. We can actually take care of that issue. That is simple. No one is going to object to that. Unemployment benefits. In terms of the discussion that went on today, no Member in that 1 hour of debate has said that they do not want to give unemployed benefits to the 8 million unemployed Americans. Why not just take the other body's bill and just agree to it? We could do that by unanimous consent, vote it on the suspension calendar. We do have a difference, because the other side wants to give corporate tax cuts; and we think that in order to deal with the economy and stimulate it, we have to create more consumer demand. There is a big difference there. Obviously, we do not agree. We should not hold New York and we should not hold the unemployed hostage. We should pass those and then let us debate. Let us see if we can come up with a bipartisan proposal on how we stimulate the economy through either tax cuts for major corporations or how we try to create more consumer demand. I hope that we vote ``no'' on this motion.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the time. Here we go again. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) and the gentleman who just spoke said that 70 plus percent of the surplus has been eliminated because of the war effort and because of the recession. If you only take it in a snapshot of the last 12 months, that may be true, but over the next 10 years, we have to look at it over the next 10 years because the tax cut phases in over 10 years. What really happens is because the CBO made bad projections and because of the recession, the surplus is eliminated by 42 percent by the change in economic conditions. Secondly, the tax cut once 10 years have passed is 41 percent of the loss of the surplus, 41 percent of the loss of the surplus. The defense spending, the defense spending and the war effort, the total over the next 10 years only comes to 9 percent of the loss of the surplus. It is the tax cut, 400 times the cost of the defense bill, that is the reason that we are losing the surplus and running deficits and the reason we are going to dip into the Social Security Trust Fund. What is ironic is the fact that the Social Security Trust Fund under the President's budget over the next 10 years will be tapped into in the sum of $1.4 trillion. Some might smirk at that. The problem is that what we have is a unique situation. The elevator operator, the waitress in the House dining room that feeds us and makes sure we have our meals, their payroll tax is going to pay for this tax cut that was passed last May. The tax cut that was passed last May, it comes to $1.7 trillion once we add it all up with the interest lost, $1.7 trillion, and that comes from the Social Security surplus that is now being taken out to pay for the tax cut. The payroll tax is the most regressive tax in America. So we are asking people that make $20,000 a year, $2,000 they pay into the Social Security Trust Fund every year, and we are going to ask them to pay for tax cuts for people who make $1.1 million because the top 1 percent get 40 percent of this tax cut. Somebody is going to have to tell me about the equities in this. We are not like the Greeks, we are not like Aristotle so we do not talk about ethics, but there is something immoral about this, something immoral about asking the waitress on her payroll taxes to pay for people that make $1 million a year. What we have is a little resolution that we would like to add on to the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Hastings) resolution. It would basically say that we want to preserve the Social Security and Medicare Trust Fund. We want to put that in a separate account. My colleagues voted on it five times in the last 24 months. In fact, only one Republican Member in the entire body, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), voted against it, and he only did that once or twice. So they all support taking the Social Security and Medicare money, putting it aside so that we do not spend it on anything, including tax cuts and other government programs. All we want to do is add that on as an amendment so we can put a little equity in this so we can make sure the American public understand what the priorities are. I have to the say this: If my colleagues vote for this rule and deny us the opportunity to offer an amendment to create a lockbox that protects Social Security and Medicare, we are jeopardizing the senior citizens of America. We are putting them at risk. We are putting them in a situation where they are putting their payroll taxes into a trust fund thinking it is for their retirement, and instead, it goes to people like Ken Lay of Enron Corporation. That is the most outrageous thing I can imagine on the floor of the House. Let me just conclude by making one other observation about this, if I may. If this resolution fails, and I really hope it fails, it means nothing. The tax cut still goes into effect. So we are wondering, the American public is saying, well, if it fails, it still goes into effect, why is that? Well, that is because we are playing games. Instead of doing the public's business, instead of trying to make sure the economy is working, instead of making sure that we have a balanced budget, instead we are playing games. This is absolutely a meaningless day. We are going to spend 3 hours on this, debate it, vote on it, and it is going to be totally meaningless because no matter what we do, that tax cut is still going to occur. So we have to ask ourselves what is really the intention of the authors of this amendment? Why are they doing this? Well, because they want to play politics. They talk about partisanship. That is exactly what they are into. Vote for a motion upon the previous question. Vote against the rule and vote against this resolution which is a very bad resolution.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Reiko Kawakami, my dear friend and a most loyal and dependable staff member for the last twenty-three years. As her friends and family gather to celebrate Reiko's wonderful career, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in saluting one of Sacramento's finest citizens. The youngest child of George and Ann Kashiwada, Reiko was born in Sacramento on July 8th, 1941. As a youngster in midtown Sacramento, where her parents owned a neighborhood market, Reiko demonstrated her trademark responsibility at a very early age. Reiko and her sister Ellen assumed the task of making sure that things were in order at home. Reiko would often prepare meals and perform various household chores when her parents were busy tending to the family business. When World War II broke out, Reiko and her family were sent away to the Tule Lake Internment Camp. During the internment, Reiko first demonstrated her gregarious nature and agreeable personality by socializing and playing with the other children in the camp. In the years since the internment, Reiko has remained open to share her experience with others. Reiko has been a clear and thoughtful voice in educating the people of Sacramento about the Japanese American internment experience. After the internment and a two-year stay in Denver, Colorado, Reiko and her family returned to Sacramento in 1948. It was during my early years at William Land Park Elementary School that I began my lifelong friendship with Reiko. While at McClatchy High School, Reiko caught the eye of Hachi Kawakami. Although a school boundary change forced Reiko to finish her senior year at Sacramento High School, Reiko and Hachi's romance continued and they were soon married after Reiko's graduation from high school in 1958. For the next two decades, Reiko devoted her energy to raising her five wonderful children; Deann, Cynthia, Mark, Susan, and John. While most people would rest on their laurels and look for less demanding pursuits after raising five children, Reiko decided that she was ready to embrace another challenge by starting a career. After serving as a tireless volunteer on my first congressional campaign, Reiko took on the position as my first district Staff Assistant. Many things have changed about our world since Reiko first assumed the position of Staff Assistant in my district office in January of 1979. We have seen five different occupants of the White House, the fall of the former Soviet Union, and the rise of the information superhighway. But, one thing has always remained constant in my office over the past twenty-three years; Reiko has been a stalwart part of ensuring that business in my office is handled professionally and in the proper manner. Reiko has truly been the epitome of a leader through example to her peers from Sacramento to Washington, DC over the years. For that, I will always be grateful for her twenty-three years of unparalleled service and life long friendship. Although Reiko's professional career may be coming to an end, she certainly has much to look forward to in her retirement years. In addition to her five children and their spouses, Reiko can look forward to taking an active role in the lives of her lovely grandchildren; Nicole, Rachelle, Jordan, Dylan, Brett, and Taylor. Relko and Hachi can also look forward to pursuing their dream to travel to fun and exciting places in their leisure time. Mr. Speaker, as Ms. Reiko Kawakami's friends and family gather to celebrate and honor her illustrious twenty-three year career I am honored to pay tribute to one of my dearest friends. Her contributions to my office and the citizens of Sacramento are unparalleled and her friendship is invaluable, and it is a great honor for me to have the opportunity to pay tribute to her. I ask all my colleagues to join with me in celebrating the lifetime of this extraordinary person.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding me this time. This bill will not become law; and I think the majority will probably be very happy about that, because there is no way that this legislation, the Thomas bill, will have anything to do with stimulating the U.S. economy. The reason for it is because it is based upon a wrong premise. Essentially what we have right now is a lack of consumer confidence, we have an underutilization of plant capacity, and our exports are down because our foreign competitors are not buying. So the bill itself will have nothing to do with making the economy better. What is interesting is that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), in his legislation, makes some modifications in the corporate minimum tax; but basically, he puts a huge hole in it. It has something on the operating losses in subpart F, which has nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Essentially in this bill, 85 percent of the $260 billion over the next 5 years will be spent in the form of tax cuts to corporations or wealthy individuals. Only about 15 percent of it goes to the unemployed and those people that need health insurance. This is just a back-door way of getting the tax cuts that the business community did not get in the June tax bill. I have to say, what is very offensive about this is the fact that it comes from the Social Security payroll taxes. That is the problem. It comes from Social Security. So using Social Security payroll taxes, it comes from the lady who is a janitor or the lady who is the elevator operator, their tough-earned money, to pay for major tax cuts for big corporations. I think that is outrageous. They are lucky that this bill will not become law, because this bill will have nothing to do with stimulating the economy. What this bill will basically do is pay off those people that have made big contributions.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking Democrat member of the committee, for yielding me the time. Let me just say this. I am holding in my hands two volumes. These are pieces of legislation that was passed in 1994. It was to implement the Uruguay Rounds and basically put in place the World Trade Organization. I do not say this as somebody who actually produced this legislation along with my colleague the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). I have been a free trader for the last 23 years, since I have been in the United States Congress. I show my colleagues these documents, mainly because we took an up or down vote in 1994, after about 5 hours of debate, and passed this legislation, 5,000 pages. The Uruguay Round, which passed 7 years ago, was basically about reducing tariffs and eliminating quotas. We had a little about intellectual property, but it was basically about tariffs and quotas. This next round, the round that we just witnessed in Doha, the beginning of, will be a round in which we not only talk about tariffs and quotas, which will be a small part of it, but it will be about antitrust laws. It will be about food safety laws. It will be about changes in hundreds of government regulations in the United States. The United States Trade Representative will be able to go through the back door, through the World Trade Organization, and make major changes in domestic regulations and domestic laws; and if my colleagues think these volumes are big, wait till we see 4 or 5 years from now when these negotiations are continued. We will see a volume four or five times larger than this, and we will have 4 hours of debate on the floor of the House, and we have to vote yes or no; and I will guarantee my colleagues they will not know for 2 or 3 years what will be in this legislation. We might find that there will be a situation where basically we will be making major changes in antitrust laws, and we will not even know whether the consumer will be protected. This is why the legislation should go down, and we should review it again.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. And let me say right up front: I stand here before you today as a free trader. Those of you who know me know that I believe in the principles of free trade and global commerce. I have fought to open and expand markets for US goods and services time and time again, right here in this chamber. Those who know me know that I believe that the freedom to trade across borders, if handled responsibly, is a wonderful way to raise living standards, create jobs, and protect the environment around the world--particularly in those countries that need help the most. But this vote is about much more than that. It's about the fact that the very nature of international trade has changed radically. Trade is no longer primarily about tariffs and quotas. It's about changing domestic laws. The constitutional authority to make law is at the heart of our role as a Congress and of our sovereignty as a nation. When international trade negotiators sit down to hammer out agreements, they are talking about harmonizing `non-tariff barriers to trade' that may include everything from antitrust laws to food safety. Now, I believe the President and the USTR should be able to negotiate trade deals as efficiently as possible. There's no questions about that. But that does not mean that Congress must concede to the Executive Branch its constitutional authority over foreign commerce and domestic law without adequate assurances that Congress will be an active participant in the process. Congress should be a partner, not a mere spectator or occasional consultant to the process. The Thomas bill does not ensure that. Think about what may be bargained away at the negotiating table: our own domestic environmental protections . . . food safety laws . . . competition policies. That's the air we breathe, the food our children eat, and the way Americans do business. With all due respect to Robert Zoellick, I want George Miller, John Conyers, and John Dingell in on those discussions. Now, Chairman Thomas says that he has fixed the problem of Congressional participation by adding a bit of technical language here and there. Of course, these changes do nothing to affect the labor and environmental provisions in this bill, which we all know are sorely lacking. But let me be clear: these amendments are pure window-dressing. Beneath the jargon, all he's done is give himself, as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the ability to bottle up any attempt to revoke fast track authority, no matter how far the negotiators have strayed from Congressional trade objectives. With all due respect to the Chairman, I cannot cede my constitutional responsibility to his stewardship. Mr. Speaker, the nature of trade has changed, and fast track authority must change with it. I ardently believe in the principles of free trade. But I will not put my constitutional authority over domestic law and my responsibility to my own constituents on a fast track to the executive branch. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation. Thank you. Beneath the jargon, all he's done is give himself, as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the ability to bottle up any attempt to revoke fast track authority, no matter how far the negotiators have strayed from Congressional trade objectives. With all due respect to the Chairman, I cannot cede my constitutional responsibility to his stewardship. Mr. Speaker, the nature of trade has changed, and fast track authority must change with it. I ardently believe in the principles of free trade. But I will not put my constitutional authority over domestic law and my responsibility to my own constituents on a fast track to the executive branch. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my most sincere appreciation to the Transportation Appropriations conferees for their outstanding work in preparing the FY 2002 Transportation Conference report. In recent years, Sacramento has become one of the fastest growing regions in the country. This sudden surge in population has led to massive traffic congestion and severe air quality problems. Ensuring that Sacramento's infrastructure can simultaneously accommodate this growth and improve the region's air quality is absolutely essential. I am grateful for Chairman Roger's and Ranking Member Sabo's commitment to providing appropriate funding levels for several ongoing programs that are of vital importance to maximizing efficiency in the greater Sacramento region. These funds will provide much needed transportation options to lower-income individuals, improve the region's air quality and improve traffic flow in impacted corridors. In addition, the inclusion of first time funding for the Interstate 5 Freeway Decking Project represents a tremendous boost for the Sacramento Riverfront Redevelopment Master Plan. Once complete, this decking project will allow the downtown Capitol Mall area to be reconnected with the waterfront, helping Sacramento to realize its long-term goal of linking its major recreational, entertainment and cultural districts with its major employment center. The beneficial effects of these projects are endless. I could not be more pleased with the outcome of this conference report and remain grateful for the unwavering support of this committee.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today with Congressman Henry Waxman, the Ranking Member of the Government Reform Committee, to introduce legislation that will require the President's Commission on Social Security to keep their meetings free and open to the public. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which governs the President's Social Security Commission, requires all meetings to be open to the public. However, under guidance issued quietly by the General Services Administration last summer, this Commission and others governed by FACA have been allowed to meet in secret subgroups. This was never the intention of FACA. The F.A.C.T. Act will close this loophole. The President's Commission on Social Security has taken advantage of this loophole on at least two occasions. Each time, Mr. Waxman and I have written to the Commission expressing our deep concern for these secret subgroup meetings, to no avail. The Commission has refused to open its subgroup work to the public, necessitating introduction of this legislation. Social Security Reform affects the lives of millions of Americans and is a critical source of income for retirees, disabled workers, and surviving spouses and children. The privatization of Social Security makes the financial challenges of the system substantially worse, necessitating large cuts in these critical benefits. Deliberations and decisions that result in this outcome should not take place behind closed doors. There is too much at stake for America's families.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)