John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 6, 2019, I was unfortunately not present for roll call votes 653 through 654, in order to attend a funeral. If I had been present for these votes, I would have voted: Nay on roll call vote 653 on the motion to recommit with instructions. Yea on roll call vote 654 on the passage of H.R. 4.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, the nation lost a great man, with the passing of T. Boone Pickens. He was down to Earth and comfortable in his own skin, no matter where he was; whether in a board room making corporate decisions or out in the public meeting people. He was plain-spoken and right to the point. He was willing to put his reputation and money behind finding solutions for energy independence and addressing climate change. I first got to know T. Boone Pickens over 10 years ago when I was on the Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming. We invited him to Connecticut to speak with engineers at United Technologies, and experts at Connecticut Center for Advanced Technology, Eversource, and FuelCell Energy. But he was also just as at home in East Hartford, CT talking with people at Augie & Ray's. T. Boone Pickens had a very facile mind. His philosophy could be summed up by saying that when it comes to energy and technology solutions, and hands-on application of what we need to be energy independent and solve climate change, we need to be open to not just one solution, but all of the above. Working with T. Boone Pickens was one of the great honors of my career. Not only will we miss the man, but we'll miss the vitality of his ideas, his wit, his humor, and his perspective on life.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, Mike Kelly, for his hard work and diligence in bringing this bill to the floor, as he acknowledged, in a bipartisan way. I think the gentleman and everybody in this body understand and respect the persistence, hard work, and dedication of Joe Courtney. From its introduction and inception, from its first letter to its more than 370 sponsors, ultimately, he has demonstrated that, yes, in this body, we can arrive at solutions across the aisle, working together in the common interest of every American citizen. Joe Courtney was chairman of the Public Health Committee in the Connecticut Legislature. He has forgotten more about these programs than most people will ever remember. But it is his diligence, persistence, and ability to work across the aisle that has brought this legislation here today to be passed unanimously.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following Op-Ed in tribute to the late John Mitchell of South Windsor, Connecticut. [From the Hartford Courant] Want To Make a Difference? Run for Office. Yes, You. (By Kevin Rennie) Local political parties will nominate their slates of candidates for November's municipal elections this month. In a few communities, there will be ferocious contests for some positions. Democratic races for mayor in some of the state's largest cities, Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven, look competitive as the September primaries grow nearer. Those are the exceptions. In most towns, politics is mercifully a civic good more than it is a secular religion. Some communities continue to enjoy our New England tradition of electing members to a wide range of local boards and commissions. That requires a lot of candidates. Another tradition, minority representation, guarantees no political party gets to elect every member of a town council, board of selectmen or board of education. Our law seeks to encourage a variety of voices in local government. Political parties in many towns struggle to find enough candidates to fill their slates. The hyperpartisanship that mars our national politics recedes in many communities seeking citizen volunteers to manage local affairs. Plenty of parties will welcome unaffiliated voters onto their tickets for municipal elections. If you get your news from cable television, you may properly think that much of contemporary politics is an endless series of screaming matches. Town politics does not often descend into the bear pit. Go to a meeting of your local planning and zoning commission and you will not be able to tell the Democrats from the Republicans. It's a collection of citizens trying to manage or attract development to their community. If you can spot the nuances of a traffic study or possess some ideas on how a town can manage a decline in the number of school-age children it will educate in the next decade, welcome. As a candidate for local office, you'll be more a part of a team than a member of a fire-breathing partisan tribe. The desire to serve will be your platform. In most instances, a campaign for a town office comes with few complications. Almost everyone wins. In some towns with a nine-member board of education, for example, there are only ten candidates. Minority representation rules have been adopted to give no party more than five members. Only one of the ten candidates, assuming a full slate by each party and no third party candidates, will lose. And there are plenty of other places for that person to serve in community government. I've saved the best reason for last. You will meet wonderful people whose friendship will endure after your service concludes. I was reminded of this gift on Monday when John Mitchell, South Windsor's beloved former mayor, died. Mitchell, 84, may have been our community's longest performer of good deeds. Born in Manchester, he lived and worked in South Windsor for most of his adult life. He started a fuel oil business as a young man, and it thrived through the unfailing melding of enterprise, knowledge and a buoyant personality. He served on the town council for more than a decade and enjoyed two terms as mayor in the 1980s, a time of historic growth in town. Mitchell's service to others was not limited to elective office. He remained active in the local chamber of commerce and was a stalwart in the Rotary Club for decades. He loved community events. Almost 40 years ago, he thought that since so many strawberries grew on the shrinking numbers of South Windsor farms, there ought to be a June festival, and local Republicans ought to create it. I can attest to the amount of work a strawberry festival requires. Mitchell's enthusiasm made it impossible to do anything but enjoy the challenge. The strawberry festival has long been what he envisioned: an annual June Saturday that thousands have enjoyed. Mitchell was active in providing college scholarships to local students as recently as last month. We'll never know the vast number of people he lifted and encouraged with his private generosity. We helped with a few local campaigns in the past decade, and I was reminded of his joy in the battle. His sense of humor grew sharper, and he displayed a rare wonderment at growing older. So think about running for something. You will help your town. If you are very lucky, you will get to know someone like John Mitchell.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today to include in the Record the following article, written by Max Richtman, the president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, for my colleagues. As Chairman of the House Ways and means Subcommittee on Social Security, I urge my colleagues to fight to protect Social Security for all working Americans, especially millennials who will rely on Social Security significantly more than their parents' or grandparents' generation. Mr. Richtman's article makes a persuasive case to rebut efforts to divide the generations by claiming that today's millennials bear the burden of supporting today's retirees. The Social Security 2100 Act will ensure that Social Security is there for generations to come for all, including millennials. We Must Fight to Preserve Social Security for Millennials (By Max Richtman) If you 're a millennial, you have may been led to believe that you have a better chance of seeing a UFO or Bigfoot than receiving a Social Security check. In a recent survey, some 80 percent of millennials are concerned that they won't be able to receive any Social Security benefits upon retirement. With the steady drumbeat of dystopian disinformation flowing from Social Security's opponents and many in the media, who could blame them? No wonder the young adults I talk to at town hall meetings across the country tell me the same thing: ``Social Security will not be there for me when I need it.'' Let me assure the U.S.'s young people that Social Security will be there for you in the future, if you fight for it now. Don't listen to so-called ``entitlement reformers'' who try to divide the generations by telling you it's unfair that millennials ``support'' today's retirees through Social Security payroll contributions. This ignores the fact that the program has always been a compact between the generations--and has provided Americans with basic income in retirement for more than 80 years. Social Security is the bedrock of the U.S.'s working and middle classes. We can't allow conservative ideologues to erode it. These ``reformers'' count on people forgetting that Social Security is much more than a retirement income program. It also provides disability, spousal and survivor's benefits to Americans of all ages. The average worker with a spouse and two children would have to purchase more than $600,000 in life and disability insurance to replace the protections Social Security provides. In fact, some 1.2 million millennials already receive Social Security benefits. Social Security is as much a millennials' program as anyone else's. Current trends indicate that millennials will rely on Social Security retirement benefits significantly more than their parents' or grandparents' generations. Increasing income inequality, wage stagnation, student loan debt, declining home ownership, the gig economy and the scarcity of employer-provided pensions have put young peoples' retirement security at risk. The National Institute on Retirement Security reports that two-thirds of millennials haven't saved any money for retirement. At the same time, future seniors face rapidly escalating living costs. Basic expenses--from housing to health care to groceries--will become even pricier in decades to come. What's more, millennials will live longer on average than today's retirees, meaning they'll have to spread out their financial resources over a greater number of years. That's why Social Security will be even more crucial in keeping today's young people out of poverty in old age. According to a recent Urban Institute study, the average millennial will receive $1,000,000 in Social Security retirement benefits. That's about twice the average amount that today's retirees collect. But this will happen only if we are able to prevent ``reformers'' from cutting benefits, including raising the retirement age and adopting a more miserly formula for calculating yearly cost-of-living adjustments. Don't let them fool you into believing that slashing benefits is the only way to keep the system solvent for the future--or that we should gamble with the Social Security trust fund by investing it on Wall Street. In fact, there is another path forward, championed by Rep. John Larson (D-Connecticut) and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), among others in Congress. Both have introduced legislation that would put Social Security on a solid financial footing for the future, while Rep. Larson's bill provides a modest, but much-needed boost in benefits. Each bill would adjust the Social Security payroll wage cap (currently set at $132,900) so that the wealthy would begin paying their fair share into the program. Representative Larson's bill also includes a 1.2 percent increase in employee payroll contributions spread out over 24 years. The average worker would contribute an extra 50 cents per week toward future Social Security benefits--the equivalent of one Starbucks coffee drink every two months. As Larson points out, that's a pretty good deal in exchange for the peace of mind of knowing Social Security will remain fully solvent through the end of the century, with more generous benefits and cost-of-living adjustments. If you're an average income earner, you will surely need both to pay your bills in old age. Millennials, here's a chance to harness the power of your generation to exert influence on the future course of Social Security. Instead of accepting the false narrative that Social Security is doomed, join your parents and grandparents in protecting Social Security as if your future financial well-being depends on it--because it does.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the SECURE Act and commend Chairman Neal and Republican Leader Brady for the outstanding work on this, as well as our colleagues Ron Kind and Mike Kelly. I also would like to single out Dave Reichert, who is no longer here, and myself for the work that was done with regard to volunteers. The provisions of this bill in terms of aid and assistance to rank- and-file citizens are legendary--and I thank Mr. Neal again for those efforts--but specifically for volunteer firefighters, for EMTs, and for those who give selflessly in an opportunity to serve their communities. For the meager amounts of uniforms and whatever they received in compensation, to have that taxed was an insult. So I am proud, again, to make sure that this piece of legislation included an opportunity for volunteers all across this country. Twenty-three communities in my State have volunteers. I thank the chairman again for his leadership.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the legacy of Cavey's a restaurant located in Manchester, Connecticut. Cavey's has been a mainstay on Connecticut's restaurant scene since it opened in 1933, during the Great Depression. For 85 years the Cavagnaro family has created a welcoming environment with delicious food and great friendship. As a frequent visitor of Cavey's, Steve Cavagnaro, the current owner and chef, and his wife Kate, have become dear friends. His grandmother, Florence, originally opened the restaurant, and Steve has continued to serve her famous ravioli. Over the years, the Cavagnaro family has created a Manchester institution, where I met a cast of characters, starting with Steve's father, Stephen Cavagnaro Senior, and ranging from people like Raymond F. ``Sonny'' Damato, Jack DeQuatro, Bill and Steve Thornton, Neil and Elizabeth Ellis, Chris Powell, and Bob Marcotte, who coined the phrase, and preferred to be called a social chemist, not a bartender. Steve is the quintessential gentleman, erudite and gracious. His humility underscores the fact he is simplistically, as he's said, not a man of many words, but he speaks the language of good food and wine. To say Cavey's will be missed after it closes on May 24th, is an understatement. We wish Steve, Kate, and the entire Cavey's family well wishes as they start this new chapter and thank them for being the hearth where the community could gather and know there was always good food, good wine, and good fellowship.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Head Start program on its 54th anniversary and the 25th anniversary of Early Head Start. I had the proud distinction of serving with Dr. Edward Zigler of Yale University, who passed away this past year. He was a leader in this and worked with every President from John Kennedy to Barack Obama. He is generally regarded as the father of the Head Start program but also regarded for his longstanding work with children. In fact, it was Ed Zigler who said, ``My politics are children,'' and then proceeded to dedicate a lifetime to creating remedies for childcare, which he labeled, in America, ``a cosmic crapshoot.'' So many young people today experience the dilemma of balancing their work with bringing up their children. But it was Ed Zigler's leadership that recognized we should utilize our schools. He promoted School of the 21st Century as a way for us to get our arms around the whole issue of having safe, affordable childcare. I rise today to commemorate his memory and congratulate the Head Start program.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, let me first, before we begin, given the tragedy that, once again, has visited our country over the weekend, pause and acknowledge--with Rabbi Lazowski from Connecticut in Washington, D.C., this evening and his son, Alan Lazowski, joining him at a Holocaust museum dedication, and after listening to the eloquence of Scott Peters and our own John Lewis--how indeed saddened we are by these events. As Mr. Lewis said, we remain focused on ending and focusing on hoping and praying that these horrific events will stop, but I assure you they will not stop without action on behalf of the United States Congress. Mr. Speaker, we are honored to rise this evening and discuss Social Security 2100. We are honored to be joined by the deputy chair of the committee, Bill Pascrell from Paterson, New Jersey. We want to make sure that citizens all across this country understand the number of hearings that are going on in districts all across the country and here in the Nation's Capitol, because it is long overdue that we address the issue of not just protecting Social Security, but enhancing it. Mr. Speaker, in fact, the last time that the United States Congress significantly addressed the issue of Social Security was in 1983. Tip O'Neill was then Speaker of the House, and Ronald Reagan was President. It does demonstrate that Democrats and Republicans can work together in the best interests of the country, and there is no bill currently before the body that does that in a better way than Social Security 2100. I say that because it is the only bill that has an actuarial report that verifies that it does everything that it says it will do: keep Social Security solvent, sustainably solvent beyond the 75-year requirement by law. But also, not just make it sustainably solvent, but enhance the program so that people all across this country can benefit from the Nation's leading insurance program. Now, the point we always try to make and get across is something that is intuitively obvious to American citizens, but not often explained graphically, and that is this: that Social Security is not an entitlement. Mr. Speaker, you hear people speak of Social Security and say: we need entitlement reform. Certainly, you are entitled to Social Security because you paid for it. This is what every American citizen understands from the first time they get a paycheck and they look at its stub, and it says: FICA. FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contribution. Whose contribution? Yours. American citizens throughout their work life contribute into the program. They do so knowing that since 1940 they have been able to get a check in return for either their retirement or because of a disability or spousal or dependent coverage. That is why it is the most effective and unique governmental program paid for by American citizens through their FICA premiums that are taken from their paycheck weekly, biweekly, or monthly. But what every American knows is that this is the insurance you have paid for, not an entitlement program that the government somehow just grants you. So we come to Congress in this session, as we have in the past, proposing a bill, but one that we have already had four public hearings on. In those hearings, we have discussed why, in fact, it is necessary for us not to just protect and preserve Social Security, make sure that it is sustainably solvent for 75 years, but, in fact, enhance it, starting with the fact that the last time we strengthened the program was in 1983. So to say that we are overdue is an understatement. We are overdue at a time when baby boomers are retiring at a record rate. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security. That, in and of itself, should require an actuarial adjustment, one that should have been indexed into the law in 1983 but was not. So now it is incumbent upon the Congress. Citizens can't do this on their own. They make their premium payments every week, biweekly, or monthly, but it is up to Congress to make sure the program is actuarially sound. So we proposed a bill that is not only actuarially sound beyond 75 years, but also one that is enhanced to make up for the lack of indexing and make sure that people now in their retirement can have a rational increase in their Social Security. Nobody is getting wealthy on Social Security. Nobody is hoarding their Social Security money. They spend it weekly, biweekly, and monthly in their respective communities. It is an economic boost to every community and essential for the survival of many of our citizens. We have opted to make sure that we enhance Social Security in the following four ways: number one, there is a modest, 2 percent across- the-board increase for everyone who is receiving Social Security and who will receive Social Security in the future. Number two, we make sure that the new level of Social Security payments is now changed so that as long as you have paid in your quarters, you have put in your time, and paid your Social Security benefits, the new floor for Social Security will be 125 percent of what the Federal Government determines the poverty rate is at that time, therefore lifting so many people, especially women, and more directly especially women of color, in this country who have been the caregivers of our children and family members whether through birth or through sickness, and therefore have not been in the workforce as long as their male counterparts. We also know that while they were in the workforce, they were making 70 cents for every dollar their male counterpart was. So to raise people out of poverty so they can make their payments to maintain a lifestyle or quality of life that is just above the poverty level is the right thing to do. The third thing we do is something that the AARP has long advocated, and that is to make sure that we have a COLA that actually reflects the cost that people incur when they are in retirement. What are those costs? Those costs happen to be utility bills--heating and cooling your home--the doctor visits, the prescription drugs, the nutrition, and the physical therapy. Those are the essential--along with food--elements that you need to exist. It ought to be factored into how COLAs are given. Currently a COLA is just given based on the consumer price index and an average which incorporates a multitude of expenses, and, frankly, oftentimes, as every senior in America will attest, they have gone without COLA payments at a time when the disparity of wealth is getting greater in this country of ours. So a COLA payment makes sense and is geared towards your actual expenses, something that we call CPI- E, E standing for the elderly and the expenses that they incur. Lastly, we also do a fourth thing. We provide a tax break to seniors. Again, in 1983, they determined that if you were single and making more than $24,000 a year, your Social Security was taxed; if you were a married couple and making more than $32,000 a year, your Social Security was taxed. Today, that has certainly not kept pace and is way out of line with what should happen. So in our bill, Social Security 2100, we move that to $50,000 per individual and $100,000 per couple. 12.5 million Americans will get a tax cut immediately, something that I know they will be able to use. Why do people remain working when they are retired? Number one, because many of them have to. Number two, because many of them find it more purposeful in their lives to stay gainfully employed and involved and committed in their communities, and they do. This, again, is another reasonable measure: an increase across the board of 2 percent, make sure that 125 percent of poverty is the new floor for Social Security, have a COLA that is based on actual expenses, and provide a tax break for those who are currently working or will continue to work after retirement age. We already have growth in the age group. Just this past year, 66 has now become the age at which you can become eligible for Social Security. You can get it if you are at 62, if you can make that case, but you will receive far less money. The beauty of Social Security is that it also has built-in incentives for people, depending on their circumstances. If they can wait longer, there is more money that they will receive. An example: If a person who opted to take money at 62 waited until they were age 70, they could almost double what they would receive, in terms of a Social Security payment for their retirement. That is the kind of incentive that we should have for people, knowing that, if they can, through education, understand what this would be. They should contact the Social Security office and make sure that they find out what their payments are and what is in their best interests. Everybody's case, as we know, is not the same. It is different depending upon your health and lifestyle circumstances; what you had for a job and the kind of job and its impact on you physically, mentally, and emotionally; and where you are, at whatever state in time, so that you need this. That is what we are also pleased about, that we are presenting an opportunity for people to get Social Security in a manner in which it will be enhanced in these four ways and that it is sustainably solvent. How do we get there to do this, especially without burdening any future generation? We do it the same way that Franklin Delano Roosevelt thought it should be done, and Dwight David Eisenhower when he expanded the program thought it should be done, and Lyndon Baines Johnson when he expanded the program, and lastly, when Ronald Reagan agreed to improve and expand the program. We do it by way of introducing legislation and then by doing the time-honored thing of increasing the contribution. This is an insurance payment--an insurance payment. Americans, in poll after poll after poll, are saying: My God, we are willing to pay more so that we can reap the benefit. Why doesn't Congress make it actuarially sound so that we are able to do this? By increasing the payment by 1.2 percent but then phasing that in over 25 years, we are able to come up with an incremental adjustment that takes the place of what should have happened in 1983, which would have been the gradual indexing in payment of the program. This way, we make the program actuarially sound. We make sure that it is sustainably solvent and that people can have the benefits that they need. How do we know this? How does any senior? How can anyone rely on it? They can because we have the corresponding actuarial report that goes through every line of the bill and certifies how it is paid for and that it is sustainably solvent beyond 75 years. We also scrap the cap on people making over $400,000. Usually, when I am at a senior hall, I will ask somebody to raise their hand if they are making over $400,000. It might surprise some of our viewers that not many hands go up in the room. So far, I have yet to see a hand go up in any senior center that I have been in. Nonetheless, it represents about six-tenths of the American people. We lift the cap on it, and all that means is that they will pay what a guy making $50,000 a year is paying. When we first introduced this bill on Social Security, the cap on Social Security was $112,000. It is now $132,900. It will grow every year. But we lift the cap on people over $400,000 because baby boomers will peak around 2022. This helps us ease them into that process actuarially. We have two things that are going on that help us both enhance the program and make sure that it is sustainably solvent. Another way to explain this--and I often do this by holding up a very popular brand of coffee and saying to seniors: How much does this Starbucks cost? Typically, they will know the answer immediately. They will ask if it is a latte. I will say, yes, it is. They will say $4.50. That is right. Or, if you are making $50,000 a year, that is 9 weeks of Social Security payments. Or, if you were those fortunate people at $400,000 a year, it would still cost you more weekly to buy this latte than it will to fix Social Security. Can we do this, America? You bet we can, in the same traditional, time-honored way that we have done it in the past. This is not an entitlement. This is insurance that needs to be paid for. You have contributed to it all your life. For a small enhancement, for a small contribution--if you are making $25,000 a year, it costs you 25 cents; if you are making $100,000 a year, it costs you a buck a week to make sure that Social Security is there for all American citizens. Let me say this, too, because I know our viewers know, and especially the man from Paterson knows this, that it is not just a retirement plan, though we focus on this. It is also spousal and dependent coverage, disability coverage. In fact, one in five recipients of Social Security is not in retirement currently. That is why we have the support of so many organizations, from Social Security Works to the National Committee to Preserve Social Security, the AFL-CIO, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, who have been before the committee to testify. If you heard them speak, there is not an American anywhere in this country who wouldn't stand up and salute and say: This is what we need to do. This is what we must do for all our citizens but especially those who have gone above and beyond in terms of the sacrifice that they have provided for this country. We are proud of all the sponsors that this has attracted, but it doesn't happen without the day-to-day work, without the testimony, without the hearings. There is nobody who has worked harder at this than the Congressman from Paterson, New Jersey; the deputy chair of the Subcommittee on Social Security; the former mayor of Paterson; a voice for America; my dear friend and colleague, Bill Pascrell. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his continued leadership. I want to underscore a couple of things that he said, and especially reaching out to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It is not often that I think you see us come to the floor and talk about following President Trump, but I believe they should follow their President in this instance, because he had both the audacity and the temerity to argue in front of 16 other Republicans when he was campaigning for President and they attempted to corner him and commit that Social Security was an entitlement. He said, no, it is an earned benefit; it needs to be protected. To his credit, he had written before about it in a book as well, and so he is on the record. We will pass a bill in the House of Representatives, there is no question, with more than 206 original cosponsors on the bill, but what we need to happen here, I think, is for people to come together in a way that they did in 1983 and present the American people. Now, some would say, well, geez, that is impossible to do. The House is Democratic, the President is Republican, and the Senate is Republican. In 1983, the House was Democratic and Tip O'Neill was the Speaker; Ronald Reagan was the President; Howard Baker was the Senate majority leader, a Republican. So what happened then and what needs to happen now is for the American public to make sure that they are contacting their Representative, their Senator, the President and saying this can be done. I am confident that Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump could do what Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did in 1983, except this time it would be enhanced and indexed and help so many people. Here are the facts: Almost 63 million people are receiving Social Security benefits, of which 55 percent are women and 45 percent are men; For almost two-thirds of those beneficiaries, Social Security provides a majority of their income--a majority of their income for two-thirds of American people--and for almost one-third, it provides 90 percent or more of their income; The average annual Social Security benefit for a woman is $14,000-- nobody is getting wealthy on these programs that they have paid for-- compared with $18,000 for men; Without these very modest benefits, nearly half of women 65 years or older living without a spouse would live in poverty; Nearly 20 percent of Hispanic women 65 years and older live under this current program in poverty, and without Social Security increases, this would rise to 50 percent for Hispanic women over 65 years old; Today, nearly 18 percent of African Americans live in poverty on Social Security. So the Nation's preeminent insurance program, as sound and as solid as it is and will be, the latest Social Security Trustees report says that in just 15 years, if we do nothing--which, shamelessly, has been the role that Congress has played, it has done nothing--if we do nothing, there will be a 21 percent across-the-board cut in order for people to continue to receive their checks. We can do this, America. This is within our grasp. You have a President who is like-minded, a Speaker of the House who would be very enthusiastic about making sure that we are taking care of all Americans with this universal insurance plan that provides retirement funding, dependent and spousal coverage in time of death. Three of the members on the Ways and Means Committee and two on the Subcommittee on Social Security were raised by a single parent, having lost a father prematurely. It is incredible to me that we don't just come together and recognize, as a nation--noting that the President has recognized this; clearly, the Speaker has; and I am sure that even Mitch McConnell would recognize this as well--that we need to come together. What Americans dislike most about Congress is they don't see us solving problems. They see us straining on the fringes, both making our points but not coming together to solve a problem that works to their benefit. That is why we are elected: to govern and to govern on behalf of the people who sent us here. We think that this is a good step in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for joining me here this evening. I hope that those who have heard us here this evening will call their elected Representative and their United States Senators to talk to them about coming together to solve the problem for Social Security and pass Social Security 2100. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be on this floor and to hear the eloquence of Jim Clyburn talking about a legend in Senator Fritz Hollings. Mr. Speaker, it gives us pause this evening, and I am honored to be joined by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a young man who has served his Nation with dignity as well, as we talk about something equally important and near and dear to Fritz Hollings' heart as it is to all America: Social Security. We have introduced a bill. On Wednesday at 2 o'clock we will be having our fourth hearing on the subject matter of Social Security. We are honored to see that that is going forward, because there haven't been hearings for some time on the matter of expanding Social Security. Under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and now Rich Neal on the Ways and Means Committee and a return to regular order, we are focusing on the needs of the American people, and nothing is more important than Social Security. Let me start by underscoring something that should be intuitively obvious to everyone, but oftentimes is overlooked: Social Security is not an entitlement. Social Security is the insurance that people have paid for. How do we know this? We know it simply because you only have to look as far as your pay stub, whether it is weekly, biweekly, or monthly, under the definition of FICA. FICA stands for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Whose? Yours. Citizens all across this Nation understand that they have contributed to this program. I want to give the President of the United States a shout-out here, because even under the intense scrutiny of the campaign, when challenged by 16 other Republicans, President Trump alone amongst the Republicans said: No, this is not an entitlement. This is an earned benefit, and I intend to protect it. Not only does Social Security need protection, as Conor Lamb understands, but it needs to be expanded. It needs this, because the last time that this Congress did anything significant with respect to Social Security was in 1983. In 1983, Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States, Tip O'Neill was the Speaker of the House. And you know what? A Democrat and Republican were able to come together and change Social Security and make sure that it would be there for future generations. However, they didn't do a number of things that would have enhanced the program, and it has been 36 years since there has been any change to Social Security, the Nation's premier insurance program. Mr. Speaker, I ask the viewing audience: Have any of your insurance premiums gone up since 1983? And, of course, everyone knows what the answer is. It is not the people's fault at home or citizens all across this Nation. It is the responsibility of the United States Congress to make sure that the Nation's premier program, a program that not only provides a pension, but provides disability and spousal and dependent coverage, is there. It is the only program out there that provides the full faith and credit of the United States Government, and, by the way, has never missed a payment. Yet, if we do nothing, if we continue to kick the can down the road, then by as soon as 2034, just 15 years from now, there will be a 21 percent cut in the program, sending many people on the program currently into poverty. That cannot stand. The time for us to act is now. That is especially true given the circumstances that have taken place in this Nation, especially as recent as 2008. If you will observe the chart on my left here, what this demonstrates is essentially from 2007 to 2010, the Great Recession, what we have witnessed happen to Americans with respect to their overall wealth and assets. What we see is that only 10 percent of the people of this country, and they happen to be in the top 10 percent of wealth, have recovered from the Great Recession. Just 10 percent. Imagine if Social Security had been privatized, as was intended by the Bush administration in 2005. Thankfully, it was not, because people depend on Social Security. They depend on Social Security because they know it is the only guarantee that is there for them. I have gone across this country speaking to people about Social Security and our enhancements and what we do, and I take with me two props: one is the actuary report of Social Security 2100, the bill that Conor Lamb and 206 other Members of this body are original cosponsors of; and I also carry with me this Starbucks coffee. This happens to be empty, but it is part of my prop, and I will get to that shortly. But what we said to the actuary is that what we wanted to do is make sure that Social Security not only remains solvent for beyond the 75 years, as it is required by law, but we needed to enhance it. The last time it was enhanced by this body was 36 years ago. So that is why Conor Lamb and myself and so many others have stepped forward to say, let's add and enhance this, and let's do it in four ways. Number 1, let's have a 2 percent across-the-board increase for all Social Security recipients. Number 2, let's not let anyone who has paid their quarters into Social Security, who has worked hard all of their lives, retire into poverty. Unfortunately for many Americans, especially women, that is the case. Why would that be so? It is so because women have been the caregivers in our society and had to take time off to raise families, to take care of children. Also, unfortunately, women have found themselves in the workplace earning 77 cents for every dollar their male counterpart was. This change in the law will correct that. We also found, and Conor Lamb pointed this out several times, that there were people that he talked to who were still working, many out of necessity, some because of the joy that they find and the fulfillment of their lives in being active and busy, but nonetheless, they found that they were being taxed on their Social Security, because back in 1983, we did not index Social Security, so that back then, if you were single and making more than $24,000, you were taxed, if you were a married couple and making more than $32,000, you were taxed. So what Conor and others said is, let's raise that to $50,000 for an individual and $100,000 for a couple, and immediately 12 million Americans will get a tax break under this bill. We also wanted to adopt something that the AARP has fought for, which is to have a COLA that actually reflects the costs that you incur when you are older, whether that is doctor visits, whether it is nutritional concerns, whether it is physical therapy, or whether it is heating and cooling your home. These are the things that you need and are important to you, and that is what the COLA should reflect, and that is what we put in the bill. Most of all, we have to make sure that the bill is sustainably solvent beyond 75 years, as is required by law, so that no one in any generation could say that it won't be there in the future. In fact, it has always been there. It has never missed a payment. It has a 99 percent loss ratio. What does that mean? That means it is the most efficient government program there is. It is the Nation's insurance program. I have heard my good friend and colleague talk about this often, and I yield the floor to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, no question about it. We were just at a senior center in Elmwood on Friday and had the same experience. I think, really, people find it annoying when this is called an entitlement, especially when they know they have worked all of their lives for this. They only had to look at their pay stub to know that they had made these contributions. To say that this is an entitlement, when you look at the investment that you have made over a lifetime, nothing could be further from the truth, and that is why it is so important that we get the Social Security 2100 Act passed into law.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the gentleman points that out because people, oftentimes, think of Social Security only as a pension benefit. As he just pointed out, one in five recipients are currently on Social Security who are not retired, who are spouses, or there are children because of a death in the family that took place. So here it is, the Nation's single most important insurance program taking care of those individuals, even in cases of calamity, whether it be through the opioid crisis or whatever the case may be. That is why Social Security remains so vitally important to all generations, at all ages.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes an excellent point. There is nobody who is getting wealthy on the Social Security program, but it is essential to their very existence and essential to our economy. Every penny that goes into Social Security comes right back and is recirculated through our economy because these are the things that are needed to sustain life. It is such an important point, Mr. Speaker. I said earlier that I carry this Starbucks, and you make an apt comparison here. In terms of the $2 trillion tax cut that was passed in the previous session, 83 percent of that tax cut goes to the Nation's wealthiest 1 percent. When you contrast that to the bill we are proposing that says that we want to make sure that people are able to subsist on a program of insurance that they have paid into, it seems utterly cruel that this hasn't already taken effect and taken hold. What is even more, we are not going to do it by passing on debt to a future generation. It is paid for. All those recipients, I know they say it in Connecticut, and I heard it again in West Hartford, and I know the gentleman has heard it as well in his communities: We don't want to be a burden, not to our families or future generations. Well, they have never been a burden. They were the generations that made this Nation what we are today, so we paid for this bill. We paid for it in two ways. Number one, we lift the cap over $400,000. So if you are one of the six-tenths of 1 percent in this Nation who make over $400,000, we are going to lift the cap off that Social Security so that you are paying what the guy making $50,000 is. Then we do something else. We do what Roosevelt intended and what every American knows because they consult their bill. We increase the contribution that you make in your paycheck by 1 percent. But then we say: No, even 1 percent is a lot. We are going to phase that in over 25 years to accomplish what should have been done in 1983, indexing it and phasing it in slowly over time. What does that mean? That means a person earning $50,000 a year would pay 50 cents a week to make sure that he gets all the benefits we have described for Social Security and that it is solvent beyond 75 years. For 50 cents a week, a disability policy, dependent coverage, spousal coverage, and a pension, you could not purchase that in the private market. It is the full faith and credit of the United States Government that makes it possible because of the individual contribution. That is where this Starbucks comes in. When I am at a public forum and when I am doing a townhall, I say to people: How much is this Starbucks? They will ask if it is a latte. I say yes. They say $4.50. I go: You are right. Or 9 weeks of Social Security payments if you are making $50,000 a year. Or if you are that individual making over $400,000 a year, it costs more to buy this Starbucks latte than it will to save Social Security. We can do this together. This is why we have been going all across the country. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, as well, for going out and putting this online and on Facebook, making sure that we are getting the message out that, no, you are not a burden to us; you are our fellow Americans. This isn't a Democratic or a Republican or an independent plan; this is the American plan. In fact, it was President Reagan who enhanced it, and it was President Eisenhower who enhanced and grew the program of Social Security. That is why it becomes vitally important that we help out our fellow citizens, especially with this disparity and, as in the chart we showed before, with many Americans still not recovered from the Great Recession of 2008.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining me. I thank Social Security Works, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, AFL-CIO, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Arc of the United States, American Federation of Government Employees, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Social Security Task Force, Justice in Aging, Association of University Centers on Disability, and The Senior Citizens League for their endorsement of this outstanding piece of legislation. I thank Mr. Lamb and the 206 other original cosponsors of the Social Security 2100 Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank the dean of the North Carolina delegation for putting together this Special Order on behalf of someone who truly epitomized the word ``gentleman,'' indeed, ``Southern gentleman,'' though not what you may immediately conjure up if you are from the North when you think about that gentile Southern person and plantation owner. His father, who served in this body, was a factory worker. Walter grew up with great admiration for his dad, who I was able to talk with him about on several occasions on this floor. What a special and unique place this Chamber we serve in is, and throughout history, how many people have graced these hallowed halls and served with distinction. Walter served not only with distinction but with an acute humility for what that service meant and for the people he represented, most notably, those at Camp Lejeune and, has been alluded to already, the thought process that Walter went through in coming to the conclusion that he must speak out and oppose a war he had voted for. The very troops that he nurtured, cared for, and felt so much a part of, he felt honor bound that he must speak on their behalf. He could not withstand and was tortured by the memory of looking at the little boy who lost his father, knowing that he would never know his daddy, as Walter would say. I came in with Virginia in 1998. I served on the Armed Services Committee with Walter. I was introduced to him by a man from Mississippi named Gene Taylor, who said that there is more integrity in this man than any Member of the United States Congress. How right he was. Walter would frequently come over to the corner, as we referred to it, and confer with Jack Murtha, my mentor and arguably one of the most knowledgeable people in this Chamber and in this body on matters of defense, on matters of the military, as he had served as a colonel with distinction in Vietnam. Walter would often probe Mr. Murtha about the war in Iraq and how bothered he was by that vote. Jack would counsel him. When Walter would walk away, Jack Murtha would add to the chorus of people who would say: What honor, what integrity, what thoughtfulness, what a genuine human being Walter Jones is. He cares so deeply about the people he represents and the feeling that he had not done the right thing with his vote for Iraq. There are a number of reasons why Jack Murtha came out to, ultimately, oppose the war in Iraq. But I will always believe that Walter's regular pilgrimages over there to talk about the rank-and-file soldier, about the person on the frontline and their families behind at home, and the fact that people felt they were lied to, played an enormous part in Mr. Murtha's decision, two profound figures that I had the honor to serve with in this body, both who have passed, both whose opposition to the war in Iraq changed the course of events here in this country. Walter, ever the gentleman, always sincere, always humble, his friendship and his acts of kindness are legendary. I thank the dean of the North Carolina delegation, who I hold in profound regard, because I know he, and everybody here tonight, cares deeply about this institution. What makes this institution what it is, it is not the splendid hall, but it is the humanity of people like Walter Jones who have graced us with his service and his presence, indeed, the people who bring honor and dignity and integrity to the United States Congress.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, November 14, 2018, I missed roll call vote 418, on H. Res. 1142. If I had been present for this vote, I would have voted: Nay on roll call vote 418.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am in its current form.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to say straightforwardly to my colleagues on the other side, this is as straightforward and it is as simple as it can be: Nothing in this bill can take effect unless and until the chief actuaries have certified that this bill will do no harm to Medicare and Social Security. Now, unlike Members of Congress who have a pension plan, who have a Thrift Savings Plan, who also have Social Security, for one-third of all seniors in this country, they rely on Social Security alone; and for two-thirds of all seniors--and that is your mothers and fathers and aunts and uncles and nieces and nephews and friends and family--90 percent of their income comes from Social Security. Mr. Speaker, 10,000--10,000--baby boomers become eligible for Social Security every single day; and yet, as Mr. Neal has pointed out, the lack of hearings, the lack of any substantive debate on Social Security and Medicare. It has been nonexistent. I include in the Record a letter from Robert Greenstein from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and I think it bears listening to so that you get a full understanding and impact of what happens when this so-called tax reform bill takes effect and its burden is thrust squarely on the people who are in most need at the time. [From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Sept. 10, 2018] Greenstein: House Republican Tax Proposal Repeats Flaws in 2017 Tax Law CBPP released the following statement from Robert Greenstein, president, on House of Republican leaders' release of their ``2.0'' tax proposal: Today's tax proposal from House Republican leaders doubles down on the fundamental flaws of the 2017 tax law by further expanding deficits and once again favoring people with the highest incomes. The proposal calls for making permanent the 2017 law's individual tax provisions. Those provisions benefit households in the top 1 percent twice as much as households in the bottom 60 percent, measured as a share of income. Making these provisions permanent would cost roughly $650 billion over 2019 to 2028, according to the Joint Tax Committee. Large as it is, this estimate significantly understates the long-term cost because the bill largely affects only the final three years of the 2019-2028 ``budget window.'' We estimate that the legislation would cost roughly $2.9 trillion over 2026 to 2035, the first full decade it would be in effect. The revenue loss would come at a time when the baby boom generation will be retiring in large numbers and moving into ``old-old age,'' causing Medicare and Social Security costs to rise considerably. Indeed, 2026, the year in which most of the new GOP tax legislation would start having effect, is the first year in which all members of the baby boom generation-- including the youngest--will be eligible to draw Social Security retirement benefits. It's also the year in which the oldest baby boomers will turn 80; people in their 80s have higher health care costs, on average, than younger seniors do. The nation will need more revenues to help meet these and other challenges, such as a decaying infrastructure, not fewer revenues, Policymakers should fix the flaws of the 2017 tax law, not extend them and compound the damage. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization and policy institute that conducts research and analysis on a range of government policies and programs. It is supported primarily by foundation grants.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Greenstein says: ``We estimate that the legislation would cost roughly $2.9 trillion over 2026 to 2035, the first full decade it would be in effect. ``The revenue loss would come at a time when the baby boom generation will be retiring in large numbers . . . causing Medicare and Social Security costs to rise considerably.'' Indeed, when this bill kicks in in 2026, it is the first year in which all members of the baby boom generation, including the youngest, will be eligible to draw on their Social Security retirement funds. It is also the year in which those in that generation will turn 80; and, as we all know, that is the time when they need medical attention the most and a time when the Nation will desperately need these revenues. My Republican colleagues are paying for this tax reform on the backs of American seniors, forcing devastating cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Under the guise of tax reform, the trillions they are adding to the deficit is no accident, and cutting Social Security and Medicare has always been the next step. News flash to my colleagues who refer to Social Security and Medicare as an entitlement: It is not an entitlement. It is the insurance that people have paid for, working all their life. And how do we know this? How do we know this, America? Because all they have to do is check their pay stub where it says, ``FICA,'' Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Whose? Theirs, the hardworking people of America, who understand that this is the insurance that they have paid for. This is what they need in life. And at the very critical time when the full complement of baby boomers are retiring, they get burdened and saddled with this debt. I would like to hope that our colleagues would at least listen to President Trump, President Trump, who said: We're not going to hurt the people who are paying into Social Security their whole life, and then, all of a sudden they're supposed to get less? I hope our colleagues follow their President's lead, and understand the vital importance of making sure, not only that we protect Social Security, that we expand it at a time when it is most critical to all of them. It would be great if we ever have a public hearing on it; but I have a profound inclination to understand that when Mr. Neal is chairman of this committee, we will take this bill up. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege and honor of working with Mary Ellen Shea over the years. She was an extraordinary woman, loved by all at the Connecticut State Capitol. I include in the Record this obituary, written by her daughter, Mary Frances Shea. My mom loved my dad. And he loved her. But before that she was born in 1932 in Hartford, to a single young mother. It was a bit unconventional for the times . . . but with the help of her grandfather she found, in her school and friends, something she was good at. She used her ample personality, unique style and insightful vision to draw people to her and with these gifts and she gave her life some structure. She loved the friends she would gather throughout her high school and college years. She was drawn to people with fun, outgoing and stable lives. She was nothing if not practical, easy to entertain and driven to make something happen. It was in this atmosphere that she met my dad, Bob. She was even-handed and spirited. He was a planner and a ``don't sweat the small stuff'' guy. He really made her laugh . . . always. Even this week in the hospital. He was always going for the laugh with her and he got it . . . often. Her laugh and ``Oh Bob'' was a constant in their home and our lives. First they were a good team. And then team leaders. There are 5 of us. The starting 5. Tom is smart like her. She was captured by Tommy. As a little boy he charmed her, he made her think. She was always listening for that thing he was going to say that was smarter and funnier and really sly. He is clever enough to savagely mimic her and get away with it while she laughed and laughed. She lit up when Tommy came into the room. None of the rest of us had that. He was the first and that was something. When I was 6 she took me out to the back yard where we had a huge lilac bush. She cut a big bunch of them and I can smell the sumptuous smell right now. You can too. She wrapped them in wet paper towels and put a string around them. She gave them to me to bring to my teacher for the last day. Many of you know my mom spent years as a teacher. She told me to say ``thank you for teaching me''. I love that memory because it comes with an aroma. It is the aroma of love and gratitude. What a lesson. Tim is her middle child. He is so much like her in that he takes care to make sure that everything is running smoothly, that everyone is okay, that the trains are running on time. He is a planner and, he, too is practical. He is the perfect combination of my dad and my mom. The middle. She counted on him. She felt great pride in his success as a family man. She loved his wife, Laura. She was awestruck and amazed by his charity and his kindness. She told me that, so I am telling all of you. My sister was the great joy in my mom's life. She had the home team family. As we all struggled with the distance, Mary Liz shared her kids and family life joyously. They spent time in each other's lives, holidays and average days. My sis and my mother had a short hand, like there was always an inside joke. They were close in a way that supersedes deep conversation, it was more about silliness, respect and ever a sense of fun that would find them at the garage sale or the UConn Women's game or just sitting down at dinner. My mom sincerely loves all of her children and grandchildren but it is unmistakable that Liz, David and their kids had more of my mom's fingerprint on them. It's true. My mother had 5 and her last is John. John got away with everything and never had to do anything but look at her, to make her smile. She gave John a pass, loved absolutely everything he did and said, especially when he married Lisa. The rest of us would make note of the fact that John had different parents. He got the mom who was relaxed and chill, the one who let things slide just a little more. And John knew how to capitalize on his good fortune. The rest of us had parents, he had bud's. She loved her baby. Yes I said it. That's what he was to her. If we all did anything perfectly, in my mom's eyes, it was to bring our children to Black Point Beach for the summer. It was there that their 8 grandchildren were drawn, like magnets to 31 Seabreeze where they would eat horribly sweet cereal-- and watch Bananas in Pajamas videos--and be read to by Grandma. If you ask them, this was a unique and special bliss that they will forever share with only each other. That's how you make memories and families. She knew the special recipe. She has 8 grandchildren, all here, together with her new great granddaughter who is currently stealing the show. She loved her grandkids . . . each one uniquely and now from afar. A few other things to note about my mom . . . As I mentioned, my mom was a teacher but in the mid-70's she got an opportunity to take a small job at the State Capital in the House Clerk's Office with a couple of her high school chums. She loved the characters and the drama of the daily policy making. She was good at it. She eventually worked for the then, Speaker of the House. He's here today Tom Ritter. She loved you, Tom. And she loved Shelley, too! If you knew her then, you knew how much she loved it there. Those Capital days . . . they were a very, very special time in her life. In her 50's she found out about her birth father, discovered he had had 6 kids, who when she met, embraced her. That was fun for her. My mom chose her friends carefully. As you all know, you who are lucky enough to have known her as a best friend (Ann, Sally, Maureen and MaryBeth) and others out there, She was a great listener and in that way, she gave good, practical advice. Here's the formula. Listen, for a very long time. Consider carefully, and then, quietly, say something practical. There it is. I can almost do it all myself, now. Try it for yourself. If you were her friend, or her acquaintance her neighbor, congratulations. She was so lovely. You won. My mom had a fulfilling and wonderful life. Such a long and winding road of a life. It's best to share twists and turns with somebody . . . and share she did. She often said that she was so lucky to have found and married my dad. She always said it. Remember how much I stressed fun and stability? Well, that is Bob Shea. I can attest that this is a great combination of strengths when conjuring a father, but as a husband it was the winning formula, for sure. I'm going to sum up their marriage and it's going to sound simple but it is not, at all. Bob and Mary Ellen were nice to each other, They talked about everything. They were, without reservation, about family . . . and friends . . . My mom loved my dad and he loved her.