John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on February 26, 2016, I was not present for roll call vote 93. Had I been present, I would have voted: YES on roll call vote 93.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Bipartisan Policy Center for the establishment of the Congressional Patriot Award and naming Sam Johnson and John Lewis as its first recipients. I can think of no two people who are more deserving than Sam Johnson and John Lewis, both of whom serve in this Chamber with distinction, both of whom I have the honor of serving with on the Committee on Ways and Means who do an extraordinary job on behalf of the citizenry of this great Nation. For all of our membership here, we can all be proud to say that we served with both Sam Johnson and John Lewis. I want to thank and commend Tom Cole, my co-chairman in this effort, on behalf of our two esteemed colleagues. By now every Member should have received, and the public will become increasingly aware of, an invitation to this event on March 15. The event will be held at the Library of Congress. What a fitting place for us to honor our colleagues. The Library will have on display photos and documents from the Vietnam war and photos and documents from the civil rights movement. It was 50 years ago that Sam Johnson was shot down over Vietnam. It was 51 years ago that John Lewis made that historic trek from Selma to Montgomery and crossing over the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Most people don't realize today that Sam Johnson was imprisoned by the Vietcong for 7 years, 42 months of which he spent in solitary confinement, nearly beaten to death but never said a word. What an incredible American. John Lewis, nearly beaten to death by the Alabama police as he had the temerity to lock arms and cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge, faced with undaunted courage an unwelcoming crowd who could never deter the will of a movement that he is so identified with. To have the Bipartisan Policy Center recognize a conservative, a progressive, a Republican, a Democrat, people who served this Nation extraordinarily with their patriotism long before they ever got here, to have a medal named in their honor and to present that once in a biennium to deserving Members of this body, past and present, is a great notion. It demonstrates to the American people that at the end of the day it is not about conservative or liberal or it is not about Democrat or Republican, it is about the great nation that we serve. There are no more exemplary figures than Sam Johnson and John Lewis. John McCain will be presenting on behalf of Sam Johnson. No one understands what Sam Johnson endured better than Senator John McCain. Andrew Young will be speaking on behalf of John Lewis. He was alongside of John Lewis during that historic march. No one knows better what they endured. We are so fortunate to both have the Library of Congress but also to have David Rubenstein, who will be there, who will conduct an interview that evening with Sam Johnson and John Lewis. It will be a wonderful evening, made more special by what the Library of Congress will present in terms of what transpired 50 and 51 years ago respectively, but made greater by the presence of everybody here recognizing the great contribution of our colleagues, Sam Johnson and John Lewis. I look forward to having everybody on March 15 at the Library of Congress to recognize these two great American heroes.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Bipartisan Policy Center for establishing the Congressional Patriot Award and naming Sam Johnson and John Lewis as its first recipients. On March 15, at the Library of Congress, with David Rubenstein presiding, we will talk about their extraordinary lives and their contributions to this institution; wherein, they will be given a medal in their names which forevermore will be perpetuated by this body where both a Democrat and a Republican will receive this distinguished award based on the patriotism that they provided to their Nation. I cannot think of two more exemplary figures in this body than Sam Johnson, who was nearly beaten to death in the Vietcong and imprisoned for 7 years, 42 months of solitary confinement, and John Lewis, who was nearly beaten to death by the Alabama police after crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Please join us at the Library of Congress. We will be here on the floor every day with my co-chair, Tom Cole, to talk about this great event in their honor.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on January 12, 2016, I was not present for roll call vote 38. Had I been present, I would have voted Yay on roll call vote 38.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on January 8, 2016, I was not present for rollcall votes 23 through 33. If I had been present for these votes, I would have voted: ``aye'' on rollcall vote 23, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 24, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 25, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 26, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 27, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 28, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 29, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 30, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 31, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 32, and ``nay'' on rollcall vote 33. Personal Explanation Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on Friday, January 8, 2016. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``no'' on rollcall No. 23 (Cohen Amendment); ``no'' on rollcall No. 24 (Conyers Amendment); ``no'' on rollcall No. 25 (Deutch Amendment); ``no'' on rollcall No. 26 (Moore Amendment); ``no'' on rollcall No. 27 (Moore Amendment); ``no'' on rollcall No. 28 (Waters Amendment); ``no'' on rollcall No. 29 (Johnson Amendment); ``no'' on rollcall No. 30 (Jackson Lee Amendment); ``no'' on rollcall No. 31 (Nadler Amendment); ``no'' on rollcall No. 32 (Democrat Motion to Recommit); ``yes'' on rollcall No. 33 (Passage of H.R. 1927). personal explanation

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the PATH Act. While this is not a perfect bill, I join with the President in supporting this legislation as it represents clear progress for the American people. This legislation will permanently continue critical tax breaks to aid children and working families. It will permanently extend key provisions like the R&D tax credit and Section 179 expensing that will help our small businesses and manufacturers grow jobs and strengthen the economy. This bipartisan bill moves us forward as a nation both in terms of the benefits it provides and the signal it sends that it is possible for Congress to break the gridlock that has unfortunately engulfed Washington for too long. I am particularly proud that the permanent extension of the R&D tax credit that I sponsored along with Chairman Kevin Brady was included in this legislation. The R&D tax credit is a driver of innovation and economic growth, and making it permanent will provide the certainty American companies need to make the long-term investments in our nation and in our workers for technologies that will keep our global economic edge. The R&D credit, along with a permanent extension of the Section 179 expensing credit, will give businesses in Connecticut and across the country the stability they need in the tax code to move our economy forward. For children and working families, this legislation also offers a permanent extension of critical tax credits. The permanent extension of the Recovery Act enhancements of the EITC and CTC credits as well as the AOTC will ensure millions of working families across the country will continue to receive well-deserved tax breaks. Without this extension, by 2018, over 50 million individuals would have lost part or all of their credits. In Connecticut, 141,000 children in 42,000 families would lose access to part or all of their EITC or CTC credits. These provisions are absolutely critical and without them, I would not have been able to support this agreement. I wholeheartedly agree with my colleagues who have argued that the CTC should be indexed for inflation and while it is unfortunate that indexing is not included in this agreement, I will continue to fight for its inclusion on bills moving forward. In addition, this bill includes other important provisions, including a permanent extension of a deduction for teachers who purchase supplies for their classrooms as well as critical charitable provisions such as a credit for the donation of food inventory and a provision that allows for tax-free distributions from IRAs for charitable purposes. It also incorporates other bills that will help with economic development, like the New Markets Tax credit, the low income housing tax credit, and legislation ensuring tax relief for another year for homeowners who have had part of their mortgage debt forgiven. Finally, I want to thank the negotiators for including a bill that I co-authored with Rep. Sam Johnson--the Wrongful Convictions Tax Relief Act, which ensures that compensation awards received by those who were wrongfully accused are not subjected to federal taxes on their awards. I first introduced the bill with Mr. Johnson in 2007 following the exoneration of James Tillman in Connecticut. I was proud to co-author this bill with Mr. Johnson, a true American hero, which rights a tremendous wrong in the tax code. Individuals who have been wrongfully accused have already suffered enough, so the notion that they would be taxed on the awards they receive as a result of their wrongful imprisonment is unconscionable. Once again, I thank the negotiators for including this common-sense bill in this package. On the whole, this bill will provide tremendous benefits for children, working families, and economic growth in our country. I support this bill and look forward to its passage.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall vote 674. If I had been present for this vote, I would have voted: ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 674.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today, like so many Americans, we are in utter disbelief that our country is once again left reeling after yet another horrific massacre of innocent Americans. There is grave concern that this has become the norm. In fact, this is how the BBC characterized the shootings in California yesterday: Just another day in the United States of America--another day of gunfire, panic, and fear. This time in California. But it could have been, as it was last week, in Colorado, or in Arizona, or Oregon, or South Carolina, or Nevada, or Wisconsin, or D.C., or in Georgia, where it also transpired. In the capital city of Connecticut, in Hartford alone, there have been 28 deaths this year as a result of gun violence. In 11 days, we will be passing and observing the third anniversary of the mass murder of schoolchildren and their teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. In the 3 years since that tragic day in 2012, when many thought, ``Well now, finally now, this innocence, this slaughter of innocent children, surely there will be change. Surely the United States Congress will take a vote. Surely Congress will respond. They will take a vote. They will take action,'' but as we did then, we will do next week. We will stand in silence, a respectful and heartfelt silence, for victims of what happened in California and Georgia just yesterday. It is something this Congress repeats in such a way that the BBC characterizes it as just another day in America. In the 3 years since that tragic day in December, in fact, there have been an additional--additional--1,000 mass shootings in the United States of America. One thousand mass shootings in the United States of America--that averages almost a mass shooting per day--and yet not a single vote, not a vote. Irrespective of where you stand on the issue, in the great Chamber where the country looks to for leadership, not a single vote. Mr. Speaker, I want to put up this chart that I think graphically displays what has been going on in this country to illustrate a point-- a sad point, no matter how you view this chart. Between 2001 and 2013, guns killed more people in the United States of America than AIDS, illegal drug overdoses, wars, and terrorism combined. Gun violence has taken more individuals than all these other tragedies and calamities combined. Far more Americans have faced and, as the families of victims, they hear the remorse, they hear the platitudes, they observe the moments of silence and the laying of wreaths, but there is no action that comes from the United States Congress. These statistics should stagger anyone who reads them and compel Congress to take action, any action, to address this epidemic of gun violence. Now, I say ``any action.'' Whether you believe, as I do, that we should have commonsense, universal background checks so that we keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, and terrorists on a watch list, this is common sense. This is what I believe the Nation should be doing, and I believe, frankly, so do a majority of people in this Chamber and throughout this country, but we have yet to take a vote. We have yet, though there are bills on the floor, though they are bipartisan. At least the Senate, in a bill sponsored by Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Pat Toomey, put forward a reasonable proposition. Whether you believe that it is a panacea or not or that it will somehow help, or maybe not, aren't the citizens of this country, aren't the families of the victims entitled to a vote? What do we owe our constituents if not a vote? If the United States Congress continues to remain silent, as it has, I submit, we are complicit in these deaths every time we remain silent and every time we take no action. It doesn't take a lot of courage, frankly, to vote. We are protected in this building by police. We are surrounded by armed guards. There is nothing that threatens any Member of Congress from doing his constitutional responsibility to vote. What takes courage is what Officer Garrett Swasey did just last week, giving his life in the line of duty, defending and protecting people under siege. Mr. Speaker, do you want to talk about terrorist threats? There is real terrorism happening in America every day: more than 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, deaths on our streets due to gun violence. We could rush in a matter of days to this floor when an outrage occurred in Paris, rush to this floor in days with legislation to deal with refugees, and yet, in our own country, in our own cities across this Nation and throughout our States, can we not have a vote in Congress? I recognize and respect the fact that people will disagree and perhaps think that background checks are not necessary or won't solve the problem. Maybe that is true. I don't believe so. But aren't we entitled to a vote? Aren't those victims of those families entitled to a vote? Do their voices mean anything? If the vote fails, the body will have spoken, and if the vote succeeds, this body will have spoken also and will have an opportunity to see its results and observe it. Mr. Speaker, that is how this great body works. To be denied the opportunity to vote only, in my mind, makes us further complicit to the tragedies that are happening all across this country. Another day in America, another day of gunfire, panic, and fear. How about a day where Congress actually votes, where Members actually stand up and are accountable for what they say they believe in so no matter how you feel on this issue--and I truly respect people who disagree with me. But I would like to have the opportunity to vote the conscience of my constituency and the beliefs that I deeply hold. It would seem to me that, in this day and age, in this body, we ought to be able to do that. I recognize that there are probably not many people listening to my remarks right now, and I realize that Americans are incredibly frustrated with the United States Congress in general because of its inaction on so many levels. But I urge anyone who is listening across America, whether you are opposed to universal background checks or you are in favor of them, to call their Representatives and demand of them before they go home to enjoy the Christmas holidays, before we adjourn, that we take a vote on this issue. Demand that we show you where we stand on commonsense background checks. If you really believe in your position, what is there to hide from? We need to take a vote. Americans need to know where we stand. This isn't a profile in courage; this is our responsibility. This issue has been looked at, it has been studied, and it has supporters on both sides. There is a discharge petition on the floor, but, frankly, this bill ought to be brought to the floor and voted on. It should be voted on in the Senate Chamber. It is my understanding that Harry Reid will include it as an amendment. The Senate then will have voted twice, and the House remains silent. We need to vote. In this body, in this great Chamber, I would much rather be known by the votes I have taken than the speeches I have made, the press releases that have gone out, and the 30-second sound bites that will follow. I would like to be known, as I believe all Members of this body would, for the votes I have taken standing up on behalf of my constituents. Above the podium of the Speaker, there is a famous quote from Daniel Webster, and I paraphrase that quote. Webster asked aloud of all Members of this body whether, in our day and generation, we will perform something for which we will be remembered. I ask this body for a vote for which we will be remembered. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on November 3, 2015, I was not present for roll call votes 583 through 593. If I had been present for this vote, I would have voted: Nay on roll call vote 583, Nay on roll call vote 584, Yea on roll call vote 585, Yea on roll call vote 586, Nay on roll call vote 587, Nay on roll call vote 588, Yea on roll call vote 589, Nay on roll call vote 590, Yea on roll call vote 591, Yea on roll call vote 592, Nay on roll call vote 593.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Simon Konover, who passed away on October 20, 2015 in Delray Beach, Florida at the age of 93. Konover was the founder and patriarch of The Simon Konover Company and Konover South, a diversified, fully integrated real estate empire, based in West Hartford, Connecticut and Deerfield Beach, Florida. The Konover organization achieved national stature, based upon strong ethics and innovation. This family-owned business now spans three generations. The companies, established in 1957, have developed, constructed, owned and operated properties throughout the Midwest and Eastern U.S., stretching from Maine to Florida. The company's extensive portfolio has included shopping centers, hotels, residential communities, office buildings, industrial buildings, mixed use and specialty properties. Over the course of its history the Konover companies have owned and operated 15 million square feet of retail, 20,000 apartment units, 2 million square feet of office space, 4000 hotel rooms and more. Konover is also recognized as an exceptional philanthropist, as a pillar of both the national and Hartford Jewish communities, and as one of Connecticut's outstanding civic leaders. His deeds, accomplishments and commitment are legendary. His life was devoted to community, enormous generosity and kind deeds. A complete list of organizations that he was involved in, and honors received, could fill pages and are too numerous to recount here. A sampling: Konover is a Junior Achievement Laureate and member of its Business Hall of Fame. He was recognized as Hotelier of the Year by the Connecticut Lodging and Restaurant Associations. Konover was a trustee of the Doris and Simon Konover Family Foundation. He donated construction management services to Paul Newman's Hole in the Wall Gang Camp for seriously ill children in Ashford, Connecticut and also initiated the creation of an affiliated camp in Israel. Konover built campus housing at the University of Hartford, and along with his wife Doris, was instrumental in creating the Konover Campus Center there. They are founding supporters of the Center for Judaic Studies and Contemporary Jewish Life at the University of Connecticut, which among its numerous activities expanded its study of human rights. In addition to endowing that Center's first faculty chair, their other major donations to UCONN include the University Libraries, the Thomas J. Dodd Center, the Kosher Dining Center and UCONN Health Center. Konover received three honorary doctoral degrees: from UCONN, University of Hartford and Gratz College. Recognition of Konover's community contributions are countless and include the Prime Minister's New Life Award from the National Committee for Israel Bonds. He received the Distinguished Service Award to the Cause of Good Relations from the National Conference for Community and Justice. He is a founder of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. and served as President and Campaign Chairman for the Jewish Federation of Greater Hartford, where he was also honored as a Life Director. He received the JFACT Community Builder Award. He is a founding member of Beth El Temple in West Hartford and a major donor to the new Hebrew High School of New England in West Hartford and Hebrew University in Israel. Konover was born in the small shtetl of Makow Mazowieki in Poland, one of 8 children. At age 16 at the start of World War II in 1939, he was interned in a Nazi labor farm, where he survived unimaginable indignities. He narrowly escaped to Russia, where he was drafted into its army. He endured many hardships as a truck driver delivering supplies to the front line during the Battle of Stalingrad. He was imprisoned for one year in a Siberian hard labor camp until the war's end in 1945. Konover often stated that he ``lived minute to minute, not hour to hour.'' He survived the war with his brother Harold, but lost his parents, five siblings, brothers-in-law, nieces, nephews, extended family members, friends and his entire way of life in the Holocaust. In 1949 he immigrated to the United States, after first living as a refugee in France and Cuba. In the United States, he met his oldest brother David for the first time. David had left Poland before Simon was born. Konover fulfilled his desire to live a good, full and meaningful life. He chased and ultimately found his version of the American Dream. Konover leaves his wife Doris of 66 years. He is also survived by daughter and son-in-law Jane and Robert Coppa, his son and daughter-in- law Michael and Vicki Konover, and his son Steven Konover. He also leaves his four grandchildren Karen Coppa (with her husband Eric Kleinman), David Coppa, Kimberle Konover and Gregory Konover (with his wife Elise Konover), as well as three great-grandchildren.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on October 21, 2015--I was not present for rollcall vote 553. If I had been present for this vote, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 553.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, on September 29, 2015--I was not present for rollcall votes 521, 522, 523, and 524. If I had been present for these votes, I would have voted: ``nay'' on rollcall vote 521, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 522, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 523, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 524.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as we remember those we lost 14 years ago, I submit one of the most poignant expressions I've seen since that grave day. Written by Anjunelly Jean-Pierre as a letter to her mother, whose life was lost on 9/11, this moving tribute both shows how inspiring her mom was to her and how her memory will be everlasting. Letters to the Lost (Collected by Sheila Weller) On a clear day 10 years ago, nearly 3,000 people died. They were the sisters, brothers, boyfriends and mothers of young women who mourn them still--and who write intimate messages to them here. Dear Mommy, last night I made a whole chicken with vegetables for dinner. You would have been proud. My children, Brianna, seven, and Elijah, eight--the children you never met--loved it. When I cook, I remember the meals you made. I was the only kid who had manicotti for lunch on the first-grade school trip. Everyone else had a turkey or peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich, but you were then the housekeeper for an Italian family, so you learned to make things they liked. Eventually your cooking talent landed you--an immigrant from the Dominican Republic with an elementary school education who had to learn English from scratch--a chef's job at Cantor Fitzgerald, on the 105th floor of the World Trade Center. In the summer of 2001, I was planning to join the military. And then September 11 happened. It took me years to come to terms with the fact that you were gone. I actually kept your phone number in my cell phone until 2009! I had to keep you ``alive'' so that I myself could survive. But after you died, I tapped into the passion for cooking you'd instilled in me. I went to culinary school, then was a sous-chef on Emeril Lagasse's show Emeril Green. Now I have my own catering business. The meal my clients like best is the Dominican rice-and-peas dish you made me as comfort food. I guess the love and heritage comes through. I wish you could see your grandchildren. Brianna looks so much like I did at her age. As for Elijah, he has your perfectionism. I remember you said, ``Children should have names that are strong and great in meaning.'' I gave Brianna her middle name, Maxima, in honor of you. And to keep your spirit alive, every Friday night we have tea and a relaxing talk about life, just like you and I did, to mark the end of a long week of work and school. Being a single mom running a one-person business hasn't always been easy. I sometimes find myself driving boxes of cheesecakes and pound cakes to a customer and then dashing off to pick up the kids at school. But you, too, were a single mom, one who'd conquered so many challenges. You've remained my guiding force. And you always will be. Anjunelly Jean-Pierre, 29, of Dumfries, Virginia, lost her mother, Maxima. Today she is a mom and owner of Max & Jax Cafe.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I join my other colleagues from Arkansas, Maine, and Texas, who have stood here today in recognition of Pratt & Whitney aircraft. I am proud to say, however, that the headquarters for Pratt & Whitney aircraft is in East Hartford, Connecticut, where we keep the eagle flying. My father, my mother, during the Second World War, my brother, all worked at Pratt & Whitney aircraft. It continues to be not only the arsenal for democracy for this great Nation of ours, but a center of innovation and technology where we not only keep the eagle flying, but we also provide opportunities for jobs well beyond these 90 years. Pratt & Whitney alone, as a corporation, provides an education for every single one of its employees and not only pays for that education, it buys them the books and provides the time off to study so they can continue to do what they have always done, build dependable engines and be an excellent model of corporate behavior and continue to keep the eagle flying both in this country and around the globe.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, on June 24, 2015--I was not present for rollcall vote 382. If I had been present for this vote, I would have voted: ``yay'' on rollcall vote 382. Stated against:

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 90th anniversary of the Town and County Club in Hartford, Connecticut. This club was originally founded on May 21, 1925 as a private women's club and has continually flourished into an esteemed location for members to enjoy organized social, intellectual, and artistic gatherings. The first President of the club was Miss Anne Eliot Trumbull, and on the day of the first meeting of her Board, the Club had been incorporated with the assistance of attorney Barclay Robinson, under the name of `The Town and County Club, Incorporated'. The Articles of Association state the purposes for which the corporation was formed, and signed by the 16 subscribers present at the meeting. The Articles state: `For creating an organized center for women's work, thought and action; advancing the interests of women; promoting science, literature, and art; providing an accessible place of meeting for its members; promoting social intercourse by such means as the members of the corporation shall deem expedient and proper for that purpose, and for acquiring and maintaining and club house and grounds.' In a time when the most private club memberships were restricted to men, these women represented the voice and action for change by creating one of their own. In just five years after women's suffrage in 1920, women in the Hartford County area chose to congregate and soon created this popular club that would continue on and today, celebrate its 90th anniversary. It is my honor to congratulate the Town and County Club in Hartford, Connecticut.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here this evening to talk about and to follow two distinguished colleagues from California and Pennsylvania who spoke with great eloquence about the future, who were addressing the issue of student loans and student loan debt that we are experiencing all across the country. This evening, I am here to discuss Social Security. Currently, before the Ways and Means Committee, we are addressing the issue of Social Security that, as everybody knows, not only covers old age and survivorship, but also disability. That fund is due to expire in 2016 if Congress does not take action, due to be cut severely and have an impact on so many Americans. And yet all across this country, frankly, on a bipartisan basis on the committee and from without the committee, people are talking about coming up with solutions for Social Security. That is why we have introduced the Social Security 2100 Act. Why 2100? Well, because we want to make sure that the program of Social Security, which by law is required to make sure that it is solvent for 75 years, in fact, is, and that is what our proposal does. But I want to talk about this in terms of a pragmatic, practical, commonsense path forward to make sure that Social Security is not only there for seniors who are currently receiving it, but for future generations, as well. Social Security is uniquely the most indispensable plan that the government has been committed to. We have a slide that I would like to put up that demonstrates exactly how indispensable Social Security is. Today, two-thirds of seniors rely on Social Security for the majority of their income. Think about that for a moment. Of all the people that you know, of all the retirees that you are associated with, two-thirds of them rely on Social Security for a majority of their income. The median retirement account balance for all Americans--all Americans--is $2,500. Ask yourself, America: Is there anyone that could sustain themselves or a family or a spouse with $2,500 in their retirement accounts and savings? Only 14 percent of private sector workers are participating in defined benefit pensions. Well, what does that mean? That means that 86 percent of Americans are not. So what we are faced with in the United States Congress really isn't a Social Security problem, because we all know that Social Security works. Social Security has never missed a payment, and Social Security is there to both help people who are disabled, to help the spouse and the children who are survivors after an untimely death, and it is there in retirement and serves as a pension, as I said before, almost exclusively, for two-thirds of all of America. So simply stated, it makes no sense at all to cut Social Security. It makes no sense at all to raise the age of Social Security. Since 2008 and the Great Recession and the devastation that so many Americans went through, people who had worked hard and played by the rules and had invested their money in 401Ks, well, the reality is that they saw their 401K become a 101K. So it is long overdue for Congress to come together in a nonpartisan way to fully address this issue. At the start of this session, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle developed a rule. I commend them for this rule. The rule says that you can't just address, simply, disability with respect to the Social Security trust fund. You have to address both disability and old age and survivors' benefits collectively. That is the way the program has always been addressed, and I commend them for underscoring what is a retirement crisis and why we need to take these bold steps. I say ``retirement crisis'' because you saw the statistic before where only 14 percent of the private sector workers are participating in defined benefit contributions. That simply cannot sustain us. What this particular chart shows is that more seniors than ever are also paying taxes on their Social Security benefits. So we have this retirement crisis in which two-thirds of Americans are retiring with just about Social Security as their only means of moving forward, their only means of sustaining themselves. To further compound that problem, the way the Social Security Act was changed in 1983 has now found us in a situation in which taxable income over $25,000 for a single person is subject to being taxed and $32,000 for a married couple. This is only escalating as more and more baby boomers retire into the system. For example, in 1998--that was not that long ago--26 percent of all seniors came under this law and were taxed under the current law. Just last year, in 2014, that figure rose to 49 percent, and it is only growing. We need to address this issue. Why? Because more seniors, out of necessity, are finding themselves working--working to make up for the loss that they incurred from 2008 forward in their 401(k)'s and in their investment portfolios, working to make ends meet. One thing seniors understand and, I think, America understands is this: Social Security is not an entitlement. Certainly, you are entitled to Social Security payments; but why? You are entitled to them because they are the insurance that you paid for. It is the earned compensation that people, through their hard work and sweat of their brow, have put into the system. The system is called FICA, the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Those contributions have been made by all Americans, and as I said earlier, they remain the bulk work for the Nation's retirement program and are the safety net that prevents seniors from retiring into poverty, that allows them to exist. This is the time to focus on strengthening the Social Security Program. This is the time we should be talking about expanding the Social Security Program. It is because of the retirement crisis that we find ourselves here, not for lack of contribution, not for lack of effort, but because of the real economic conditions most families have found themselves in. That is why we introduced the Social Security 2100 Act. What does it do? First and foremost, it doesn't raise the national debt at all. It is completely paid for. How do we know this? Because we have an actuarial report. The chief actuary for Social Security has determined that it exceeds the 75-year limits in terms of its solvency so that Social Security will not only be here now, tomorrow, and well into the future, but Justin Bieber will be 106 years old, and Social Security will still be there for him and for those of his generation as well. It is that important and vital a program for our Nation so that it needs our very specific and direct focus and attention. With so many relying on Social Security, we also need to expand its benefits. We are proposing a modest 2 percent increase across the board, but we are also proposing what senior citizens know already, which is that the system that we have of calculating the COLA is inadequate and does not work. Most importantly, it doesn't reflect what seniors actually pay, what they actually have to go through in terms of the costs of heating their homes, of buying prescription drugs, and of paying for the escalating costs of food and heat and energy. We have devised a system--endorsed widely by groups that embrace it-- that we call the CPIE, the consumer price index based on the actual costs of the elderly, with the E standing for elderly in this circumstance. It makes sure that there are sufficient amounts of money that are there to provide for our senior citizens. The next thing that we do is to make sure that nobody can retire into poverty. We raise the minimum benefit to 125 percent of poverty, which would amount to--in so many cases, at the lower end of the economic scale--a 50 percent increase in benefits for the poorest amongst us. When I say ``poor,'' I mean the working poor, people who are pulled into the system. Again, this is not an entitlement. This is earned compensation. This is the insurance that so many have already paid for and why this has become so important and so vital a test. We also provide a tax cut for 11 million working seniors. Let me repeat that. We provide a tax cut for 11 million seniors. How do we do that? As we said earlier, people, out of necessity, have found themselves in this system. They have found themselves in a position in which, in retirement, they are finding themselves working. They work hard for their money, but as I said earlier, if they are single and if their combined incomes are more than $25,000, they are taxed. If they are a couple and their combined incomes are $32,000, they are taxed. These numbers are easily reached and are being exceeded, and that is why we are recommending the tax cut by raising those limits and by providing those to working seniors, and there is a value that they bring to all of our communities with the break that they need so that they can sustain themselves and can also continue to pay their way in retirement with the benefits that they have earned, with the benefits that they have paid for but that haven't kept pace with the economic times. It provides an across-the-board benefit increase of 2 percent for every senior, and it improves the cost-of-living adjustments by going to CPIE. As I said before, a new minimum benefit to ensure that no one who has paid into the system retires into poverty is flat out fair. You may ask: How do you pay for this? Certainly, at the outset of this, we made the boast that this is solvent into the next century, beyond the 75 years that is required, signed off by the Social Security chief actuary, who has determined the solvency of the program. How do we do this? First and foremost, we say that we ought to increase the contribution to the fund by 1 percent. Now, 1 percent may not seem like a lot; but, when you have the whole country contributing, in fact, it is. Even at that 1 percent level, though, we believe that, especially in dealing with the times in which we are today, we ought to phase that in over a 25-year period. What does that mean? What that means is that, for a worker who is making $50,000 a year, for 50 cents a week, as part of his or her contribution, they get the most valuable governmental program in the history of this Nation, the program that keeps people out of poverty, the program that for more than two-thirds of them is the only retirement vehicle that they will have, the program that is also there in disability and for survivors' benefits. We have so many Members in this body who can tell their stories about how they would not have made it without Social Security. Both the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Paul Ryan, and probably one of the foremost authorities on the issue, Richard Neal of Massachusetts, benefited from Social Security. It made it possible for their mothers to help them and their families into college and beyond, and look how successful both of them have been. This is America's story. This is about America coming together, and that is why it is around modest, pragmatic, straightforward proposals that don't shy away from the cost but address it head on, that address it head on in a simple, pragmatic, commonsense manner. These aren't taxes. These are contributions that people are making and that they are receiving a direct benefit from. It is unique amongst all of the programs that we have. Along with the 1 percent increase phased in over 25 years, which amounts to .05 percent, or 50 cents a week for someone earning $50,000 or more--less if you are earning less and a little bit more if you are earning more--we are also asking the top .4 percent to pay the same rate as everyone else. As you may know, Social Security is taxed currently only up to $118,000. After that, people stop paying into the system. What we are saying is: listen, the country is going through some difficult times. People, especially those who work hard and play by the rules--the working class, the middle class, who are suffering under this--we ought to give them a little bit of a break. Not until $400,000 do we start taxing Social Security again--excuse me--asking those who are paying into the system to pay the same rate as everybody else at that level. Only .4 percent, we ask to pay to make this fund solvent, in conjunction with raising the percentage by 1 percent, for the next 75 years and beyond. We keep Social Security strong for generations to come, and that is why this is such a vital and important benefit for this great Nation of ours. At the end of the day, what has made our country great, going back to those first settlers who all gathered together to help one another raise their homes and their barns and plow and sow and reap the benefits of their fields, Americans have rallied to come together, rallied with one another from the time the Thirteen Colonies formed the Union to today of our 50 States. Our States are unique, our States all have special qualities, but the one quality that we all share is that we are Americans. Social Security is America's program. It is what Roosevelt recognized, as did the Congresses back then, the importance of dealing in our system of entrepreneurialism and capitalism and risk taking, that that gives us an unbelievable strength in a global and world economy, but it has to be balanced off with the value and the notion that if you work hard and play by the rules that your Nation is there for you as well, and that you can't retire into poverty after working all your life, that some calamity or misfortune, a disability, a tragic death can't ruin you or your family because it is part of a larger family, the United States of America. God bless you. God bless America. Thank you for listening to this presentation. We have 56 original cosponsors of this bill, and we know all across this country, the more that we talk about this straightforward, commonsense, practical solution to Social Security, Americans are going to require that Congress steps up to the plate and meets its responsibility and obligation to make sure that no senior, no individual can retire into poverty, and the system that has worked so extraordinarily well for every American is there not only today and tomorrow, but well into the future without raising the national debt and only calling upon Americans to do what they have done traditionally: contribute to a program that guarantees a secure retirement and pension and benefits that they will reap throughout a lifetime. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Well, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Pennsylvania for their hard work in this subject matter area. Certainly we know that all credit debt combined is exceeded by the amount of debt that those who attend and receive a college education are currently bearing and the awful burden that that has created on the working members of the middle class and how difficult a burden it is, so I commend the gentlemen for their efforts here on the floor. First of all, it starts with our budget that we debated today in making sure that there are not cuts to Pell grants, but there are investments made in Pell grants. Frankly, as people talk about repatriation, that is, as both the gentlemen from Pennsylvania and California know, where money has been sent overseas, and there is a lot of talk about bringing money back and what will we do with that, what about a trust fund that will allow an opportunity for young people all across America to refinance and restructure their ability to pay off their college debt? It is not a novel idea. After all, isn't that what we did for Wall Street after 2008? Isn't that what we did to make sure that banks and financial institutions didn't fail? Shouldn't we do this for the human infrastructure, for all those hard-working families who have refinanced their home, who have gone into their personal savings, who are saddled with enormous amounts of debt? What a great thing for the country and how valuable that would be for people to once again be able to have completed a college education, place themselves in a position to be more productive members of society, but also in a position where they are not burdened with the debt that prevents them from carrying on a life, to get married, to purchase a first home, to buy a new automobile, all the things that help our economy grow, all the reasons that they went to college in the first place. So I commend the two gentlemen for their continuous work in this area, your support of the Democratic budget. What a great job that Chris Van Hollen did today articulating the values that this side of the aisle has been putting forward not only in terms of the morality of the issue, but also the economic impact that it has on so many working families. I hope that our distinguished colleagues from California and Pennsylvania will join us in the second hour in a discussion on all generations on Social Security.

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 rise today to pay tribute to the 2015 National Team Championship (NTC) Men's champions, the Trinity College Bantams. On Sunday, February 22, the men secured their 15th national title and Potter Cup. Their accomplishments continue to raise the standard for athleticism and achievement. I would like to congratulate each member of the team, Coach Paul Assaiante, and all the fans and supporters who made this great victory possible. Also, the Trinity's women's squash team deserves special recognition for their strong season under Coach Wendy Bartlett. I cannot communicate these achievements more articulately than the Hartford Courant did in its editorial published on February 23rd: Trinity College Bantams Rule Men's Squash Roost. I submit the text of that article. [From The Hartford Courant, Feb. 23, 2015] Trinity College Bantams Rule Men's Squash Roost Congratulations to Trinity College's men's squash team, which defended its home court Sunday and brought home its 15th national championship since 1998. The Bantams reclaimed the crown they have lost only lost four times in 19 consecutive finals appearances. Once the mouse that roared among the indoor racket game's longtime Ivy League establishment, Trinity has gone from upstart to pacesetter. Under the steady tutelage of coach Paul Assaiante, who has guided the team's remarkable rise to the squash elite, the Bantams won a handy 7-2 victory over St. Lawrence University, which was making its initial appearance in the national finals. It was the first time that no Ivy League team was in the Potter Cup finals since the championship began in 1989. Among college champions crowned since 1942, only the U.S. Naval Academy and Trinity have supplanted Ivy League schools as national champions. In a sign of the sport's broadening reach, the University of Rochester and Franklin and Marshall College were other non-Ivy contenders this year. Trinity's women's squash team, the 2014 national champions, deserves its own congratulations for a strong season that fell one win short of defending its title. The women, under coach Wendy Bartlett, lost in the national finals to the Harvard University women on Feb. 15.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on February 26, 2015--I was not present for rollcall vote 91. If I had been present for this vote, I would have voted: ``nay.''

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for roll call vote 59. If I had been present for this vote, I would have voted: Nay on roll call vote 59.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member, and certainly, I want to thank the chairman. I won't take the 2 minutes, but I want to thank them for their incredible cooperation on this most important of issues. Derek Denfeld, from my district, lost his life. There has been sadness and the coming together of the community. Our hearts go out to his wife, Heather; to his son, Felix; and certainly to his parents, Deb and Chris, whom I know personally. I thank the ranking member. I thank the sergeant major for his sponsorship of this bill, and I thank the ranking member and the chairman for what is an important piece of legislation. As noted, we can't wait another day for this to take effect.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.