John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, before I close, throughout the day, I am sure people observing have viewed us taking off and putting on our masks, et cetera. I would like to acknowledge a very special person from Mayberry Village in East Hartford, Connecticut, who made this mask and several like these and has distributed them out of the kindness of her heart and concern and care. Her name is Margaret Grady Ramsey from Mayberry Village in East Hartford, Connecticut. I thank Peg for all her hard work. Madam Speaker, in closing, I know that Dr. Ruiz has worked tirelessly on the BENES Act for many years. I thank him for his efforts. I also thank the Medicare beneficiary advocates, including the Medicare Rights Center and the Center for Medicare Advocacy, for their tireless work and support to find a solution to this longstanding problem. The gentlewoman from Indiana has also played a key role in this as well, and I want to make sure we acknowledge her as well. H.R. 2477, the BENES Act, provides significant long-term improvements to Medicare for millions of beneficiaries. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 7, 2020, I was unfortunately not present for rollcall votes 236 through 237. Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall vote 236 on passage Calling for the global repeal of blasphemy, heresy, and apostasy laws, as amended (H. Res. 512), and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 237 on passage of HBCU PARTNERS Act, as amended Act (S. 461). Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 965, 116th Congress Barragan (Beyer) Bera (Aguilar) Bonamici (Clark (MA)) Brownley (CA) (Clark (MA)) Cardenas (Cisneros) Castor (FL) (Demings) Cohen (Beyer) Costa (Cooper) Cunningham (Murphy (FL)) Dean (Scanlon) DeSaulnier (Matsui) Deutch (Rice (NY)) Doggett (Raskin) Frankel (Clark (MA)) Garamendi (Sherman) Grijalva (Garcia (IL)) Hastings (Wasserman Schultz) Jayapal (Raskin) Johnson (TX) (Jeffries) Kim (Davids (KS)) Kind (Beyer) Kirkpatrick (Stanton) Kuster (NH) (Clark (MA)) Lamb (Crow) Lawson (FL) (Demings) Lieu, Ted (Beyer) Lipinski (Schrader) Lofgren (Jeffries) Lowenthal (Beyer) Lowey (Tonko) McEachin (Wexton) Meng (Clark (MA)) Moore (Beyer) Mucarsel-Powell (Wasserman Schultz) Nadler (Jeffries) Napolitano (Correa) Pascrell (Pallone) Payne (Wasserman Schultz) Peters (Kildee) Peterson (Craig) Pingree (Cicilline) Pocan (Raskin) Porter (Wexton) Pressley (Cicilline) Price (NC) (Butterfield) Rouda (Aguilar) Roybal-Allard (Garcia (TX)) Ruiz (Dingell) Rush (Underwood) Schneider (Casten (IL)) Schrier (DelBene) Serrano (Jeffries) Titus (Connolly) Tlaib (Dingell) Trahan (McGovern) Vargas (Correa) Velazquez (Clarke (NY)) Watson Coleman (Pallone) Welch (McGovern) Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I was not in attendance to cast votes on consideration of the Defense, Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government, Homeland Security, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2021 (H.R. 7617) and the related amendments. Had I been present, I would have vote YEA on Roll Call No. 174; YEA on Roll Call No. 175; NAY on Roll Call No. 176; NAY on Roll Call No. 177; and YEA on Roll Call No. 178.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7617, the Defense, Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2021. This defense funding package continues to make strong investments in our nation's national security and in turn Connecticut's robust defense manufacturing base. It also includes a needed pay raise for our troops. Thousands of Connecticut residents work on programs supporting our military and many more benefit from economic activity these contributions bring to our state. This funding will help spur Connecticut's economy during these difficult times and secure thousands of jobs at larger employers like Pratt & Whitney and hundreds of smaller suppliers across the First District and the state. Throughout the years, the Connecticut delegation has worked hand in glove with suppliers, companies, and educators to bring Connecticut to the forefront of advanced manufacturing. The Delegation, led by Joe Courtney and Rosa DeLauro, have worked hard to ensure not only the manufacturing base, but the supply chain remain on top. This was recently demonstrated in the Hartford Courant, which cited a Pew Charitable Trusts Study that said: `Pentagon contract spending powers Connecticut to No. 1 in US.' This builds on the work of the F-35 Joint Strike fighter caucus which I'm proud to co-chair. This is good news for our supply chain and economy during a time when commercial spending is down. These military contracts will keep these jobs going. In addition to the vital funding that directly contributes to our state, this package fights back against the President's ill-conceived border wall, by preventing the use of Defense funds being used for the wall. It also ensures that the President cannot go to war without Congress's authorization by prohibiting funds from being used in contravention of the War Powers Resolution. It specifically prohibits funds for any use of military force in or against Iran and repeals both the 2001 and the 2002 war authorizations. The power to go to war lies with Congress, not the President. These are important provisions to ensure the Executive Branch does not overstep its authority. The passage of the FY 2021 Labor-HHS Appropriations package is a win for millions of Social Security beneficiaries. It blocks a proposed rule that would dramatically increase the frequency of continuing disability reviews. These reviews can be extremely difficult for individuals with severe disabilities to navigate and can lead to wrongful loss of Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits when they are unable to complete the complex process. This rule was an attempt to throw beneficiaries off the rolls. The bill also blocks a Trump Administration proposed rule to deny individuals their right to appeal a denial of Social Security or SSI benefits before an Administrative Law Judge. I am thankful for the leadership of Chairwomen Nita Lowey and Rosa DeLauro for making this happen. Chairwoman DeLauro always fights for the least among us and she continued that with this bill.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Neal. What an honor to be here with the Committee on Ways and Means' family. They said pictures are worth a thousand words, and I am going to try to go through these as rapidly as I can. The first picture is my son and daughter, who came--as Mike was just explaining as part of his family--to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, but they had to be back in school the next day and so they couldn't actually march across the bridge that Sunday. John said: Wait a minute. That won't do. He put them in a car and drove them out there, and for 20 minutes talked to them about that experience and what it was. And it was very tense, very graphic, the violence that he endured and what they went through. And I could see both my daughter and my son looking at him, and they were taking it all in. And my daughter, very innocently--she was 13 at the time--said: Mr. Lewis, did you ever have any fun? And John Lewis put his head back and had the broadest grin. He said: Well, sure, darling, we did. You know, at night we used to go back and we would pitch our tents, and we would make campfires, and we sat around and told stories. And we sang and we danced. He said: I can still see Andy Young in his coveralls doing the jitterbug, and he could dance. Andy Young in his coveralls doing the jitterbug. Madam Speaker, I will include in the Record our other items, but this iconic photo says it all about John Lewis. Madam Speaker, on the day that we passed the Affordable Care Act, the day before, he had been spat on. So was Reverend Cleaver, and so were others who were walking over here to vote on that bill that day. But John Lewis said: No--we had a caucus that morning with President Obama--he said: Say nothing of this. Remember that during the movement, we cast this aside. This is a distraction. Don't be taken in by this crowd. We learned about it the next day. And at that caucus I asked him to get up and address the caucus. And he said: Let's stay calm. Let's stay together, and let's make sure that we keep our eye on the prize. He went to walk away from the microphone, and then he stepped back, and he said: 45 years to the day, we marched from Selma to Montgomery, he said, and let me tell you, we faced far worse crowds than are out here today. So let's lock arms. Let's go across that street and pass that bill. And we did.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, there are no words to describe the pain that many Americans are feeling right now as we grapple with the loss of our conscience, our friend, our inspirational leader, John Lewis. I am heartbroken. I am honored and humbled to have served alongside him, to have had him take my children, as he has done for so many Americans in the Faith and Politics movement through a historic march in Selma, across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. During one of those trips I was lucky enough to have my daughter Laura and son Ray join me. Because of school obligations, they had to leave early and were going to miss the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. John wasn't about to let that happen. He took the three of us in his car with him and we drove through Selma, as he told them what it was like and what he went through. They were both entranced by him and the story he was telling that was filled with graphic violence of what they endured as they fought for equal rights. At the end of it, my daughter Laura, who was about 14 years old at the time, struck by what he had just told her, rather innocently asked him, ``Mr. Lewis, did you ever have fun?'' There was a pregnant pause and then John got the biggest smile on his face. He told us that yes, they did. ``And in fact, at night, we'd pitch our tents and sit around campfires and we'd sing and dance,'' he said. His smile then got broader as he remembered. ``I can still see Andy Young doing the jitterbug in his coveralls. And he could dance . . . he could dance.'' Despite everything John endured, they were still young and full of life. One of the most inspiring memories I have of John Lewis is from 2009, when we were fighting to pass the Affordable Care Act. The day before we passed the bill, hateful protestors spewed racial slurs and spit on John Lewis, Andre Carson, and Emmanuel Cleaver. Tensions were high after that. The next day at Caucus, I asked John to speak. He brought the Caucus to its feet, evoking the Civil Rights movement. He said: ``Pay no attention to what went on yesterday. We have to learn, as we did in the Civil Rights Movement, to look past this and keep our eyes on the prize. So, I ask you to stay calm and stay together.'' As he was walking away from the mic, he paused, and then he stepped back up and said, ``Forty-five years ago, I walked across the Edmund Pettus bridge arm in arm with fellow citizens who believed strongly in Civil Rights. We faced far more difficult crowds than we are facing out here today. Let's lock arms and go across the street and pass this bill.'' And we did. We marched across the street, through the protesters and passed the bill. In 2016, I worked with John to take another stand. This time, we were calling for a vote on the House floor on a bill to address the epidemic of gun violence in America. After the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, the House didn't take a single vote to address gun violence, until Democrats took the majority in 2019. In 2016, after the shooting at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, John and the rest of the Democratic Caucus had had enough. He called on the Caucus to join him in causing some 'good trouble'. With that, we held a sit-in on the House floor demanding justice. Most recently, we worked together to strengthen Social Security. Social Security is our nation's number one anti-poverty program and is a lifeline for millions. It needs to be strengthened so it's there for future generations too. Last summer we stood together outside the Capitol highlighting how important these benefits are for seniors, especially for Black seniors. He said: `I grew up in rural Alabama, 50 miles from Montgomery, outside a little town called Troy, and I remember how seniors lived before they had Social Security. Most of the seniors in my district in Georgia depend on Social Security for the majority of their income. Without it almost half of Black and Latino seniors in this country would be living in poverty. That's not right, that's not fair, and it's not just. Social Security is more than a right, it is a promise. A promise people paid into to secure their future. We can do better, we can do much better.' This year, even when battling cancer, he continued this fight. I've been proud to call John Lewis a friend over my time in Congress. In 2016, I was honored to work with the Bipartisan Policy Center and Representative Tom Cole to establish the Congressional Patriot Award. John Lewis and Sam Johnson, who passed away earlier this year, were the first recipients. They were both authentic heroes. One held in captivity by the VietCong and tortured and nearly beaten to death; the other held captive by the Alabama Police, clubbed and beaten. They both had a genuine focus on doing for others, not themselves. They were humble, gracious, and kind, yet warriors for their cause. John Lewis has forever changed our country. His legacy will live on in the policies and lives he changed. We must continue to follow his lead and cause good trouble.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today thank Chairman Neal and Chairman Thompson for their work on the GREEN Act, included in H.R. 2. As a longstanding proponent of utilizing the tax code to support green energy, I am thrilled that this legislation extends and expands tax incentives that have a proven track record of increasing deployment of these technologies. In particular, this legislation is a win for the fuel cell vehicle industry in Connecticut and nationwide. Light-duty fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles that generate electricity onboard through an electrochemical reaction of hydrogen, not combustion. These cars emit zero carbon, zero NOx, zero SOx, and zero particulate matter from the tailpipe, and are capable of traveling 300 to 400 miles on a tank of fuel, with refueling in just three to five minutes. This technology is one of the most promising avenues to reduce emissions in the medium and heavy-duty sector. The GREEN Act extends the expiring alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit (30C), a necessary incentive to build-up a hydrogen refueling network to make widespread adoption possible. Additionally, the legislation modifies the credit to better support electric vehicle charger deployment. I look forward to working with Chairman Neal, Chairman Thompson, and the Ways and Means Committee to similarly ensure that the 30C credit is optimized for fuel cell vehicle infrastructure and to continue broader efforts towards supporting clean energy technology.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor former Congressman, War Hero, and Chairman of the Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Sam Johnson. Sam Johnson was an iconic American war hero. He epitomized the stoic silence and toughness needed to persevere through his captivity by the Viet Cong. He was a decent, caring, and humble American whose nobility was measured by his actions, not his words. Engraved above the Speaker's rostrum in the House of Representatives it says, `that we may in our day and generation perform something worthy to be remembered.' Sam Johnson lived up to that. He would look you in the eye and his word was his bond. He never sought the limelight; he always just sought to do what was right. Johnson served 29 successful years in the Air Force and spent seven of those years as a prisoner of war. He shared many stories from the years he was held captive. Johnson was a staunch patriot, often expressing his deeply held patriotism as cause for his civil service. A result of his dedication, he was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legions of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, one Bronze Star with Valor, two Purple Hearts, four Air Medals, three Outstanding Unit Awards, and the Freedom of Flight award. As a sincere supporter of the military, Johnson worked to enact the Military Family Tax Relief Act of 2003, which increased benefits to members of the armed forces and their families. Johnson represented Texas for almost 28 years, the oldest Member of Congress, when he retired in 2019. Serving as the Chair of the Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee, Johnson was committed to Social Security solvency. He never wavered on the importance of our seniors retiring securely and often expressed concern for future beneficiaries. I was privileged to serve as the Ranking Democrat alongside Sam Johnson during his time as Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee and will always cherish the friendship we formed. In 2016, Johnson rightfully received the Congressional Patriot Award alongside John Lewis. They were the first recipients of the award. It was presented to them by two other American heroes, Ambassador Andrew Young Jr. and the late Senator John McCain. Johnson and Lewis are two giants of American history and are reminders that patriotism knows no party. I was honored to have a part in celebrating them both that night. America and the United States Congress lost a true hero with his passing. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family. He will be dearly missed.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I would like to include in the Record the following article honoring Elizabeth S. Ellis, the longtime influential publisher of Connecticut's Journal Inquirer newspaper, who passed away on May 4, 2020. Dedicating 53 years of her life to the Journal Inquirer, Ellis successfully expanded the small, local newspaper from five to eighteen towns. She notably broke gender barriers by directing the paper when few women were afforded leadership roles in journalism. What impressed me the most was how she was able to, in a relatively short period of time, rival the State Paper of Record the Hartford Courant. She attracted talented journalists including the state's leading sports writer, Randy Smith and editorial page editor and writer, Chris Powell. Elizabeth Ellis' dedication to her community is commendable, and I believe it deserves recognition. [From the Journal Inquirer] Portrait of a Lady, and Us (By Keith C. Burris) Seekers look for teachers. They sit at the feet of those who can teach them something about how to live. My Uncle Tom, at whose feet I sat for a time (actually we sat in deck chairs on a high-rise balcony drinking gin), was an old test and fighter pilot with an eye for character and detail. He called me ``little grasshopper'' when I was in college. But I want to tell you about another person who taught me, and did so for 21 years, never once in didactic fashion. Her name was Elizabeth Ellis, and she was my boss, mentor, friend, life coach, and master teacher for all those years, at the Journal Inquirer. Betty died this week at the age of 92. The first thing she taught me was to be independent--to steer my own path and not to be intimidated. I never saw or heard her worry about ``what people might say'' or think. She had a worldview. I would call it Roosevelt liberalism, but this worldview was as practical and subject to empirical testing as it was principled. She was an intellect, but she did not live in the world of abstraction. She lived in the world of the possible. An early lesson in her independence and pragmatism was the case of two young, inexperienced cops shooting and killing a man who was high and charged at them, threatening to take them out. He had a knife, but was otherwise unarmed. I wanted to hammer the cops in an editorial. I wanted to say their lives were never at risk and they should have shot the guy in the foot or leg. And, anyway, their superiors should not have sent two green cops on this call. These were not unreasonable positions. Betty quietly asked me some questions: Had I considered the dilemma from the young cops' point of view? How long did they have to think? What information did they have? What did I know about the size, distance, and disposition of the man who came at the cops? And, most devastatingly, had I ever tried to shoot someone in the foot or leg? Had I ever been in a situation remotely similar? Did I know anyone who had? This was my lesson in empathy, with side tutorials in balance, skepticism, and judgment. I never thought of Betty as a religious person. But she was a deeply sensitive person and a profoundly Jewish person. Hence her innate sense of justice and understanding. I never once saw her get emotional or sentimental, but she walked me though the death of my father, and the long illness and death of my mother, as no one else did--with the blessed assurance of the psalmist. Or maybe just a mom. She once told me that a newspaper should be a place where a person could go when he has exhausted all other options--the paper should be the recourse of last resort. The third thing I learned from her was a sense of fun. Yes, she regarded journalism as a high calling. But there is no sense in owning or producing a daily newspaper, she thought, if you don't have some fun--afflicting the comfortable as well as comforting the afflicted. Every day. And we did have fun. We laughed a lot and rattled a lot of cages. And we regularly surprised people. And formed no permanent alliances. (We didn't endorse in political races.) We took the work seriously but ourselves not so much. We had a feisty little newspaper. At one time, when such things were possible, the JI was the fastest growing paper in New England. The paper's motto was: ``We tell it like it is, somebody has to.'' Betty set the tone and tenor. She was rightly called, in her JI obit, ``the soul'' of the paper. She drew the boundaries and let us all roam within. She never stopped being a fan of good journalism or good writing and she was lavish with praise when she thought any one of us reached the top. But occasionally she would intone, always with a wry smile, ``remember, it's my sandbox.'' She relished being the underdog and she loved a good fight. She adored jazz and theater and she liked cocktails, and sentences, that packed a punch. Her wit was sharp and dry and her composure eclipsed the truth that she was actually tough as nails. But she was also, in every sense of the word--a word in unfortunate retreat these days--a lady. And when I say tough, I refer not only to things she endured in life--loss, pain, the ruthlessness of age--but a certain mental toughness about the world. She was an old- fashioned progressive, but there was nothing of what we would today call ``woke'' about her. Not one ounce of preciousness or virtue signaling. And when I think about her I wonder if we have lost all rigor, both in our profession and in our society. What would she think about an entire economy shut down; a whole society sheltering in place, ad infinitum? Maybe that it is good that we are starting to reopen America; good that we are starting to come out. Maybe she would say that risk is part of life and we take a risk every time we leave the house or turn the key in the car. And who wants to live in a society where you can't shake hands or hug your kid or visit your aging mother or your newborn granddaughter? Life is risk. And either you risk or you live by fear. Elizabeth Ellis took risks. It seemed to me she was never afraid.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act. Our nation's health and economic recovery are inextricably linked during this pandemic. Today's vote is another win in the fight against the coronavirus. This legislation strengthens the Paycheck Protection Program by allocating an additional $310 billion in funding, with money reserved for community-based lenders, small and medium-sized banks, and credit unions to reach more small businesses. It also includes vital funding for our hospitals and health care workers and money for much needed testing. While today's additional funding is a win, much more needs to be done. Without additional measures for testing, tracking, treatment, and ultimately a vaccine, we won't overcome this crisis. We must also do more to help individuals suffering from the impact on the economy, as well as non-profits not covered under the CARES Act, and state and local governments who have been devastated by lost revenues and protect essential workers.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 6494.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Chamber about one of the most important issues that the Nation faces, and that issue has only been underscored by the issue of the coronavirus, and also by the issue of inequality that exists today in this great country of ours, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. I am pleased to announce the number of people who have risen and come to support Social Security 2100. It is called Social Security 2100 because we address the needs of Social Security into the next century so that Social Security will be solvent beyond 75 years and address the vital concerns of each and every American. In 2019, 64 million Americans received Social Security benefits totaling over $1 trillion. For nearly one-third of our elderly beneficiaries, Social Security benefits are 90 percent of their total income. Two-thirds rely on Social Security for the majority of their income. The average benefit in 2019 per American was $17,600 for retired workers, and that works out to be about $18,000 for men and $14,000 for women--not enough for most to live on. Mr. Speaker, 178 million Americans are covered by Social Security today; 10,000, baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security. Social Security helps lower and middle-income Americans the most. More than 90 percent of benefits go to beneficiaries earning less than $50,000. Let me repeat that again: more than 90 percent of all the benefits of Social Security go to people earning less than $50,000 a year. That is why the following individuals have supported the Social Security 2100 Act, including: Social Security Works, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the AFL-CIO, the Alliance for Retired Americans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, VoteVets, the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Latinos for a Secure Retirement, the National Organization for Women, SAGE, the National Education Association, The Arc of the United States, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers representing the Administrative Law Judges, Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities Social Security Task Force, Justice in Aging, the Association of University Centers on Disabilities, Senior Citizens League, the National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives, the EPI Policy Center, the National Retiree Legislative Network, Public Citizen, CREDO Action, Progress America, Other 98, the Daily Kos, People's Action, the Diverse Elders Coalition, the National Employment Law Project, Freedom to Prosper, MoveOn, Union Veterans Council of the AFL-CIO, just to name a few, Madam Speaker. I want to start today by talking about having Secretary Mnuchin before the Ways and Means Committee this morning. I reminded Secretary Mnuchin and complimented the President for saying in his last two State of the Union messages how he was committed to protecting Social Security. While he is committed to protecting Social Security, his budgets have not reflected that, which was a point of concern we raised with Secretary Mnuchin especially since--to give President Trump credit here--that during the campaign of 2016 when faced with 16 other Republicans who tried to force him to say that Social Security is an entitlement, President Trump, to his credit, said: No, Social Security is an earned benefit. I asked Secretary Mnuchin if he believed that Social Security was an earned benefit, and he said: Yes, it was. I also asked then, if that is the case, and it is an earned benefit, it debunks a longstanding concern raised by the other side that Social Security is somehow an entitlement program when, in fact, every American citizen knows, because of FICA, exactly what Social Security is. FICA stands for the Federal Insurance Contribution Act, but anyone can go to their pay stub and look at it. Federal Insurance Contribution--whose contribution? Your contribution; every American citizen's contribution. It is not a tax. The tax that is paid by an employer to your benefit is fully deductible. The employer gets to deduct it. The benefit for your contribution goes directly to the employee, and they get that in the way of pension guarantee, disability protection, spousal and dependent coverage, and a death benefit. The wisdom of Franklin Delano Roosevelt is also prescient because they realized back in 1929, after the Great Depression, in this great capitalistic and entrepreneurial society that we live in, that sometimes, through no fault of your own, when something as disastrous as a stock market crash or an unanticipated virus takes place, that disaster can prevail, and all of a sudden, you would find yourself in a situation where you had not the means. Thus, Congress, because of President Roosevelt, adopted the Social Security Act and paid for it through the Federal insurance contribution. So this contribution, every citizen knows that it is their contribution that they make. I commended President Trump for having said that, debating his other Republican opponents. But to date, the administration has not produced a plan that will protect Social Security, that will, in fact, expand Social Security the way it needs to be. In fact, the last time Social Security was expanded, there was a Republican President, a Republican Senate, and a Democratic House. The Democratic Speaker was Tip O'Neill. He led that effort. The leader of the Social Security movement was Robert Dole. The Senate majority leader was Howard Baker. And the President was Ronald Reagan. They understood, bipartisanly, that this is the American people's number one insurance program, the number one antipoverty program. You know what? We don't even have to go back to 1929 to understand the impact and the need for Social Security. History and historians are replete with the stories of the great crash. We have to go back only as far as 2008 because, in 2008, this country experienced the Great Recession. Since that recession, many Americans saw their 401(k)'s become 101(k)'s, and 90 percent of the American people have not recovered their wealth and assets that they lost in the recession of 2008. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker: 90 percent of Americans have not recovered their wealth and assets from 2008. During that time, when many lost everything, and companies turned away from defined benefit contributions and were getting out of the pension business, during that same time period, Social Security never missed a payment. Social Security never missed a pension payment, never missed a disability payment, never missed a spousal or dependent coverage payment, because it is the full faith and credit of the United States Government and the Nation's number one insurance plan and the Nation's number one antipoverty plan. Most recently, our dear colleague John Lewis reminded us--and in June 2019 he rolled out, along with Danny Davis, Linda Sanchez, Terri Sewell, Gwen Moore, Jimmy Gomez, and other members of the Committee on Ways and Means--the fact that Social Security is a civil rights issue as well, a civil rights issue that has long gone unaddressed. It has been more than 37 years since Social Security was last fixed, and that was under Tip O'Neill, Ronald Reagan, and Howard Baker. It has been more than 50 years since Social Security was enhanced. Do you think things have changed for people in 37 years and in 50 years? Every American listening to this understands that that is the case. They have faithfully paid into this earned benefit and have gotten, in return, a benefit, but one that needs to be changed and modified in a way that is sustainably solvent into the next century and enhanced in the following ways that people like Danny Davis have advocated. Here are the four ways that we enhance Social Security. Number one, we make sure that no one can retire into poverty. In the wealthiest nation in the world today, fellow American citizens who have paid all their quarters into Social Security, who have worked all their lives, receive a Social Security check that is below the poverty level. Most of them happen to be women, and most of them happen to be women of color. It is the shame of this country that in the midst of the great prosperity and wealth and, frankly, in the midst of handing out a $2 trillion tax cut of which 83 percent went to the Nation's wealthiest 1 percent, that we could not find the will and the way to help out those who have worked all their lives and paid into the program. This is no handout. This is someone who, by the sweat of their brow and their work, earned a benefit that hasn't actuarially kept pace, because, in 1983, they didn't index it the way they should have. No one who has paid in their quarters should suffer for a mistake made by Congress. Congress needs to correct that so now the new floor for Social Security will become 125 percent of what the poverty level is so that no one who works their whole life and pays in their quarters can retire into poverty. The second thing we do is make sure that there is a 2 percent across- the-board increase. Nobody gets wealthy on Social Security. On average, a male earns approximately $18,000 in Social Security payments and a female $14,000. Nobody is getting wealthy on Social Security. It is the subsistence amount of money necessitated to make ends meet. So, a modest 2 percent increase will be spent right back into the very communities that they live in. On average, every congressional district has 145,000 people who receive Social Security. In each one of our 435 districts, 145,000 people will be spending money back in those communities. Recognize that this is an economic stimulus bill. In fact, most recently, Jason Furman, coming before the Committee on Ways and Means, talked about this as an economic stimulus, as has Larry Summers and other economists who have taken a look at the ways we need to stimulate our economy by making sure that those amongst us who need the money most and who spend that money directly back in the community on the necessities of life--like heating and cooling their homes, providing the fuel that allows them to operate their automobiles, making sure that they have food and nutrition and physical therapy, and paying for doctor visits and also prescriptions--this is what we are doing to expand this bill with a 2 percent increase and then also making sure that there is a COLA that reflects the actual costs that people incur. How so? A COLA, which the AARP calls CPIE, with ``E'' standing for elderly, but I would also say standing for the essential benefits that the elderly need. Again, heating and cooling your home, prescription drugs, doctor visits, physical therapy, the very food that you put on your table, these are essential for life. That is what should go into figuring out what your COLA is, and that is what this bill reflects. The bill also reflects the idea that a lot of people continue to work beyond retirement age. But most people don't realize that if you are single and making more than $24,000, your Social Security is taxed. If you are a married couple and making more than $32,000, your Social Security is taxed. Again, back in 1983, they didn't index this. We changed that. We indexed Social Security. Now, 12 million Americans will get a tax break because of that. Making sure that no one can retire into poverty, having a modest 2 percent across-the-board increase, having a COLA that reflects your actual expenses, and providing a tax break is at the core of this bill. In the new and added improvements of the bill, including those led by Danny Davis to make sure that grandmothers and grandparents, to make sure that students, to make sure that widows are getting extra money to raise the children that they are responsible for was also included in this legislation, as well as introducing an earned income tax credit so that nobody earning $50,000 and below will have to pay an increase in taxes and in contributions, to make sure that the money is going where it is needed the most, to help people at the lower end of the pay scale to get the kind of benefits that the Social Security 2100 Act provides. And with that, Madam Speaker, I am going to yield to the gentleman from the great State of Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), as I like to refer to him--as I have heard no better voice in Congress--the voice of God.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. He is a smart man.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Well, first of all, thank you very much. I deeply appreciate your efforts, Mr. Davis. And I love the story about your father, because that just demonstrates the dignity and the worth of a lifetime of work. But, still, he wanted to pay, he wanted to continue to contribute, because he knew how important it was. And it wasn't any handout. He worked for it all of his life. He contributed into it. Now we are faced with a decision in Congress on our watch, not sometime down in the future, but now. For you up there listening in the audience, as we speak, this year, Social Security will start paying out more money than it is taking in. It hasn't been adjusted in 37 years. There is nothing that you can leave untouched that requires actuarial attention--and, specifically, the attention of Congress--that, left untouched, will continue to flourish. And yet Social Security has never missed a payment, not for disability, not for spousal or dependent coverage, and not for a pension. It is America's insurance plan. It is our number one antipoverty program as well. That is why I am so grateful that Danny and others have pointed this out as a civil rights issue, as well, because of the way, for so long, people of color, especially Black males, have been discriminated against. Also, when you look at women and you understand that, for women of color, they are receiving 56 cents for every dollar their White male counterparts were--80 cents for White women, 53 cents for Hispanic women--that is simply unfair. In this day and age, we can correct that, and we can do it simply by doing what Roosevelt asked us to do: Make a contribution. What does that contribution go towards? It goes towards a pension, a disability payment, dependent coverage, and a spousal benefit. That is a pretty good deal. You can't buy that anywhere in the private sector. I come from one of the insurance capitals of the world, where, when you went to insurance school, they taught you about the three legs on the stool; and the most important leg on that stool was Social Security, because that was the floor, that was the safety net which nothing could fall through. We don't ever want to see another crash like 1929. But, again, understand, since 2008, 90 percent of Americans are struggling because they haven't recovered their wealth and assets. Sixty-eight percent of all millennials, who will need Social Security more than baby boomers, have only Social Security to rely on. They have no pension or 401(k). While we should do everything to make that more possible, the plausible reality and what government can do is at hand: First and foremost, make Social Security solvent; and then, secondly, make sure it is solvent for more than 75 years and addresses baby boomers and millennials and future generations, and does so with modest benefits that end the inequality that exists but also provides basic economic sustenance so that our economies can thrive. Both Jason Furman and Larry Summers, and, I think, Secretary Mnuchin would even agree with this today. They were talking about, in the face of the coronavirus--which, by the way, is age-related and will impact the elderly and people in the age groups of 60 to 70 and 70 to 80 far more than it will impact any other generation, and it will do so in a way that they better have the wherewithal--they were talking about means to stimulate the economy. The number one way to stimulate the economy is to give those modest benefits to the very people--145,000, on average, in every congressional district--so those modest benefits are spent directly right back into the communities that they live in for the necessities of life that are needed to sustain their existence. Would you agree, Dan?

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Exactly.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. We do, and it is on our watch. I can't emphasize this enough. For every Member of Congress and every person out there in America who is listening to C-SPAN right now or to this program: It is on our watch. It is our responsibility. We cannot continue to kick the can down the road. Doing nothing means a 20 percent cut to people's benefits. Let me repeat that again. Doing nothing means a 20 percent cut to people's benefits. Now, there are some who are fine with that, but most, on both sides of the aisle, are not in favor of that. Here is what the polling data shows. It shows that Social Security is bipartisan. Seventy-seven percent of Americans--84 percent of Democrats, 69 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Independents--said that they would be willing to pay a little more to make sure that their benefits are not cut and that they are protected and expanded. Also, 91 percent of workers and 94 percent of retirees would feel betrayed--that is 91 percent of workers, 94 percent of retirees would feel betrayed--if the money they paid into Social Security was not available to them. A Gallup poll found, this most recent one, that Social Security ranked fourth amongst the things that keep people up at night and worried with respect to their security, fourth in importance after education, healthcare, and their financial security--and they often lump financial security and Social Security together. I would just like to close. I mentioned Jason Furman, who was the former Obama National Economic Council Adviser, and Larry Summers, the former Clinton Treasury Secretary--both were serving up at Harvard--who have written extensively about the importance of making sure, as an economic stimulus and out of necessity, that we make the improvements that should have been made 37 years ago but desperately need to be taken up today, not only for current generations and baby boomers retiring, but for millennials and future generations. Alicia Munnell, the current Director for the Center for Retirement Research, former member of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, former Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy, and former senior vice president at the Federal Reserve in Boston, said we have to protect Social Security: Policymakers should fix Social Security by raising, incrementally, over time, the money necessitated to do it. It doesn't come from heaven. We need to maintain benefits. People don't have anything else other than their 401(k)s, and a specific portion of the population doesn't even have those. Social Security is the forced savings plan that people have paid into and have counted on, and, as I have said before, it has never missed a payment. Monique Morrissey, economist from the Economic Policy Institute: ``Expanding Social Security . . . ensures steady contributions; it keeps costs low and prevents leakage; and it pools longevity risk. Moreover, Social Security's pay-as-you-go financing . . . provides an internal rate of return tied to economic growth . . . but without the gyrations.'' Dean Baker, senior economist for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, if Social Security 2100 becomes law, ``it would both improve the program's benefit structure and its financial picture. . . . After adjusting for prices, wages have risen 1.5 percent annually over the last 5 years.'' Social Security 2100 would only be a small impact on the pay increase of a new FICA tax. This was in Economy for All on November 12, 2019. The Congressional Budget Office also reports this. This will be the only bill that we will be able to vote on this year that both reduces the national debt by $525 billion and expands and improves Social Security. Let me repeat that again. CBO has said that Social Security 2100 is both PAYGO compliant and, because the program is fully paid for, reduces the national debt by $525 billion over time and enhances the existence of Social Security, making it solvent for future generations beyond 75 years. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis), if he has a final word.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I would like to include in the Record two episodes of Pardon Me--Another Damn Impeachment Show?, a radio show hosted by Colin McEnroe of WNPR. I found these programs to be extremely enlightening and informative. I believe they should help Americans be better informed on this issue. Pardon Me--Another Damn Impeachment Show?: ``A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Impeachment With Dave Eggers and More'' & ``Adam Gopnik: Stop Saying Impeachment Is Political'' (Connecticut Public Radio) a heartbreaking work of staggering impeachment with dave eggers and more Colin McEnroe: When we first started to think about doing a podcast called, ``Pardon Me (Another Damn Impeachment Show?),'' one of the things we agreed that we would do is not just talk to political pundits and law school professors and people like that, but explore how the culture responds to something as engulfing as an impeachment process, and then we had a chance to talk to Dave Eggers. Dave Eggers is, of course, the legendary writer and creator and editor and lots of other things and kind of an activist and also a guy who, as a journalist, and you'll hear a little bit about this, traveled around during the 2016 campaign going to a lot of Donald Trump rallies trying to understand and empathize with the people who were excited by the prospect of a President Donald Trump. . . . Please visit this link to listen to the whole episode: https:// www.wnpr.org/post/dave-eggers-full-uncut-interview. Adam Gopnik: Stop Saying Impeachment Is Political Colin McEnroe: Hi. You're listening to kind of a little extra we're doing for you. Adam Gopnik, from The New Yorker. See, I'll get in trouble if I say this, but he might be the smartest person I know. I mean, there's probably a lot of other people who think they're the smartest person that I know, but you know it might be Gopnik. I mean you can't sneak anything by him, he's really that smart. And when we first started thinking about doing a very special series of shows about the impeachment process, he was one of the first people who popped into my head because Adam's already always doing what we like to do, which is thinking about politics and governance but melding it with his very keen understanding of history and his sense of how culture works. I mean there was no way we weren't going to do a conversation with him. So we got him. He's also now, you know a guy he's got a pull playwriting thing going on so I think he was like running back from a rehearsal or something like that to the NPR studios in New York to talk to us. So if he sounds a little out of breath, that's why. But he's never out of ideas. So let's go. Adam Gopnik. We're so excited as part of the show to have someone who has joined our regular show many times. Please visit this link to listen to the whole episode: https:// www.wnpr.org/post/adam-gopnik-stop-saying-impeachment-political.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I want to commend Ranking Member Brady and our colleagues on the other side as well. It is always a pleasure to know what this body can do when we work together. I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman for his incredible leadership. In his opening remarks, he underscored the key word that is central to this agreement that is far different from the previous NAFTA agreement. It is ``enforcement.'' It was his tenacity and the tenacity of the working group and the subcommittee that made this happen. I commend Speaker Pelosi for her work and, clearly, for all the working members of the task force for the effort they put forward. Mike Thompson has already credited the staff for their outstanding work, and I specifically want to thank Rosa DeLauro, who also was there for the first NAFTA vote as well and is a strong and a tenacious defender of labor. The work of Rosa DeLauro, the work of President Trumka, the work of Ambassador Lighthizer, these were salient reasons that underscored Mr. Neal's premise that enforcement at all levels, but specifically as it related to labor and environment, needed to be put in place.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise to strongly support this bill. I thank the gentleman for his efforts, and especially Bill Pascrell, who has been our passionate leader on the Ways and Means Committee, for his efforts on this very important issue. What a spirit of Christmas is upon us today. It is great to see the bipartisanship is continuing. I was so happy to see Peter King down in the well, talking about what this means. I dare say, to my other colleagues, I would love to have Mr. Rice come and visit Augie & Ray's in East Hartford and have him talk about how billionaires are being benefited. In Connecticut, we used to deduct, on average, $19,000 in personal property taxes. Now, we get to deduct $10,000. Why? So that we could pay 1 percent of the Nation 83 percent of your tax cut, which is unpaid for, paid for by working people. In our State, we send more money to the Federal Government than we get in return. The basic unfairness, established by Lincoln back during the Civil War, is that this is double taxation and especially hurts the blue- collar workforce all across this great country, especially in those States that go out of their way to pay their own.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, this year, our nation finds itself in the midst of historic turmoil. President Donald J. Trump's defiance of the Constitution and disregard for the rule of law have given Congress no other choice but to proceed with impeachment. The President has brought this on himself through his actions. As instructed by H. Res. 660, on November 19, 2019, the House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee began conducting open public hearings to ensure the American people were able to hear directly from witnesses as the committee collects and examines evidence in a fair and professional manner. This was followed by public hearings in the House Committee on the Judiciary, which allowed for an examination of the constitutional grounds for impeachment and an airing of evidence against the President. After weeks of depositions, public hearings and a thorough review of evidence, the House Judiciary Committee concluded that President Trump violated his oath of office and, on December 11th, 2019, approved H. Res. 755, which set forth two articles of impeachment: Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. As the House today deliberates and decides on these articles, it is important to lay the full scope of the President's misconduct before the American people. My constituent and authentic American leader, Ralph Nader, a consumer advocate, renowned attorney, author, and a respected voice in American politics and good governance, has partnered with constitutional scholars, Bruce Fein and Louis Fisher, to assess the President's misconduct and whether it meets the Constitutional standard for ``. . . Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' I include in the Record his thinking and those of others in our nation, in the hopes that it will help the public further understand the significance of this vote.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, as we vote today, I think it is instructive that Americans reflect on how we got to this point. The impeachment of Donald J. Trump has largely been brought on by the President himself. The President took two specific actions: he directly solicited a foreign government to gather information on his political opponent. He then further sought to promote a false narrative that it was Ukraine, and not Russia, who interfered with the elections in 2016. With the ability to correct the record, clear his name, or offer explanation for his actions, he chose instead to obstruct a co-equal branch of government from performing its Constitutional responsibilities of oversight and review. He did this by refusing testimony, ignoring Congressional subpoenas, and not providing Congress with any pertinent information or data. Today we're putting Russia and other adversaries on notice, don't interfere with our elections. Russia tried to divide the country in 2016, but they only succeed if America turns away from the rule of law. Some Republicans have excused the President's behavior by saying, ``Donald Trump isn't a politician, he's a businessman. This is Trump being Trump, this how he's used to doing business.'' That very well may be true, but in a constitutional democracy, no one, including Donald Trump, is above the law. I realize there are people who feel strongly and differently than I do, but to do nothing, to take no vote, is in essence condoning this behavior that disregards our Constitution. Republicans may see today differently, but as we look forward, we must stand united as a Congress in defending our democracy. For a democracy to work in a system of check and balances, no one is above the law. The President takes an oath of allegiance to the United States Constitution; there are no exceptions for the art of the deal.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 3, the ``Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drugs Costs Now Act,'' named after my dear friend and colleague Elijah Cummings who passed away earlier this year. I commend the Speaker, Chairman Neal, Chairman Pallone and Chairman Scott for their efforts to bring this historic legislation to the floor today. For too long Americans have seen prices for prescription drugs rise out of control, to the point where many must make the decision about whether they will spend limited income on their necessary prescriptions, or food, housing and transportation. How is it in the wealthiest country in the world this is happening? I've heard from many constituents who are indeed facing this very choice. Patricia, an 88 year old woman in Connecticut said, ``Do I have to lose my rent or stop eating in order to continue breathing? I don't want to end up in a nursing home on oxygen. I am not an ex-smoker. I am the proud daughter of a West Virginia coal miner. Please help me and other poor frail elderly.'' Rosemary from Wethersfield wrote, ``The cost of the Epi-Pen is outrageous. Even with my insurance it is so expensive I couldn't get the prescription filled and took my chances. When I had an allergic reaction I called 911 instead.'' Kevin from Manchester, a young man in his mid-30s who has a job and health insurance, also wrote, ``The annual cost of my medications is about $8,000 . . . I stop taking my medication. My asthma is noticeably worse. I worry that it's only a matter of time until I have a flare up and end up in the hospital.'' H.R. 3 will allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for better prices on prescription drugs in Medicare, lowering prices for patients in Medicare and the private market. I have long advocated for negotiation of drug prices and have included it in the Medicare Buy In and Health Stabilization Act introduced with my colleague from New York, Rep. Brian Higgins, and with my colleague from Connecticut, Rep. Joe Courtney. The bill also caps Medicare beneficiaries' out-of-pocket spending on prescription drugs at $2,000. And for the first time, with the savings from Medicare reimbursement for drugs, we are able to expand Medicare to cover dental, hearing and vision services as a benefit to traditional Medicare. In my district alone, more than 100,000 people will benefit from adding these new services. It's time we implement these much-needed changes and make prescription drugs more affordable. It's time to pass the Lower Drug Costs Now Act.