John Larson

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am also here to discuss Social Security. As you know, Mr. Speaker, more than 70 million Americans are on Social Security and receive it. Yet, Congress, Mr. Speaker, has not acted since 1971 to enhance and improve anything about Social Security. For the people in our audience today, they have to be scratching their heads and saying: What is this? Why is it that for 40 percent of all people on Social Security, it is the only pension benefit that they have, and every day 10,000 fellow Americans become eligible for Social Security, but Congress has not voted to enhance Social Security in more than 50 years? It is long overdue. We have a proposal not to cut Social Security and not to raise the age. For every year you raise the age for Social Security, Mr. Speaker, that is a 7 percent cut in benefits. Does it make any sense to say people are living longer, so we ought to raise the age so they can receive less the older they get? That makes no sense. It is long overdue for Congress to take the steps and do what it should do. All the American people are asking is that we vote on their interest to increase Social Security, which hasn't been done since 1971. We need to make sure that teachers, firefighters, and police officers see that WEP and GPO is repealed and paid for, that they get the benefits that they have been denied, and to make sure that people who are working currently and receiving Social Security don't pay tax on that Social Security. Those are the things that we need to do to improve this program, which is the number one insurance program in the country. It is the number one program that prevents both the elderly from being impoverished and children from being impoverished. Only in Congress do people sit here day after day and not take up the most important thing they can do on behalf of the American people to improve their lot in life. As important as basketball championships are, Americans are having kitchen table discussion about: ``What are we going to do, honey? Why hasn't Congress voted to make sure that we get a cost-of-living increase that actually reflects the cost of things today that we have to account for?'' Mr. Speaker, 1971, when Richard Nixon was President of the United States, was the last time that Congress voted to enhance the Nation's number one insurance program. It is long overdue that Congress step up and make sure that we take these votes that will help every single American.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to draw attention to the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the Nation's number one antipoverty program for our children. It is something that everyone is familiar with: It is Social Security. This Congress and previous Congresses have not done anything to enhance Social Security, Mr. Speaker, in more than 50 years. Richard Nixon was the President of the United States the last time Congress enhanced benefits for what now amount to 70 million Americans. Mr. Speaker, in your district alone, 176,794 Social Security recipients haven't received an enhancement in more than 50 years. This is also the Nation's leading economic development program because in your district, $300 million comes into your district monthly. Where do those people spend that money? Right back in your district at the local grocery store, at the pharmacy, at the gas station, pay off their rent, et cetera. It is the Nation's number one antipoverty program for a reason because of the genius of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who saw in a capitalistic system like ours there needs to be a safety net and a balance. For more than 40 percent of all Americans on Social Security, it is the only pension benefit that they have. Speaker pro tempore Miller was in the chair earlier, and there are over 160,000 of her constituents on Social Security. What Congress needs to do is vote. Now, my good friend Kevin Hern says that you have a plan on the other side to cut benefits. We see that President Trump has laid out his proposal that he would like to cut Social Security benefits. Cutting benefits is not the way to save Social Security. The President and Democrats have a very specific plan: to enhance benefits across the board and extend the solvency of Social Security so that all of our constituents can receive the benefits they richly deserve. Mr. Speaker, 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security, which is not an entitlement. With all the discussion about the debt and deficit, it doesn't contribute a single penny to the debt or deficit. It is a paid-for program. The business community pays half and gets a full tax deduction for it and individuals pay the other half. How do they know? All they have to do is go to their pay stub and look at the word ``FICA,'' that stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Whose contribution? Theirs. Mr. Speaker, that is 176,794 people in your district who make these contributions. This is not an entitlement. This is a benefit that they have earned and the only body that can address this is the United States Congress. It is long overdue for us to take this up on behalf of our constituents. If there is a better idea or you think that further study is needed, put it on the floor and let's have a vote on it. Everybody professes how much they love and respect Social Security. Where is the plan? Where is the vote that people can say this is what my Representative stands for and this is what we are going to receive? We don't need to cut benefits for Social Security. We need to enhance them. We need to make sure that WEP and GPO get repealed. We have to make sure that people are no longer paying income tax on their Social Security. We have to make sure that that happens now.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, H.R. 6276 directs the OMB and the GSA to establish standards for measuring occupancy in Federal buildings. The bill directs the GSA and Federal tenants to use sensors to measure occupancy, requires the heads of Federal agencies to report occupancy and utilization data, and directs the GSA to notify agencies and Congress when occupancy in a Federal building falls below 60 percent, at which time GSA would be permitted to consolidate tenants. The bill further requires OMB and GSA to develop a plan to consolidate agency headquarters buildings in the national capital region that will result in the utilization rate of 60 percent or more. Now, I agree with Representative Perry's goal to reduce agency costs by giving up unneeded space. I have consistently made that point to him and others on the committee. I am opposed to this bill. The bill defines occupancy as the total number of employees physically working from their offices at least 5 days per week. Many Federal employees may not sit at their desks all day every day, including Federal firefighters, disaster responders, law enforcement officers, Border Patrol agents, food safety inspectors, TSA supervisors, National Parks Service rangers, and more. These employees would not be included in occupancy counts required by this bill. Also not counted would be the Federal employees who work alternative work schedules. Federal law grants the Office of Personnel Management authority to promulgate regulations to administer alternative work schedule programs and permits agencies to allow the use of flexible schedules. This authority extends to employees of any executive agency, any military department, and the Library of Congress. To have an accurate picture of space needs in Federal buildings, all Federal employees occupying buildings should be counted. A full-time employee with an approved work schedule is still a full-time employee. This bill fails to consider that fact. I have concerns that this bill does not adequately consider the complexity of the Federal leasing process--a process that, frankly, is far too complex. Directing the OMB and GSA to reduce space if occupancy falls below 60 percent sounds fiscally responsible. However, in most currently leased locations, if agency space is reduced, the government would still be on the hook for the original costs in the lease contract because most existing lease contracts do not include partial termination rights. In prospective leases, partial termination rights would increase the cost of leases for the government. Again, I want to work with the chairman and the committee to resize the Federal real estate footprint and reduce costs, not unnecessarily increase those costs. This bill falls short. After this period of general debate, we are going to move on to debate the seven amendments made in order by the Rules Committee. I will not be opposing any of those amendments, but, unfortunately, the seven amendments do not fix the underlying defects in the bill, so I will still oppose final passage. I am disappointed the Rules Committee did not make in order the amendment that Representative Titus offered that would have adjusted the calculation of the occupancy rate to include employees with approved alternative work schedules. This fix would have gone a long way toward alleviating my concerns with the legislation. Not allowing even a vote on this amendment is really a missed opportunity for bipartisanship on this bill. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on Monday February 12, 2024 a great force for good was laid to rest. The outpouring of love, admiration, and respect for Timothy Coburn was a fitting remembrance for a man whose life was dedicated to doing for others. He is a legend in his hometown of East Hanford and Mayberry Village, the federal housing project we grew up in. I include in the Record a eulogy that only touches the surface of this veteran and great American who never forgot his beginnings. Thank you, Father Mark, on behalf of Susan, Gabrielle, Maryann & Katie. The outpouring of love, respect, and admiration for a man, who used all of his vast skills to take care of others, so many of whom are gathered in this room, who have been beneficiaries of his benevolence. Gabrielle and Susan, the obituary was excellent, from that handsome smiling Irish face to the content of thc obituary and the enduring message about helping others, with a simple yet poignant request: be kind to someone, even a stranger. It makes a difference. So many gathered here and beyond can attest to that. That was Tim Coburn! That was his request. Sister Christine-Marie and the Sisters of Notre-Dame are bursting with pride about the virtue of the man from Mayberry Village they taught. It all starts at home, and home will always be 76 Great Hill Road in Mayberry Village. Ruth and John's favorite son, Maryann & Katie's favorite brother, Susan's devoted love and husband, and Gabrelle's loving and caring father. Ruth and John deserve special acknowledgement. Mrs. Coburn carted us all around the town to sporting events and brought us treats when we were sleeping out in the backyard, as we scrambled to hide the Playboys we were reading. We mostly walked to Martin Park which was an upgrade from swimming at BAB and the Hock. Mr. Coburn, with his shirt off in the summer, looked like Tarzan, and he had that intimidating look. You knew that you don't mess with John Coburn. Athleticism was engrained in Tim, and his father always had Track and Field apparatus from the shotput, discus, hammer throw, and high jump bars. In fact, Frank Coburn, Tim's grandfather, was a star in his own right and a member of the New York Athletic Club, who nearly went to the Olympics, so being an athlete was in his genes. Talking with Carl Lepack, Gary and Jimmy Agnew, Kevin Brown, and Dave Ryan, they all acknowledged Tim was the most gifted athlete in our class. Lettering in football, basketball, and track and being the captain of the track team. He was also a great golfer, tennis player, and if we had a pool in 1967, he would be a champion swimmer as well. Above all, he was a competitor, he thrived on competition. We were 5th and 6th grade basketball champions at Mayberry school, we reminisced last September about the 98-yard touchdown pass, he caught that beat Sunset Ridge with no time left on the clock. We were still playing football in our late 20s for Mad Murphy's, and all the extracurricular activities that involved. He competed at a high level in every sport he played, but in track, like his grandfather, he excelled and still holds the high school pole vault record, back when the poles were still wooden and not fiberglass. But in sports as in life, the thing about Tim is what mattered to him was the camaraderie and how teamwork and teammates matter and become friends for life. I went to school with Tim at the little red schoolhouse, Sunset Ridge, Mayberry School, Saint Rose's, East Hartford High School, and Central before he transferred and graduated from UConn. There was a gang of us that hung together, and Tim was the ringleader, always up for the next adventure and next exploration. It was Tim, Carl Lepack, Rick Hurteau, Roger O'Sullivan, Max McGrath, Nunzio Parente, Billy Beven, Ronnie Boyer, and my brothers Dan and Chris. Whether it was cruising the Hock in cement tubs, or swimming at BAB, hiking up what is now Wickham Park--what was then Wickham Estates-- playing every sport imaginable. It was on the Hockanum that we got pulled over by the East Hartford police that chastised us for being in cement tubs, scolding us about how dangerous it was. They took our names and addresses and said they were going to talk to our parents. By the time I got home, the officers already visited my mother and admonish me and said, ``Wait until your father gets home!'' I ran up to Tim's house to see if they had come there as well, as we had papers to deliver. Tim said no as they haven't been to his house, though they had driven by it. So we stood at distance at his house, and we wondered why they didn't stop and the reason was because Tim had taken the 6 of 76 and flipped it around to make it an 9. But he said since I was going to face brutal punishment with my father coming home, he would take me to Bergren's Dairy to get a hot fudge sundae before I went home to face my father. But to my amazement, when I got home, divine intervention happened, Father Munich was doing the census and consoled my mother that were the boys like Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer in Huck Finn. So, when I went up and told Tim Coburn that Father Munich had saved my life and called us Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, Tim told me ``You owe me a hot fudge sundae.'' Tim lived a life of helping others, he practiced his faith and that carried over to his professional life. Healthcare remains an extraordinarily challenging job, especially caring for the elderly and disabled, and it's why this man of compassion and commitment was so exceptional. He rose to become the Executive Vice President of Medi-Plex and was respected by everyone he worked with--in management, by the employee's he worked with, and most importantly the patients he served. When he left Medi-Plex, he went on to be the person, the state of Connecticut, turned to, to help distress facilities and became the leading administrator in the state who had both, the experience and the credibility to save homes from going out of business and provide people with care. Tim, of course, credited the people he worked with, but this was a guy that led by example. No task was beneath him and time and again, he demonstrated to employees and patients what leadership and caring are all about. Jim Malloy and Brian Dickstein, underscored that professionalism and why he was so successful and why the state relied on Tim. He lived a life of helping other, and in doing so, he practiced his faith. Tim was authentic and genuine, not a phony bone in his body. Dependable, Tim was always there for everyone, especially Gabrielle and Susan, he had wanted and hoped to make it to Valentine's Day, which is Gabreille's birthday. There's an old Irish saying ``Those we love don't go away, they walk beside us every day, unseen, unheard, but always near. Still loved, still missed, and very dear. Death leaves a heartache no one can heal. Love leaves a memory that no one can steal.'' There is a great void in our lives, a great force of good is gone. During his life and with his passing, he showed us what courage and humility are, and that the most precious thing we have is time, and the greatest thing in life is not the things we possess but the time we have with each other. So, as we leave here today and raise a glass in tribute to Tim, let's honor his request--be kind to someone, even a stranger, it makes a difference. Tim, thank you for being a difference maker in our lives.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to include in the Record the eulogy of a great American, Raymond Noel Ramsey, who epitomized what a citizen who gives back to his community, state, and Nation is all about. On behalf of Peg, Noele, Kelly, Melanie. and the entire Ramsey family, thank you for being here for Ray. How about that obituary and the prayer card! Ever the fashion statement, wasn't he, with those bright pastels and those shirts, that were a reflection of his personality. Yesterday was quite an afternoon and quite a tribute. It was good to see old East Hartford on display--the outpour of love and respect for a man who lived it. Now we know he had a great reception committee up there with Billy Mud, Fred Kurtz, Fred Leone, and Jimmy Deleo singing--I'm sure--as he entered the gates of Heaven. As Ray would often remind the faint of heart, life is not a dress rehearsal. He embodied both the right attitude and the appetite for a life well lived. Talking with several of you at the wake, and over the past few days, about stories of Ray and what he would want this service to be--Father, I have to start with a disclaimer here--Craig Jordan, Kevin Brown, and numerous others want to be clear that the funniest Rammer stories are not suitable for church or in mixed company. I think it's safe to say he was a guy's guy. It was abundantly clear from all, that he would want an upbeat sendoff on his next journey. First and foremost, and most of all, the shared empathy, respect, and love for Peg and his three angels, Noele, Kelly and Melanie. At the wake it was hard viewing and watching them hold back the tears, the grieving and the mourning and with each person. A memory of a man whose actions were bigger than life, knowing even in this difficult moment, what Ray would want is to celebrate his journey and the relationships he shared with all of you. I know I'm stating the obvious, as so many of you have spoken of his lifelong love and relationship with Peg. Many of you have attested that they were the quintessential couple. They simply go together well, Ray and Peg. Peg and Ray. No gathering was complete without them--and you talk about opposites! Yet there was a greater bond that held them together, certainly Noele, Kelly, and Melanie, but it was their great faith and devotion to each other that always resonated. Many of you said Ray was always there for you, no matter how trivial or important. How many of you can recall being with Ray into the wee hours of the morning, partaking in the elixirs of life and thinking--as I have--there's no way after this that he gets up and takes Peg to mass in the morning-- only to be astonished again by him being there for her and their faith, dependable and rock solid. That's love and devotion. That's Ray and Peg. Comradery is a great term about a gathering of friends, and as Nick Olivia pointed out, with Ray, those gatherings were always punctuated by having fun and enjoying one another's company, whether at the Hose Club, the Dirty Dozen, the F&L Dinners, or innumerable political events, Ray and a good time were synonymous. He was always a doer, never a complainer and put everyone else first. His last trip to Ireland is an epic example. A trip he had planned for some time with Nick and Vita, Bruce and Wendy, and he and Peg. As Bruce recalls, weeks before, he had terrible and severe back pain and was not feeling well, but would not let his health stand in the way of a great trip with friends. While I'm sure the Guiness helped, everyone knew he was in pain, but he did it because of who he was and the people he cared about. That's Ray. As my brother Danny says, having worked with Ray on building the house--and you heard Father say how he did it with his own hands--Ray had many skills, among his specialties was electrical, with a minor in procurement. If we needed hardware: nuts, bolts, nails, screws, blades, zip ties, gloves, paint, or whatever, Ray always managed to come up with a donor and keep us going. My brother went on to describe his essence, saying what I believe everyone in this room agrees with. He was the most dependable friend you could have. First one on the site, and there till the end, and the job was done. He had a broad base knowledge and a hands-on versatility of all of the trades. Nothing that he couldn't figure out with an occasional break for a Marlboro or two. His heart was bigger than himself, it's as if he was made to help everyone else. He was practical and direct and always with an informed view. Now, most here assembled know Ray was the master of the power nap. From which virtually in any environment he could fall into a deep sleep, and awake and rally. Danny Delmastro, of course, cites the best example of his capability at the annual Aero Med Christmas Party, when about three-quarters the way through a great evening, Rammer says to Danny he's going to ``step outside for a smoke.'' Danny looks at him and says ``it's snowing,'' Ray just nodded and about an hour later with the place closing down and everyone looking for Ray, Danny went outside and found him on a bench with about three inches of snow on his head and his shoulders and said, ``Rammer!'' And Ray responded without missing a beat that ``yes, I'll have a final final.'' That was our guy. He clearly is a giant of a man, Jim Iacobellis noted that. He said he had a giant talent. He could do anything he put his mind to. He had giant knowledge. He knew so much about so much, and if he didn't, he'd ask and inquire until he did. He had a giant personality--the life and center of any gathering, you always wanted to be around him and talk to him. He was a giant friend. He had so many, and he knew them, he knew what they liked, and knew what made them happy or unhappy. He was also the first to accept new people and become friends, as he did so with Jim more than 30 years ago when he was the new kid on the block. Now, we have a Bocce tournament and a gathering and have done so for 32 years, and whether it's tents, limoncello, garbanzo and hot peppers, you know, and of course, grilling that sausage, it was Ray. And as Linda and Leslie attest and verify and everyone agrees--without Ray, there would never have been a Bocce. He was the essential part and mover. I think it's safe to say that the way he lived his life and in talking with David McQuaid, I said, ``David, he had a great run.'' And David looked at me and says ``A run? He had several runs.'' In short, Ray was authentic and original without a phony bone in his body, dependable as the day was long. He was always there for everyone and in so many different capacities. In this human comedy we call life, his skills, his curiosity, his inquisitive and honest and practical advice will be what I miss the most. He was the real deal. He was the Rammer.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about America's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and America's number one antipoverty program for children. That, of course, is Social Security. I want to commend President Biden. I commend him for putting forward the concept of making sure that Social Security is solvent into the next century and making sure that we expand benefits. He did so by saying we do something that is very common sense and practical: We lift the cap on people making over $400,000. Most citizens probably don't realize that there is even a cap on Social Security. Be that as it may, why is it that all individuals shouldn't have to pay into this system? We have a poster here. God bless these wealthy individuals who are able to achieve great success and make vast sums of money, but why should a person making $30,000, $50,000, $75,000, or $100,000 pay throughout the year for their Social Security when these wealthy individuals will pay about 1 minute into the beginning of the year? Just last month was the last time that millionaires would pay anything into the system. President Biden has said: Let's scrap the cap on people earning over $400,000. I have had many townhalls where I ask people in the audience to raise their hand if they are making over $400,000. So far, I haven't seen a single hand go up. Yet, they are exempt from participating in what is the Nation's number one insurance program for the elderly and also for children. By the way, especially in this time of deficit talk, et cetera, it is completely paid for. This is a real kitchen-table issue because 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security, and they are sitting there asking: Well, why is it that Social Security hasn't been enhanced? It is because the only body that can do that is the United States Congress, and it hasn't done anything since 1971 to enhance the program, Mr. Speaker, and to make sure that people are paying their fair share. The fair thing to do here is to scrap the cap, which would extend solvency of Social Security instead of having a limit. It would also be able to provide benefits to people, including a COLA, that actually work on behalf of our senior citizens. It would include an across-the- board increase for everyone on Social Security since it hasn't been increased since 1971, and it would make sure that people who are currently paying taxes on their Social Security don't have to do so. How are we able to do that? By having people pay their fair share, people who don't pay, in many instances, a penny into FICA. That is flatout wrong for the wealthiest nation in the world that has provided the benefits, freedoms, and liberty that has allowed these very successful people to succeed in the greatest country in the world. It is time for us, Mr. Speaker, to come together and address this for all Americans as we seek to close the wealth gap that exists in this country. For more than 40 percent, Mr. Speaker, of our fellow citizens, Social Security is the only benefit that they have. It is the only benefit that they have, and for these individuals to be exempt from having to pay into that system is absolutely wrong and unjust. That is why, again, I commend President Biden for standing up for all Americans and saying that we are going to scrap the cap. We are going to lift that cap on people making over $400,000. It won't even be anything for them to do this. What it will do is provide us the opportunity to expand Social Security, to make sure that Social Security now goes into effect by eliminating WEP and GPO that has wrongly penalized teachers, firefighters, police officers, their spouses, and their families from receiving the very Social Security benefits they deserve.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about the Nation's number one insurance program, Social Security. It has been that way since Franklin Delano Roosevelt first introduced it. It continues to be the number one antipoverty program for the elderly and, frankly, Madam Speaker, the number one antipoverty program for children. Yet, Congress has been derelict in its duty. There has not been a vote to enhance Social Security since 1971. Richard Nixon was President of the United States. As we speak today, there are close to 70 million Americans who rely on Social Security. Of those 70 million, it is important to understand that 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security. More than 5 million of our fellow Americans have worked and paid into a system and get below poverty-level checks from their government, the wealthiest in the world, with the Nation's number one antipoverty program that this body has not acted on in more than 50 years. It is long overdue that we take the initiative and have a vote in the United States Congress that will help the American people. Social Security is bedrock. Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, or Independent, you understand this. Now, our colleagues on the other side have put forward something they call a study commission. We don't need to study Social Security. We know what needs to be done. To have a study that goes behind closed doors and has an up-or-down vote that is unamendable, with no input from this body, is absurd, antidemocratic, and anti-elderly and -children from the standpoint of the havoc that it would wreak on this system. The idea that they are doing this to save Social Security is a fallacy. They are doing it so they can go behind closed doors and cut the very program that sustains so many Americans. For more than 40 percent of all Americans who are on Social Security, this is the only pension benefit that they will have. Madam Speaker, you know as well as I that it is not only a pension benefit. It is a disability benefit, as well as taking care of spouses and children. Imagine, for our viewers in the audience, Congress has not taken a vote in more than 50 years for the Nation's number one antipoverty program. It is long overdue that we not study this but do what we are elected to do by the public and actually vote. If you have a better idea, put it out there, but we believe this, as well. I commend President Biden for saying, look, the way that we are going to pay for this is to lift the cap, or what is called Scrap the Cap, on people making over $400,000. This past month marked when millionaires have already stopped paying into the Social Security program. Bill Gates stopped paying back in January. That is wrong. It is not right. To lift that cap will allow us not only to extend the solvency of Social Security but increase benefits across the board for its members, to make sure that WEP and GPO, which have hurt teachers and municipal employees over the years, is finally scrapped; to have in there a tax cut for more than 23 million Americans who continue to pay taxes on their Social Security; and to make sure that everyone's benefits are enhanced. Where does that money go, Madam Speaker? The money from Social Security goes right back into every single Congressional district, and it allows those individuals in that district to sustain themselves. Nobody's going out and buying stock options with Social Security 2100.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly voted ``nay'' on Motion to Recommit H.R. 485, rollcall Vote 39. I intended to vote ``yea.'' Additionally, I regrettably missed recording my vote On Passage of H.R. 485, rollcall Vote 40. Had I recorded my vote, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to talk about America's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the number one antipoverty program for children. That program is Social Security, our Nation's number one insurance plan. Currently, it is under siege. Both Senator Wyden and President Biden have, I think rightly, said that what this amounts to is a buzzword for cuts to Social Security: a fiscal commission that is designed to have backroom meetings without hearings, unamendable, yet bring to both floors of the House and Senate an up-or-down vote. This is put together by 16 people--4 who have no vote, 6 from the Senate, and 6 from the House--with only 7 votes required to pass a bill that goes directly to the floor for a vote. That is an abomination and dereliction of duty on behalf of the House and the Senate. I strongly oppose it. It has been 53 years since Congress has enhanced Social Security. These are your brothers, sisters, family members, neighbors, and the people you go to church with. This money comes directly back to every single congressional district and your community, and it goes to help people. The average Social Security check is $18,000 for a male and $14,000 for a female. There are 5 million of our fellow Americans who get below-poverty-level checks from the government because Congress hasn't taken responsibility. We have a plan to change that. We put our plan out on the floor. Mr. Speaker, contrast that with a behind-closed-door study. How about we do something for the American people like vote, vote on something that is essential to their livelihood? As you know, Mr. Speaker, Social Security isn't just a pension plan. More veterans rely on Social Security disability than they do on the VA, and spousal and dependent coverage, as well, that we are providing. Even President Trump has gone so far as to criticize Nikki Haley, and say, hey, listen, this idea of raising the age, which the Republican Study Committee calls for, is cutting benefits in Social Security. You listen to Donald Trump on everything else. Let us hope that you understand what he is talking about here in terms of gutting Social Security and causing across-the-board cuts to a vital program that every single American needs. Mr. Speaker, there are also more than 28 million Americans who the only benefit that they have in retirement will be Social Security. It is an outrage that this body, in the House and the Senate, has not taken up Social Security both to improve its solvency and also to enhance its benefits. We have a program that does that--a 2 percent across-the-board increase for everyone. It lifts 5 million Americans out of poverty who have paid into a system all their lives and get below-poverty-level checks from the government because of Congress' inaction. It repeals WEP and GPO for teachers, firefighters, and municipal employees. It will provide a tax break for more than 23 million Americans. It does so by simply lifting the cap on people over $400,000. What does that do? It pays for all of these benefits and also extends solvency well into the future. That is what we should be doing as a body. We don't need to study Social Security. We know what this program does. If my colleagues can honestly go home and look any fellow citizen in the eye and tell them that we don't need to improve Social Security, that we need to study it, God bless them. What we need here is a vote on Social Security 2100 to make sure that we are enhancing benefits for the citizens we are sworn to serve.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. I especially want to commend my colleague, Ron Estes, for working directly on this R&D tax credit. Mr. Speaker, what you are hearing today on this floor is what happens when we work and pull together. We are in a race with China, and we had better be well aware of what we have to do with R&D, because that is critical to it. I also commend Rosa DeLauro, whom you will hear from as well, Mr. Speaker. I thank Dr. Ferguson for what he has to say just about the child tax credit and how important that is. Children need to be protected.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as we sit here currently, the Budget Committee is undertaking a matter of grave concern. I include in the Record letters from both the AFGE and the AFL-CIO with respect to the establishment of the so-called fiscal commission. January 12, 2024. AFGE Applauds Lawmakers' Call To Reject Fiscal Commission Washington--The American Federation of Government Employees is echoing calls from nearly 120 lawmakers for Congress to reject a proposed fiscal commission that would bypass elected leadership and make recommendations to slash vital federal programs and government services. ``A fiscal commission would give a small group of lawmakers and non-elected individuals enormous power to recommend cuts to Social Security and other popular programs without any ability for the public to weigh in,'' AFGE National President Everett Kelley said. ``If Congress is serious about preserving Social Security, Medicare, and similar programs for future generations, then it needs to have an honest discussion about how to do that-- not pawn off these decisions to a secret group behind closed doors.'' On Jan. 11, Reps. John Larson of Connecticut and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries signed by 116 members of the U.S. House calling on them to exclude a fiscal commission from legislation funding the federal government for the remainder of fiscal 2024 or any other must-pass bills. ``It is Congress's responsibility to conduct the oversight and recommend enhancements to solvency or cuts, and it should be done in the open and not behind closed doors,'' the letter states. ``We do not need a Commission to tell us what we must do, we need the political courage to take up these or any other proposals in regular order.'' Congress, for example, has yet to advance Rep. John Larson's Social Security 2100 Act, which would modernize Social Security, increase benefits, and safeguard the trust fund--all without raising taxes on middle income Americans or raising the retirement age. Congress still hasn't agreed on full-year funding for federal agencies, which have been operating under continuing resolutions since the fiscal year began Oct. 1. ``With just a week before government funding runs out for various departments including Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, HUD, and Transportation, Congress should focus on passing full-year funding for these and other government programs instead of trying to pawn off its tough decisions to an exclusive commission,'' Kelley said.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I think it is vitally important that Members understand what is being proposed and how it totally relies on no Member of this body other than the select few, Mr. Speaker, who will be chosen. The commission is comprised of 16 individuals, 4 who are outside experts and not part of this body. The Senate will have six Members that they choose, three Republicans, three Democrats; the House three Democrats, three Republicans. In a body of 435 people here, 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans will decide the future and fate of Social Security and Medicare. It is interesting. They will do so behind closed doors, with no obligation to report in public. Interestingly enough, too, the bill calls for them to form the committee, but they don't have to report back until after the election during a lameduck session. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker. The committees of cognizance here that deal with these issues will have no relevance. The only thing that will matter is an up-or-down vote decided by these individuals behind closed doors that is unamendable and comes to this floor for an up-or-down vote. This is outrageous, and it is wrong. There are several remedies and proposals that exist out there for Social Security. This is what is so vitally important. Close to 70 million Americans depend on Social Security, and Social Security doesn't create one penny of debt. It is a program that is fully paid for that cannot be borrowed from and has to be actuarially sound. Yet it is thrown in here by a desire by some to use a clandestine, subterranean, double-secret probation committee to cut benefits from Americans. Adding insult to injury, the last time Congress enhanced the benefits for Social Security, Richard Nixon was President. That is more than 53 years ago now that Congress took some action to enhance benefits for people. Mr. Speaker, 10,000 baby boomers per day become eligible for Social Security. More than 5 million of our fellow Americans get below- poverty-level checks, having worked all their lives and paid into the system. What we need is a vote on Social Security. Put both measures side by each: a proposal to do a double-secret probation study committee versus actual legislation to improve and enhance Social Security for the more than 70 million Americans who will be participating. Every single Member of Congress has Social Security recipients. We have sent you the exact number for your district. Imagine not having any increases in more than 53 years, for 40 percent of all Americans. In a Nation of more than 300 million people, for minimally 28 million Americans, this is the only thing they have for retirement. As everyone in this body knows, it is not just simply retirement. It is also spousal and dependent coverage. For military veterans especially, it is also for disability. This body has not done anything, nor the Senate, in 53 years. All this study is, is kicking the can down the road and creating further problems. Oppose this legislation.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I join in commending our colleagues, Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Wenstrup, for their outstanding work on H.R. 3667, the Social Security Child Protection Act. I especially acknowledge Mr. Blumenauer, who is going to be leaving the Congress, for his longstanding work in this area. Currently, Social Security Administration policy says that in order to get a new Social Security number, the person has to show both that their number has been misused by a third party and that this misuse has resulted in harm to the number holder. Unfortunately, we have heard from parents about their child's Social Security cards being stolen in the mail when they are first issued. From there, criminals are able to hold on to that number and use it for nefarious purposes. Unfortunately, children who never receive their Social Security card in the mail may not realize for many years that their identity has been stolen. That is why this legislation is so critical and important. I commend the members of the majority for bringing this forward. It is rare that we bring forward Social Security legislation, noting that Social Security is the number one antipoverty program in the country, the number one antipoverty program for the elderly, and the number one antipoverty program for children. It also might surprise listeners who are tuning in to know that it has been 52 years since the Congress has taken any action to enhance Social Security benefits. This is deemed a huge step forward to focus on a policy that is much needed, but more than 5 million of our fellow Americans get below poverty level checks from Social Security. Mr. Speaker, 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security, and Congress hasn't even taken a vote. It is not a lot to ask of Congress, and I hope that our distinguished colleagues--and I know many of them care deeply about this issue-- somehow find the resolve to vote on enhancing Social Security benefits. It will go well with this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Wenstrup and Mr. Blumenauer for their incredible work in this area. This bill deserves to be on the Consent Calendar. That is how important and straightforward it is. Let us hope that our colleagues in the Senate see it in the same light and that we get something important accomplished. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I cannot leave this floor as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Social Security and not mention the fact that it has been 53 years since Congress has voted on anything to enhance Social Security. That is a disgrace for both sides, Democrats and Republicans. It is a disgrace. Let's call it what it is. Mr. Speaker, 5 million of our fellow Americans get below poverty level checks in the wealthiest Nation in the world, where billionaires stopped paying into Social Security on January 2. Come on. In the wealthiest Nation in the world, how about we make sure that for 23 million Americans, they get a tax break? We are willing to give corporations tax breaks left and right. How about the average working person who has paid into a system all of their lives, yet they get taxed on that? Where is the interest from my colleagues on the other side with respect to that? Mr. Speaker, 23 million Americans who deserve a tax break can't get it, though we have a bill that is in front of them that would also recognize the teachers, firefighters, and police officers, who everyone professes to be in favor of until it comes time for them to get paid. As our colleagues on the other side know, WEP and GPO prevent that from happening. We repealed that and made sure that these individuals get those needed benefits. In this time of great disparity, global inflation, coming through a pandemic, and when economists have recognized the inequitable imbalance of wealth, what better way to bring balance than providing the decency of Congress just merely taking a vote? If you disagree with it, if you have a better idea, for God's sake, put it forward, but please don't tell us about this commission behind closed doors where a select group of people without public hearings are going to determine what Social Security will be. Social Security doesn't need a commission. It doesn't need to go behind closed doors. It needs a vote. Just like the vote we are giving to this commonsense proposal today, a vote on Social Security represents pure common sense because it assists over 70 million of your fellow Americans. This is not Democratic or Republican. This is about your brothers, your sisters, your family, your aunts, your uncles, the people you worship and go to church with, and the people in your communities. Speaking of communities, every community benefits. This is an enormous economic development plan because the money goes directly to the individual. Where do those individuals spend that Social Security money? Right back in your districts. Right back in the district that these individuals live in. It helps out the local pharmacists. It helps out the local grocery store. It helps out individuals. This is something that should be embraced by both sides. Ironically, in the past when Social Security has been enhanced--it happened under Dwight David Eisenhower and under Mr. Nixon, as well. Since Richard Nixon was President of the United States, Social Security has not been enhanced. Here we are, coming out of a global pandemic, coming out of global inflation, and the very individuals who need our help the most--our seniors--we won't even give them a vote. Mr. Speaker, this is the United States Congress. We come here and represent the people of our districts. This is a benefit they not only richly need but they deserve. It is something they have earned. This is not an entitlement, as some profess. This is an earned benefit. Yes, for all you viewers at home, all you have to do is look at your pay stub. It says FICA, Federal Insurance Contribution Act. The Federal insurance is Social Security; the contribution is yours. Yes, the employer also gives, but he gets a tax break for that, completely able to write it off. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Wenstrup for allowing me the opportunity to come here this afternoon to address their bill but also for providing an opportunity as well because I don't think we are going to see many more coming where we will actually get to vote on Social Security benefits and enhancements for the people who we are sworn to serve. Mr. Speaker, again, 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security. It has been 53 years since we last enhanced the program. More than 5 million get below poverty level checks, having paid in all their lives, and 23 million Americans are being denied a tax cut that they would otherwise receive. Teachers and firefighters, et cetera, would see the repeal of WEP and GPO, and we can't get a vote in the Ways and Means Committee or on the floor of the Congress on this bill. Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is a disgrace. Make no mistake, both parties share the blame, but there is no excuse for not taking a vote and putting this before the American people so they can fully appreciate it. They understand the need. They feel it every day because of the situation that they find themselves in because Congress has failed to act and failed to vote. The fundamental thing that we are sent here to do is represent people and vote; not to vote on the most basic of issues, the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the number one antipoverty program for the children. We have failed. Yes, and it is paid for. It is paid for by those very billionaires who stopped paying in on January 2 to Social Security. The guy making $35,000 to $50,000, Mr. Speaker, is paying in the whole time. The guy making $100,000 to $150,000 is paying in the whole time. Those other guys aren't. Most people don't realize that there is a cap, and they are exempt from paying. How about we lift that cap, and they pay their fair share? How about we extend the benefits of Social Security that haven't been done in 53 years? Our fellow Americans who have paid in will get pulled up out of poverty, and future generations will know that it is there and secure for them, as it was for their parents and grandparents. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, we are here this afternoon to discuss America's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the number one antipoverty program for children. It is Social Security. I commend my colleague from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Moore, for his work on the committee, but here is the issue, Mr. Speaker: This Congress that we are all a part of has not enhanced Social Security now going on 53 years. 1971 was the last time the United States Congress, which has the responsibility, enhanced Social Security for any of its recipients. Mr. Speaker, 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security, and since 1971, Congress has not taken any action. I am joined by my colleagues today as we come to this floor and beseech our fellow colleagues to do one simple thing: Vote. That is our responsibility. We have a very specific plan that we have put forward. There is also this other plan that is out there, some sort of debt commission that is going to go behind closed doors and decide what they will cut with respect to Social Security. The American public overwhelmingly--Democrat, Republican, and Independents--all say we do not need cuts to the very essential programs that we rely on as a country. For more than 40 percent, Mr. Speaker, of all Americans, Social Security is the only pension that they have, and Congress hasn't acted in more than 53 years. We need to enhance the program. We need to enhance it in a way that makes sure that everyone gets an across-the-board increase, especially for 5 million of our fellow Americans, mostly women, who get below- poverty-level checks from the government of the wealthiest nation in the world because Congress has not taken the time or the effort. Who are these people? They are your brothers, your sisters, your aunts, your uncles, your neighbors, the people you go to church with. Where does this money go? Right back into every single Member's district. Mr. Moore of Utah has 110,000 Social Security recipients in his district. Every single Member of Congress is getting a card that tells them how many recipients they have in their district, what they receive, whether they are dependents, spouses, or disabled. That is what we are focused on. We want a vote, Mr. Speaker, because the American people demand it. That is why I am joined here for this Special Order hour on this floor by so many of our colleagues. There are so many of us that we hope everyone will recognize their time and have consideration for their colleagues, but I will also point out the more than 350 groups across the Nation that support the Social Security 2100 Act, including the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Social Security Works, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, Paralyzed Veterans of America, the National Education Association, and I could go on. Instead, I am going to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a leader on the Subcommittee on Social Security.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, there is no person on the committee who has fought harder for the repeal of WEP and GPO and who understands the significance and impact that Social Security has on so many of her constituents and constituents all across this country than Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I again want to point out that both Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Moore, who will be speaking next, understand completely that Social Security is an earned benefit. It is often referred to on the other side as an entitlement. It is hardly an entitlement. Every American knows when they look at their paycheck that it says FICA. That stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Whose? Yours. Gwen Moore understands that, and that is why she has been fighting on this committee to make sure that we not only extend the solvency, but we enhance the benefits. Imagine this, Richard Nixon was President of the United States the last time Congress enhanced any benefits to Social Security. Do you think things have changed a little bit over those years? Every single member of the public ought to be outraged by this. It is not anything the President can do with executive order. It is not anything that is going to happen through the judiciary. It is only through the United States Congress. What are we asking of the Congress? We are asking them to vote. That is what Gwen Moore does every week on the committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I, again, thank the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Social Security Works, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, and AARP, which came out most recently condemning the so-called commission that is coming down the pike. Every American should be aware of this. When they are talking about a debt commission, what they are talking about is cutting Social Security, a commission that goes behind closed doors and without public hearings decides what is going to be the future of Social Security. Americans--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--support Social Security and enhancing it. Nobody knows that better than Steve Horsford, who represents more than 150,000 Social Security recipients in his home State of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Moore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has done just an incredible job on the Ways and Means Committee, again advocating on a regular basis, especially for the more than 5 million fellow Americans who get below- poverty-level checks from Social Security. We are not here just to extend the solvency of Social Security. We have a plan that the President of the United States supports, that is fully paid for. It is paid for by having people--are you ready for this?--who are making over $400,000--that is about six-tenths of 1 percent of the American people. Raise your hand in the gallery if you are making more than $400,000. By doing just that, we will both extend the solvency and enhance the program that is fully paid for and make sure the trust fund stays intact. That is what the gentleman from Pennsylvania fights for. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nevada. When he spoke, I was reminded of John Lewis, our fellow colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, who said that, in fact, Social Security is the civil rights movement. I yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), someone who understands, with the birthday of Martin Luther King coming up this Monday, our celebration of that, and one of our leaders who truly understands the fierce urgency of now and what it means to have to pass Social Security for the constituents that we represent who need it the most.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney). Together, we have gone across the State of Connecticut as we have talked about Social Security and its importance and significance. Nobody understands it better, especially its impact on teachers and firefighters and police officers and municipal workers who have long been prevented through WEP and GPO. Under this bill, that all changes because of his efforts.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. That is correct.

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lieu).

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the female dean of the United States Congress, who has more than 143,000 Social Security recipients in her district and has been a tireless fighter for Social Security before I even came to the United States Congress. We applaud her efforts.