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…
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. 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.
