Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as all Americans know, Social Security is the number one antipoverty program for the elderly of this country. Most people don't realize that it is also the number one antipoverty program for children in this country.

What is further annoying to most Americans is that it has been 54 years since Congress, who has the responsibility for doing so, has enhanced Social Security benefits. This has a direct impact on every district in the country.

In the Speaker's district, there are over 174,000 Social Security recipients, and 142,000 of them are retirees; 13,000-plus are disabled workers; 7,000-plus are widows; 3,000 are spouses; and over 7,000 are children.

Mr. Speaker, what most Members don't realize is the direct economic impact and economic development impact that this has on their district. For example, the Speaker's district receives $353 million monthly for those 174,000 recipients.

Where do they spend that money, Mr. Speaker? They spend it right back in the districts where they live.

Nobody gets wealthy on Social Security, but it has been the mainstay to keep people out of poverty, both the elderly and children alike.

Congress has not taken any action to enhance those benefits since 1971. Richard Nixon was the President of the United States the last time this body, which is in charge of making sure that Americans receive this benefit, has taken any action to ensure that people in the Speaker's district and in mine and in all 435 districts receive Social Security benefits.

Here are the statistics: Over 70 million Americans rely on Social Security. For more than 35 million Americans, it is the only retirement benefit that they have. Americans are getting concerned by the day because 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to plead for Congress to take action. Have a vote. If Members have a better idea, they should put it forward.

President Trump has at least called for tax cuts. Most people don't realize that, when they retire, all of a sudden, they are being double taxed because their Social Security is taxed. That is a good idea, but President Trump's plan doesn't pay for that.

When it is not paid for, the money comes directly out of the trust fund, therefore hurting everybody in the program because it will reduce Social Security benefits by 36 percent as soon as 2031. That is not a long way off, and this body of Congress has been woefully negligent in making sure it is speaking out on behalf of the American people and the citizens that we are sworn to serve.

This is capitalism's safety net. The reason that we are able to thrive as a Nation and be entrepreneurial in the system is because we have a safety net for our workforce. In the event that a business collapses or people get laid off or they don't have work, there is Social Security. That is the brilliance of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that is still with us, and it is embraced overwhelmingly by Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliated persons.

It is time to act, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Social Security, as you know, is the number one anti-poverty program in this country for the elderly and the number one anti-poverty program in the country for our children.

More than 70 million Americans receive Social Security. Yet, it has been more than 54 years since Congress has last enacted any legislation to enhance Social Security.

Richard Nixon was the President of the United States the last time that Congress enhanced the benefits of Social Security. With more than 10,000 baby boomers a day becoming eligible for Social Security, you can understand the impact that this has, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, more than 154,000 people in Alabama in your district alone receive Social Security; 111,000-plus for pensions; 19,000 receive disability payments; more than 9,000 widows; 4,000 spouses; and more than 9,000 children.

Mr. Speaker, $275 million a month comes into your district to supply the people of that district with the essential benefits they need and to keep most of them out of poverty. Where do they spend this money? They spend it right back in the communities that they live in.

This is an important economic enhancement, as well, and Congress has not taken any action in more than 54 years. Now, the Republican Study Committee says that it is going to cut Social Security.

The benefits are going to be cut regardless of whether Congress takes no action. That is why Congress should act and act now. We shouldn't be looking to cut benefits for the citizens we represent. We should be enhancing benefits that haven't been touched in more than 50 years.

President Trump has now called for tax cuts for Social Security. That is laudable in and of itself. However, he does not pay for them.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues know that when you don't pay for those benefits, the money comes directly out of the trust fund. The great irony in attempting to say that Congress is going to give citizens a tax cut is that what Members are really doing is cutting benefits by more than 36 percent for all those individuals.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats have a plan that calls for a tax cut, as well, but it is paid for. The American people need to know that these benefits need to be paid for, and Congress needs to take action. Otherwise, we will continue to stress the Social Security trust fund that Congress hasn't acted on in over 50-plus years.

I am sure, for a number of people listening in the audience and our viewers, they understand what this means, but they probably weren't aware that it is going to take a vote of Congress. This isn't something the President can do through executive action or that the Supreme Court is going to do. It is going to take an act of Congress specifically on behalf of the individuals we are sworn to serve.

By passing a tax cut that is not paid for, what my colleagues are really doing is cutting benefits for all recipients, including those who will receive the tax cut. Even though they may get some temporary relief, the program will be impacted in the long term. Meanwhile, people like Elon Musk are paying nothing into a system that desperately needs the help of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I start by acknowledging my good friend and colleague, and I thank him. I think his heart is in the right place.

Let me say, having worked on this issue for a number of years, to have a Social Security, and in this case a portion of it, come to the floor, albeit under suspension and not through regular order, Mr. Speaker, is a step in the right direction, but the American people have to be outraged by the fact that it has been over 50 years since Congress has adjusted Social Security. By that, I mean enhanced Social Security for its recipients. Imagine that.

Do you think a few things have happened since Richard Nixon was President of the United States? Do you think a few things have happened, especially as we live in this post-COVID and now inflationary period?

It impacts over 70 million of our fellow Americans. This provision that my colleague and good friend is talking about, WEP, is minuscule in terms of comparing that to individuals. As well intended as I believe he is, this doesn't straighten out the problem. In our bill, the Social Security 2100 Act, we repeal WEP and GPO, and we pay for it. That is the responsible thing that Congress has to do on behalf of the American people.

Here are the facts: 70 million Americans rely on Social Security, and it is the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the number one antipoverty program for children. More veterans rely on Social Security for disability than they do the VA.

Congress has done nothing to help these individuals out. Add to that, Mr. Speaker, the fact that 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security.

What we need to do today, and in both of these bills that are coming before us, are steps forward, but we need to come together as a Congress and vote to fix Social Security in a manner that doesn't hurt or cut benefits for individuals who haven't seen a benefit enhancement in more than 50 years. We come here today and say here is a crumb, but even in the form of this crumb, this proposal will cut benefits for hardworking, everyday Americans.

I respect my colleague, and I do believe that his heart is in the right place, but Congress--both sides--have responsibility here, but perhaps now there is an opportunity for us to act--perhaps the fact that even under suspension, not regular order with public hearings where viewers get to see and actually hear from expert witnesses and get to hear both the fiscal side of what needs to be paid for but also the benefits side in terms of what has not been done.

Imagine, my dear friend knows this, 5 million of our fellow Americans--and they are in Texas and Connecticut--get below poverty- level checks from their government. So it is great that you have a proposal for WEP, but 5 million people currently on Social Security get below poverty-level checks from the wealthiest Nation in the world and from a country that has had a program in place, but Congress hasn't acted in over 50 years. Most of the 5 million are women, and most of them are women of color.

There are more than 33 million who the only benefit that they have, the only thing that keeps them out of poverty, is Social Security, and Congress hasn't acted since 1971. These people will be hurt by this proposal.

Benefit cuts in a time of inflation? Ask your constituents back home, Mr. Speaker, whether or not they can afford this cut.

Now, here is the other irony. Here we have one of the great economic development plans ever instituted by the United States Congress; That is right, an economic development plan, Social Security. How so?

Every district, on average, has about 143,000 Social Security recipients. Every district, monthly, receives on average $200 million in cash coming into their district.

In fact, for my dear friend and colleague here, $222 million comes into his district on a monthly basis. He has more than 95,000 retirees, 9,000 children who get money from Social Security, 10,000 widows, 4,800 spouses, and 14,000 disabled.

Congress has done nothing. These cuts will take place because Congress hasn't stepped up and said we need to fund this program, not cut it. Some say back in 1983 they did do something. Yeah, what they did is they raised the age, another great proposal on the other side. For every year you raise the age, that is a 7 percent cut in benefits. Let's raise the age to age 70, the Republican Study Committee says, and what does that do? It cuts benefits by 21 percent.

Aren't you glad you worked hard and invested and put your money aside so that you could find out that, yeah, what we are going to do is raise the age so you work longer, and as you are living longer, we expect that you will get less in retirement, not more. It makes no sense whatsoever.

We need to come together as a Congress and vote to enhance the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and for our children.

I respect the good intentions that people have, but as they say, the road to hell oftentimes is paved with good intentions. In this case, though, let's not talk about the parties. There is a lot of blame to go around here. How about we focus on the people, the American people, who we take an oath of office and swear to serve.

Staring this Congress in the face is over 50 years of inaction and 70 million people who are impacted by this in what is the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and for our children.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have to say I do agree with Mr. Roy's last statement that what we needed to do was go through regular order and what we need is to pay for it. That is the responsible thing to do, is to pay for it.

We have a plan to not only repeal WEP and GPO but pay for it. Yes, I heard people refer to the Brady-Neal proposal, but Ranking Member Neal has a plan also to deal with WEP that is fair and makes sense and is something that we should be embracing and including and is paid for. That is the big issue today. It is not that people's hearts aren't in the right place, and I think the gentleman from Texas understands this.

All of us are Americans. The President of the United States, Mr. Biden, has made a proposal. The incoming President, Mr. Trump, has made a proposal also. He has made a proposal to cut taxes for people on Social Security. We have that proposal in our bill, except we pay for it. That is the responsible thing to do.

What has been irresponsible is Congress not debating this in regular order and bringing it to the floor. How about doing something incredible here, actually have a vote on the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and number one antipoverty program for our children until the child tax credit is fully adopted, and is the program that more veterans rely on for disability than the VA.

This program is so admired and respected by the American people that overwhelmingly Independents, Republicans, and Democrats, all believe that it should be supported, expanded, because it hasn't been in over 50 years, and paid for.

We have a plan. We are anxiously waiting for the debate and for the discussion and the dialogue to take place here in regular order and have a vote on a plan that is comprehensive and paid for and lifts the 5 million Americans who get below-poverty-level checks from the government above the poverty level and provides people with the opportunity in every single one of our communities to get the benefits they richly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I think you gave a very impassioned plea, but I think we have to dispense with we are throwing money at the problem. This is money that people have paid weekly, biweekly, and monthly out of their paychecks.

We are not talking about just 2 million people with regard to WEP. We are talking about 70 million Americans. They understand this program.

Frankly, it doesn't need to be studied. It needs to be voted on.

Where is the plan on your side?

We have a plan, and God only knows that plan should be subject to debate and discussion, but the plan is to enhance Social Security, not to cut it, so that people who are currently struggling, people now, today, not waiting for a study, but as we speak are getting below poverty-level checks.

You stand there and tell me we are throwing money at them?

They didn't think it was throwing money when we were paying the money out of their paycheck and they put their trust and confidence in the United States of America to return to them a benefit that has been the number one antipoverty program for the country.

I don't care what party you are in or who you are, you understand what Social Security has meant to you. Social Security is the safety net for capitalism. It is what allows entrepreneurialism to succeed, for people to take risks, and if they fail unintentionally or otherwise, people are disadvantaged or out of work, they are protected. We learned that lesson after the Great Depression.

If you think it can't happen again, it can. In 2008 and 2009, people saw their 401(k) become a 101(k), and during that time, that trust fund never missed a payment, not a pension payment, not a disability payment, and not a spousal or child payment.

What it needs is Congress to act and Congress to vote. Congress is going to go one of two ways. They are either going to enhance the benefit and say: Hey, do you know what? This hasn't been adjusted in over 53 years, and we recognize we have the responsibility to do that, but we haven't acted, and we haven't voted.

Both sides haven't acted.

However, now is the time for us to act and to vote and put a plan in front of people so that they get the opportunity to choose.

Have you got a better plan?

We have got one. We have got one that expands benefits and is paid for. We actually have the temerity to ask people who pay nothing to actually contribute to Social Security just like they do to this great military that we have in this Nation. People don't go out and buy their own tanks and their own F-35s. It is long overdue that people in this country all contribute their fair share to the process. This is the safety net for capitalism and entrepreneurialism in order for us to survive. Every single district--every district--is benefited by it. It is an economic development plan.

How do you explain it to people?

How can you look them in the eye and say: I am sorry we couldn't do anything for you, even though your districts all receive over $200 million, and yet we haven't done anything to enhance that?

These were suggestions that they take less while they are living longer?

Where do they spend that money?

They spend that money right back in your district at the local pharmacy, at the grocery store, paying their rent and mortgages, and at the dry cleaners. It all goes back to the American people and allows our economy to flourish.

The brilliance of Franklin Delano Roosevelt is still with us today. It is

obstinate of Congress to not vote to enhance people's benefits in more than 50 years.

Ask anyone in your district: Have things changed for them since 1971? Could they use a little help from their Congress?

How many do you think even understand there is a cap on Social Security?

Are we proposing that we lift the cap on people making over $400,000 and that they actually would have to pay the same thing as someone who is making $30, $50, and $100,000?

They all pay.

Isn't that the fair thing to do in the country so that all of your constituents and mine and all 435 Members of this body can make sure that we are taking care of the people whom we are sworn to serve, especially those who are already retired, those who are there now?

While I respect the intention of the gentleman, 14 million people's benefits get cut under your proposal--14 million. That is not acceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I commend Representatives Abigail Spanberger and Garret Graves for their extraordinary work. It is not often in this body, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues are going to find a bipartisan group of more than 300 Members who sign on to a proposal. Why? Well, my colleagues did it because of how dead wrong WEP and GPO are and because of the impact on schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, and municipal employees. That is why it is so heartening to see colleagues on both sides of the aisle come together and say, yes, there is a path forward, and yes, WEP and GPO need to be reformed and, in fact, eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the chair. We need regular order. We need regular order because Social Security needs to be addressed comprehensively. If not for the work of Ms. Spanberger and Mr. Graves, we wouldn't even be here. There would be no dialogue, no discussion, no debate on the number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the number one antipoverty program for children, a program that protects spouses and their children, which every American agrees with and understands.

Congress hasn't acted to expand a program and, in this case, hasn't acted to help people who actually worked other jobs and paid into a system and are being wrongfully penalized, which is why, in our proposal of Social Security 2100, we repeal it, as well, and pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the chairman. We didn't have all the data over 40 years ago. Now, we do, and now, we have that opportunity. We also have the momentum in a body that recognizes that not only is this unfair, but to have 5 million fellow Americans get below-poverty-level checks is unfair. To not have increased or enhanced benefits in over 50 years is unfair. To not have a COLA that actually reflects what seniors spend their money on is also unfair. To tax Social Security with regular income after you have retired is unfair.

It needs to be addressed. I thank the Members who have done this and have brought this, and we need to respond comprehensively. I will add that we need to pay for it as well, but the Members who have strove to bring this to the floor deserve tremendous credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Budzinski).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I will point out as well that the Social Security trust fund is not part of the national debt. This proposal does not run up the national debt. It impacts the trust fund.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is rare when you see in this body the number of people who have come together to support a bill. I think it demonstrates overwhelmingly how badly we need to come together and pass legislation that impacts the American people. We see so many of them as was so eloquently stated by so many speakers today, especially Mr. Graves and Mr. Higgins, saying how these individuals have had money taken out of their paychecks and receive nothing. It is wrong. We all know that it is wrong. It needs to be corrected, and it needs to be paid for.

I respect the idea and notion that we have to be fiscally responsible, but Social Security, the trust fund, is so solid but for one thing: the inaction of the United States Congress for more than 53 years failing the American people, failing to do the right thing for teachers, for firefighters, and for police officers.

I will bet everybody here has heard from the firefighters' union and from the teachers' union and from others who are standing up and saying, this is flat-out wrong. They are absolutely right, but there are other people that are hurt as well when items aren't paid for.

Who is here to speak for the 5 million Americans who get below- poverty-level checks from the wealthiest Nation in the world? Who speaks for them? Who speaks for the more than 33 million Americans who the only benefit that they have is Social Security?

As proud as I am of the speakers on our side who have talked about the need to address this issue for people that have been hurt and disadvantaged, if we don't pay for it we hurt and disadvantage people who are in the fund currently by not comprehensively addressing this issue and paying for it.

What that takes is for the discussion to move forward in a manner in which it goes through regular order, it is debated in committee and on the floor, and then voted on.

The great news is that there will actually be a vote and there will actually be a discussion, and people will have to say, well, why was that so and what was the outcome?

In doing so, hopefully, we will have an understanding about the absolute neglect by the United States Congress, both Chambers, to address the Nation's number one antipoverty program for our elderly and for our children. It is the safety net of capitalism and entrepreneurialism. It should be something we are embracing where both sides have good points to make, but one of them clearly isn't cutting benefits intentionally or unintentionally that end up hurting the very people we are sworn to serve, the very people that Social Security was meant to protect. The genius of Roosevelt and the Congress back in 1935 is that they got it. It took a major event like the Great Depression, but if you think it can't happen again, think back to 2008 and 2009 when people's 401(k)'s became 101(k)'s.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are begging us to do something, to have a vote. They are right. These benefits have been taken from them that they earned and paid for. They deserve them, but in the process we can't hurt those people who we have also neglected. There are 5 million fellow Americans in all of our districts getting below-poverty-level checks. That is wrong.

My heart is heavy because I oppose this bill because of who it impacts and hurts, but I totally respect the effort in what was done and the fact, thanks to the efforts of 300 Members of this body, there will at least be a vote, not the vote I would have preferred, but a vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record the following press release from Veterans For Peace, brought to my attention by Jim Brasile, a constituent and leader of a local chapter of Veterans For Peace who cares passionately about the situation in Gaza. While I may have a difference in opinion with some of the content, I feel that in a democracy, it is important to consider a variety of viewpoints. Mr. Brasile witnessed the violence of war first-hand when he served in Vietnam as a member of the U.S. Marine Corps. Since then, he has been a steadfast advocate against conflict and for non-aggression. I thank Mr. Brasile for his service to our country and commend him for his commitment to peace.

Department of State officials call him out for lying to Congress

A national veterans' organization today called for a grand

jury to indict Department of State (DOS) Secretary Antony

Blinken and the U.S. Ambassador to Israel for lying to

Congress, violating the Export Control Act, the Genocide

Prevention Act and the U.S. War Crimes Act.

In a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, Veterans For

Peace (VFP) cited published reports showing that internal DOS

emails and the statements of two senior State Department

officials showed Blinken lied when he issued his ``Report to

Congress'' stating, ``. . . we do not currently assess that

the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise

restricting the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian

assistance.'' (p. 32)

ProPublica revealed a series of State Department emails,

internal memos, and meeting notes in which officials agreed

Israel was blocking humanitarian aid which should trigger

Section 6201 of the Foreign Assistance Act which prohibits

weapons shipments to any country the President has been told

is blocking humanitarian aid.

In addition to the internal documents ProPublica included,

from previous reports, that Samantha Power, Director of USAID

and Stacy Gilbert, a former USAID bureau head had both voiced

objections to Blinken's findings as the report was being

prepared.

Power stated that the looming famine in Gaza was the result

of Israel's ``arbitrary denial, restriction, and impediments

of U.S. humanitarian assistance'' and called it ``one of the

worst humanitarian catastrophes in the world.''

Gilbert, former senior civil military adviser in USAID's

refugees bureau, resigned in May after the DOS ``Report to

Congress'' was released. She said then, ``There is abundant

evidence showing Israel is responsible for blocking aid. To

deny this is absurd and shameful. That report and its

flagrant untruths will haunt us.''

VFP human rights counsel Terry Lodge said, ``The Israeli

military continues detonating massive bombs in southern

Beirut--bombs they would not possess but for Antony Blinken's

repeated violations of federal laws aimed at halting human

rights and war crimes violations. Members of the Biden

administration unwilling to rein in Israel and furthering its

genocide in Gaza need to go to jail.''

VFP President Susan Schnall stated, ``Just last week, the

U.S. gave Israel another $8.7 billion in weapons to kill and

wound innocent Palestinians--in addition to the $3.8 billion

we give them every year. This `Genocide Tax' is a theft from

millions of Americans who have none of the health insurance

every Israeli enjoys; from millions of Americans living in

horrific housing while Israel builds thousands of upscale

homes on land stolen from Palestinians; from millions of

young Americans can't afford college because America's top

priorities are weapons and death, not human needs.''

VFP's letter seeking an indictment of Blinken follows one

to the DOS Inspector-General February 9, 2024, alleging that

Blinken and DOS officials had already violated a series of

existing U.S. laws and international treaties by transferring

arms to Israel, by quoting a sworn declaration from Josh

Paul. Mr. Paul, former Director of Congressional and Public

Affairs in the State Department's Bureau of Political-

Military Affairs, attested to significant failures by the

Department in a declaration filed in the Defense for Children

International--Palestine lawsuit.

VFP's February letter was never responded to nor

acknowledged.

ProPublica also reported that:

The head of the State Department's Bureau of Population,

Refugees and Migration had determined that Israel was

blocking humanitarian aid and that the Foreign Assistance Act

should be triggered to freeze almost $830 million in taxpayer

dollars earmarked for weapons and bombs to Israel,

DOS Deputy Assistant Secretary, Mira Resnick, and the DOS

acting legal adviser, Richard Visek, pressured that bureau

and others to agree that Israel was not withholding U.S.

humanitarian aid.

Veterans For Peace has one hundred chapters in the U.S.

Since 1985 VFP has exposed the true cost of war and advocated

to abolish war as an instrument of national policy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record the following press release from Veterans For Peace, brought to my attention by Jim Brasile, a constituent and leader of a local chapter of Veterans For Peace who cares passionately about the situation in Gaza. While I may have a difference in opinion with some of the content, I feel that in a democracy, it is important to consider a variety of viewpoints. Mr. Brasile witnessed the violence of war first-hand when he served in Vietnam as a member of the U.S. Marine Corps. Since then, he has been a steadfast advocate against conflict and for non-aggression. I thank Mr. Brasile for his service to our country and commend him for his commitment to peace.

numerous federal criminal statute violations cited, no response from

state department inspector-general

In sixteen U.S. cities, March 5 through 7, members of

Veterans For Peace will hand deliver an exhaustively

researched letter to U.S. State Department offices that has

gotten no response from the department's Inspector-General

since February 11.

The cities are Buffalo, New York, Minneapolis, St. Louis,

Portsmouth, NH, Greensboro, NC, Boston, San Diego, Tucson,

Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Bridgeport, CT, Los Angeles,

Dallas and Houston.

Josh Paul, former State Department senior official who

resigned over weapons shipments to Israel said, ``The

Secretary and all relevant officials under his purview should

take this letter from Veterans For Peace with the utmost

seriousness. It is a stark reminder of the importance of

abiding by the laws and policies that relate to arms

transfers.''

The letter from Veterans For Peace alleges violations by

U.S. government officials of:

The Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, which prohibits U.S.

weapons transfers when it's likely they will be used by

Israel to commit genocide; crimes against humanity; and grave

breaches of the Geneva Conventions, including attacks

intentionally directed against civilian objects or civilians

or other serious violations of international humanitarian or

human rights law, including serious acts of gender-based

violence or serious acts of violence against children. Dozens

of authoritative complaints and referrals made by hospital

administrators in Gaza, as well as by Amnesty International,

Human Rights Watch, Palestine Authority, South Africa,

Turkey, Medicins san Frontieres, UNRWA, UNICEF, the

Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Norwegian

Refugee Council and the World Food Programme, have confirmed

that there is an ongoing human rights and humanitarian

disaster due to Israel's cutoff of water and electricity,

deliberate destruction of sewage infrastructure and delaying

of aid shipments by Israeli forces.

The Foreign Assistance Act, which forbids the provision of

assistance to a government which ``engages in a consistent

pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized

human rights.'' Arms Export Control Act, which says countries

that receive U.S. military aid can only use weapons for

legitimate self-defense and internal security. Israel's

genocidal campaign in Gaza goes way beyond self-defense and

internal security.

The U.S. War Crimes Act, which forbids grave breaches of

the Geneva Conventions, including willful killing, torture or

inhuman treatment, willfully causing great suffering or

serious injury to body or health, and unlawful deportation or

transfer, perpetrated by the Israeli Occupying Forces.

The Leahy Law, which prohibits the U.S. Government from

using funds for assistance to units of foreign security

forces where there is credible information implicating that

unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights.

The Genocide Convention Implementation Act, which was

enacted to implement U.S. obligations under the Genocide

Convention, provides for criminal penalties for individuals

who commit or incite others to commit genocide.

Mike Ferner, VFP National Director, said, ``Just as any

good soldier can recognize when they are given an unlawful

order, we believe some State Department staff are horrified

at the orders they're given and will decide to uphold the

law, find the courage to speak out and demand an end to the

carnage. VFP enthusiastically supports Josh Paul for what he

did and we believe the public does, too. The IDF has killed

over 30,000 Palestinians and is utterly destroying Gaza.

These actions amount to genocide, war crimes, and crimes

against humanity, and VFP wants them investigated.''

Veterans For Peace has over 100 chapters in the U.S. and

since 1985 has exposed the true costs of war and militarism.

Its goal is to abolish war as an instrument of national

policy.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following article published in the August/September issue of the Capitol Hill Citizen by my constituent, Ralph Nader. I do not endorse everything put forward in the article; however, I believe it is important that it be included as a matter of free speech and discussion.

One way that the annihilator--Israeli Prime Minister

Benjamin Netanyahu--flipped off the meek urgings of President

Joe Biden and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to

``minimize civilian casualties'' in Gaza was to say--Don't

lecture me--look at what you did to civilians in Hiroshima (1

40,000 dead), Nagasaki (70,000 dead) and Dresden (25,000

dead) to crush your enemies. That's 235,000 dead in two

nations with a population at the time of 150 million.

In Gaza, a tiny enclave of 2.3 million long besieged and

impoverished people, nearly half of them children, the

Israeli regime, a military nuclear superpower, backed

unconditionally by the United States government and its

demanding lobbies, has far exceeded that three city

devastation.

The following probative evidence and professional

assessments point to a death toll of over 300,000

Palestinians in Gaza with that number at least doubling by

end of the year.

Why then is the reviled Hamas' official death count now at

about 41,000, accepted by the mass media and most

governments, regardless of their view for or against the

genocide in Gaza?

Hamas is vested in an undercount to temper accusations by

their own people that it has not protected them. (Hamas badly

underestimated the total savagery of the Israeli response to

its October 7 attack through a mysteriously collapsed

multitiered Israeli border security complex.) The Israeli

government also prefers an undercount to temper the rising

level of international condemnation and boycotts.

As a result, the slow rise in the official fatality and

injury undercount leaves a widening gap each day compared to

the actual toll of death and morbidity on the ground.

Normally, there would be an ongoing ``gold standard''

epidemiological estimate.

But war epidemiology has historically been understudied. A

2015 article in the journal Epidemiology found that for the

epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome there had

been nearly 2.5 academic articles per death, while for the

epidemiology of wars and armed conflict there are only

0.00005 articles per death.

Gaza presents additional obstacles. For years, Netanyahu

has barred entry by journalists, including Israelis, from

free and independent reporting there.

In early July 2024, more than 70 media and civil society

organizations signed an open letter urging Israel to give

journalists independent access to Gaza.

The organizations--which include the Associated Press,

Agence France-Presse, BBC, CNN, The Guardian, the New York

Times, and the Washinglon Post--said that no independent

media access to Gaza has been permitted since the start of

the war.

``This effective ban on foreign reporting has placed an

impossible and unreasonable burden on local reporters to

document a war through which they are living,'' they wrote.

``More than 100 journalists have been killed since the

start of the war and those who remain are working in

conditions of extreme deprivation. The result is that

information from Gaza is becoming harder and harder to obtain

and that the reporting which does get through is subject to

repeated questions over its veracity.''

Similarly, international humanitarian analysts have been

excluded.

``Aid groups have been pointing to Israel restricting the

flow of assistance into the territory as a major driver of

the crisis,'' Tharoor repeated. ``Some prominent Israeli

officials openly champion stymying these transfers of aid.''

Martin Griffiths, the United Nations lead humanitarian

officer said weeks ago that ``life is draining out of Gaza at

terrifying speed.''

``U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned of an

`unknown number of people'--believed to be in the tens of

thousands--lying under the rubble of buildings brought down

by Israeli strikes,'' the Post reported.

On April 5, 2024, then special envoy for Biden on

Humanitarian Affairs, David Satterfield told the American

Jewish Committee ``there is an imminent risk of famine for

the majority, if not all, the 2.2 million population of

Gaza.''

``This is not a point in debate. It is an established fact,

which the United States, its experts, the international

community, its experts assess and believe is real,''

Satterfield said.

A few days later, USAID administrator Samantha Power agreed

that it was ``credible'' to assess that famine was already

occurring in Gaza.

UNICEF, Save the Children, the World Food Program, the

International Rescue Committee, the UN High Commissioner for

Human Rights, the Palestine Red Crescent Society, and Doctors

Without Borders are all relating the same catastrophic

conditions getting worse.

Some of these groups have lost valiant staff to Israeli

attacks, including while sheltering in clearly marked UNWRA

and Red Crescent buildings and vehicles. Israeli war crime

violations of international law are legion, according to

experts in the field from many nations.

These groups have years of experience working in disaster

areas around the world and their reputation for reporting

conditions is first rate. They know full well that the

terrifying amputations and other disabilities and the

corrosive PTSD on civilians, especially children, will long

continue for those survivors.

Against this background, the mass media ditto heading the

Hamas undercount would have people believe that 98 percent of

the Gaza population has survived the Israeli onslaught. This

is lethally impossible.

In July, the prestigious UK medical journal The Lancet put

out a study of the Gaza undercount conservatively concluding

that ``it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186,000

or even more deaths could be attributable to the current

conflict in Gaza.''

Finally, there is eye witness clinical evidence by western

physicians, nurses and medical support staff returning from

their tours of duty in the remaining badly damaged hospitals.

Their accounts offer more probative evidence. In a largely

ignored, documented letter to Joe Biden, Dr. Jill Biden and

Kamala Harris, dated July 25, 2024, 45 of these doctors

recounted their clinical observations.

Here are a few of them:

``I've never seen such horrific injuries, on such a massive

scale, with so few resources. Our bombs are cutting down

women and children by the thousands. Their mutilated bodies

are a monument to cruelty.''--Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, trauma and

critical care surgeon.

``Gaza was the first time I held a baby's brains in my

hand. The first of many.''--Dr. Mark Perlmutter, orthopedic

and hand surgeon.

``Specifically, every one of us on a daily basis treated

preteen children who were shot in the head and chest,'' the

doctors wrote in the letter to the Bidens and Harris. ``With

only marginal exceptions, everyone in Gaza is sick, injured,

or both.''

``President and Dr. Biden, we wish you could see the

nightmares that plague so many of us since we have returned--

dreams of children maimed and mutilated by our weapons, and

their inconsolable mothers begging us to save them,'' they

wrote. ``We wish you could hear the cries and screams our

consciences will not let us forget. We cannot believe that

anyone would continue arming the country that is deliberately

killing these children after seeing what we have seen.''

``Israel has targeted our colleagues in Gaza for death,

disappearance, and torture,'' the doctors wrote. ``We believe

that the death toll from this conflict is many times higher

than what is reported by the Gaza Ministry of Health.'' ``We

urge you to end this madness now.''

Ironically, in December 2023, Dr. Jill Biden told spouse

Joe Biden: ``Stop it, stop it now, Joe.'' (Source: Joe

Biden). The doctors who signed the letter are asking for a

personal meeting with the Bidens and Kamala Harris.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an op-ed by Lisa Rimland for recognizing Tim Colburn's career of courage, compassion, and care for those who are most in need and often forgotten.

I have known Tim Colburn all my life. We grew up together in a federal housing project called Mayberry Village, named after the legendary Dr. Franklin Mayberry of East Hartford. We jokingly referred to it as the `Cardboard City.' Tim was then always caring, compassionate, and competitive--excelling at everything he did. In sports, he was probably the best all-around athlete in the Village and in the town we grew up in; he especially excelled at track and field, which require individual athleticism.

His love of people, with special attention to the underserved and the underdogs, is legendary. It was an honor for me to know and count Tim as a true friend. I stand in awe of his selfless leadership and accomplishments. He was never concerned about taking credit and always did the right thing because that is how he was raised and what he valued.

Lisa Rimland's op-ed in the Hartford Courant confirms what the world should know about Tim. They attest to Tim Coburn's contributions to his family, his friends, his community and associations, and the state and Nation he loved.

One of the hardest-working people in Connecticut, who has

spent virtually his whole life doing good, retired recently.

What he accomplished should be shouted from the rooftops but

few people know his name because the world in which he worked

is not a world that is spoken about often. In many ways it is

not that well-known, yet it affects most of us intimately and

inevitably.

The man is Timothy Coburn, and for decades he has

functioned as a court-appointed ``receiver,'' a person who

goes into nursing homes and other care facilities that are in

trouble, financially and/or otherwise, and tries to save

them. In these situations, the human stakes are very high. If

the problems in a home cannot be fixed or the home cannot be

sold, the home may have to be closed, resulting in transfer

trauma risks for frail residents and patients and the loss of

jobs for countless employees.

The world of nursing homes has recently become better

publicized because of the COVID pandemic. With what they have

gone

through, these homes are now firmly in mythological

territory, as is Mr. Coburn. I first became aware of Mr.

Coburn and his world in July of 2012 when the care home I was

living in was put into receivership by the Superior Court due

to various problems. I was living in the care home because

after I was declared disabled in 2004, I could not find

housing assistance in Mansfield.

On the evening of July 18, 2012, after Mr. Coburn had just

been appointed receiver of the home in which I lived, a quick

but violent thunderstorm knocked out the power, and the

generator failed. I called and reported the situation to

Barbara Cass of the Department of Public Health, and within

an hour a truck arrived hauling a new generator which was

hooked up to restore power. Mr. Coburn had rented the

generator. This is only one example of Mr. Coburn's constant

generosity. If a home that he was in charge of needed

something, he would go out right away and buy it with his own

money, then later get reimbursed by the court. If anyone

living in one of his homes had exceptional needs or

circumstances, he accommodated them. He was always available

to lend a helping hand, a listening ear, or a ride to

dialysis.

Skilled-nursing facilities have been his specialty. A

nursing home receivership usually lasts about two years, but

Mr. Coburn's last one ran through the pandemic and is

approaching four under another receiver. Miraculously, he

remained healthy through most of the pandemic. Few of us can

imagine what he and all those responsible for running the

homes went through during the pandemic. But if you visit the

homes now, and even more so if you live in the homes, you can

see and feel the pandemic's mark, almost as if you were

visiting a country where a terrible war was fought: the

bodies'of the casualties are gone, but you can feel their

presence everywhere. It is quiet and peaceful, yet with

echoes of an unspeakable past, and the words ``God willing''

are appended to every plan.

This is the world that Mr. Coburn left, having served the

frailest citizens of our state during both peace and

metaphoric wartime. It was in these homes that the most

helpless of the pandemic's victims died, and that many of the

most courageous of the healthcare workers fought to save as

many as they could, and to save themselves. Many people shun

the world of these homes even if they have family members

living in them. This is a tragedy in many ways, because there

are lessons to be learned in the homes that cannot be learned

from books, lessons for the heart as well as the mind,

lessons in compassion and even keys to the mysteries of war

and peace. Eventually, most of us will occupy a bed in one of

these homes. Why wait until then to visit?

If more people embraced the homes with the love, compassion

and enthusiasm of Mr. Coburn, it would be a better world for

all of us, both inside and outside the homes. If there is one

sure lesson that can be learned from the pandemic and the

homes, this is it.

Mr. Speaker, due to personal circumstances, I regrettably missed votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call No. 436, the Motion to Recommit H.R. 5717, Nay on Roll Call No. 437, Final Passage of H.R. 5717, Nay on Roll Call No. 438, H.J. Res. 136, and Yea on Roll Call No. 439, H.R. 9106.

Mr. Speaker, Bill Pascrell was one of the most unique and authentic people I have ever had the privilege of knowing and serving with as both a colleague and a dear friend. He was so loved and appreciated for his candor and for the authentic way that he communicated his concerns for the people of Paterson and all of New Jersey. The Congress will never quite be the same, and nor will the `corner,' our committee, or the Democratic Caucus. He was loved and respected by both Democrats and Republicans. He had that kind of impact on people and especially his friends and family for whom he deeply loved. Our hearts go out to his wife Elsie, his sons William III, Glenn, and David, his grandchildren, and the entire Pascrell family.

It is my honor to include in the Record a eulogy delivered by Monsignor Eugene R. (Geno) Sylva of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Paterson, NJ, who on August 28th captured the essence of the Late Honorable Bill Pascrell:

A reading from the Holy Gospel According to Luke: ``For if

you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even

sinners who love those who love them. If you do good to those

who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even

sinners do the same. If you lend money to those whom you

expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners

lend to sinners and get back the same amount. But rather,

love your enemies, do good to them, lend expecting nothing

back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be

children of the Most High. For He himself is kind to the

ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as also your

Father is merciful.'' The Gospel of the Lord.

Please be seated.

Elsie, Bill, Glenn, David, Kelly, the whole family, please

know that our love and our prayers have been with you and

will continue to be with you. And to have all of you here,

and to have his bishop, deacons, priests, to have his beloved

firefighters, his wonderful group of pastors, his peers in

politics--the Congressman would've loved this. And Bill, I

think you're right, if your father was speaking, he'd still

be talking now. Because we tried at times, there was no doing

this (motions to cut off) once he got rollin'.

On the morning of Sherriff Richard Berdnik's funeral mass,

this cathedral was overflowing with people. Police officers,

firefighters lined the streets outside, the haunting sounds

of the bagpipes wailed, when all of a sudden, my phone in my

pocket begins to buzz. Worried that there might be an

emergency outside, I take the phone out of my pocket, and I

see the name Congressman Bill Pascrell. So, in a hushed

voice, I answered the phone, hoping that The Congressman

realized that the funeral was about to begin. There on the

line, was the frantic voice of The Congressman, ``Monsignor,

delay the start of the mass, I'm running late! You have to

stall for 15 minutes.'' This is no exaggeration. ``I loved

the sheriff, I can't be late for the mass, I have to be

there, I'm tellin' ya, start late.'' I gotta be honest with

you, my heart dropped. I'm sure we've all been in those

situations where the beloved Congressman has spoken very . .

. strongly. You never wanted to let him down, right? You see,

after the Sherriff's wake the evening before, the Congressman

had been rushed to the hospital and was only being released

that very morning. He wanted to go home with Elsie and get

changed so that he could look presentable for the funeral

mass for his beloved friend, Sherriff Berdnik. Now, most

normal men, they probably would've gone home and gone to bed.

Not Bill. He had to go to church to pray for his friend.

But that's Congressman William J. Pascrell Jr. If he loved

ya, there was no extent that he would not go to in order to

help ya. But what made him truly remarkable, as it is easy to

help those whom you love, and who you love, was that Bill

would do all that he could to assist you even if he didn't

like you, and you might not have liked him. Yes, he was a

self-proclaimed tough guy, a street fighter from Paterson,

``with only one T!'' Right, how many times did we hear that?

But what made him so remarkable, and please take this to

heart, the Congressman could fight without hate. He could

fight without hate. He could become enraged and angry, I'm

sure we all felt that, without becoming vengeful. How many

times did he and I argue bitterly? And I'm sure you can guess

on what some of those issue might have been. I mean we really

slugged it out. But as heated as the discussions may have

become, however, he never let the disagreement--his anger--

lead him to disregard my position, my personhood. And in

those exchanges, I got to see his heart, and he took the time

to see my heart.

And how was he able to do this? Because he fought one

particular prized fight every day. One that was even more

important than all of those battles on Capitol Hill. And what

was that fight? Not to allow his justified anger--to make the

world a better place--to simmer and to settle into hatred.

For St. Thomas Aquinas had written, ``anger becomes a mortal

sin only if through the fierceness of anger, one falls away

from the love of God and his neighbor.'' You see, anger is

not always contrary to love. For it seeks at times to make

things right. It's only sin when it's no longer tethered to

love, which is the greatest good.

Bill was able to tether his fierceness to love. His fiery

character, which was trained in virtue by his dear parents,

St. John's High School, and yes, the Jesuits at Fordham, to

bring about good for God's kingdom. Friends, if there ever

was a quote to capture the essence of Congressman

Pascrell, it was the words of St. Augustine, whose feast

day we celebrate today, so thank you for the other quote

from St. Augustine: ``Hope has two beautiful daughters--

their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things

are and Courage to see that they do not remain the way

that they are''.

Because Bill was a man of justified anger, not of hatred--a

man of courage, not of intimidation, the Congressman offered

to each one of us in our own ways hope. I just invite you for

a moment to recall one of those moments of hope that

Congressman Bill Pascrell gave you. A moment of hope that

might have been uncomfortable in the moment, but it got you

to a place you never thought you could get, and you got.

Friends, as wonderful as those memories are, we're not here

today merely to recall those earthly moments of hope that

Bill gave us, but to pray for his eternal soul, won only

through Christ's victorious battle over sin and death. For

it's only Christ's victorious battle, not those that we wage,

that we find Christian hope. Our politicians, you provide us

with optimism, and boy, do we need that. But only Christ

graces us with eternal hope, through His victory, not on

Capitol Hill in Washington, but a hill called Golgotha in

Jerusalem. How we need both human hope and theological

Christian hope. For what is Christian hope? Christian hope is

trusting in another who is capable of extending and expanding

out limited hope and optimism into the future, into the

Divine. And that other is Jesus Christ. Chrisitan hope is

more than optimism, a belief that all will be well tomorrow.

Hope has a name and a face, hope is a person, and he is Jesus

Christ. And with hope and with the Lord, we can face the

future without having to know what tomorrow looks like or

what even awaits us. With hope, with Him, we know that our

lives will not end in emptiness. We have hope in the person

of Jesus who is alive and always with us. We know Him and we

trust Him. Friends in the resurrection, the risen Lord speaks

to us and tells us, ``Yes you need me, for no one can do this

on their own, no matter the titles we have, the power we

have. Yes, you need me, and you love me, and you have me, for

I died for you.'' Friends, in our grief today, we are offered

hope amidst our tears. For with hope in Christ, we see the

loss of our husband, our father, our grandfather, our peer,

and our friend in the light of the resurrection, for even now

through our tears the Lord makes the sunset of death give

itself way to the dawning of eternal life. Filled with hope,

as we just pause for a moment to remember a man who assisted

us in this life. So now we pause to pray for him into the

next. For you see, if our relationships--our love--ended in

death, then Bill's death would be a tragedy: an opportunity

lost, a wound perpetually raw. Thus, it is death that we must

ask the most important question I really believe: ``Can I

love someone more, even after they died?'' And the answer is

yes. And how? By praying our loved one on the final road,

through the purification of sin, to his final home in heaven.

And friends, speaking of the road to heaven, I'm reminded of

something interested about the road to Paterson. Bill

Pascrell III this week told me something interesting about

his father that I never knew. That Governor Murphy, back in

2020, designated Route 19 the William J. Pascrell Highway.

Right? But before you clap; Governor Murphy, that was

wonderful. But . . . while you clap, Billy told me that the

other day, I thought to myself `how did I not know that?' You

know why I didn't know it? There's no sign telling us that.

Sorry Governor, there's no sign. I had to do it. Sorry Mayor.

Sorry. Thanks. The road the Congressman has taken, you Elsie,

Bill, David, Glenn, the entire family, you've been on with

him, you were with him

through each battle, though there may be no public signs

designated to his road or your road. That's ok. You and Dad

never needed fame. You see, you knew that he loved you more

than everyone else and knew that it was you who allowed him

to fight the good fight each day.

And Elsie, having seen you both side-by-side for 30 years,

I believe it was only your sweetness, your humility, your

strength, your goodness, which in the end, allowed him to win

the most important prized fight of his life: that of being

man of justified anger, rather than one who ever had a

hateful heart. For in the end, Elsie, he always knew that he

had you, his greatest prize ever.

By the way, just finishing, you're wondering about Sherriff

Berdnik's funeral--what did he do? I was really in a pickle,

half Polish, half Italian. I had to start the mass on time

for our Polish Sheriff, because I knew he would want that.

But being half Italian, I knew I had to wait for our Italian

Congressman, for I feared his wrath if I didn't wait. I was

saved in the end by the Paterson Police Department and

Passaic County Sheriff's department, because I called

everyone and said, ``Get to Ninth Ave, and get the

Congressman and Elsie here.'' It was miraculous, I think we

started two minutes late.

Congressman Pascrell, my dear friend, thank you. I bet you

speedily arrive home to heaven, where there will be no need

more for you to be fiery and fierce, and where I'm sure

Paterson will be spelled correctly. And don't worry Bill,

we're going to get that sign up on Route 19.

Bill, through the mercy of God and the help of our prayers,

just get home to heaven.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to include in the Record the Opening Prayer offered by our House Chaplain, Margaret Grun Kibben on September 9th to grieve the loss of the Late Honorable Bill Pascrell:

In these days with much to be attended to, policies to be

written, elections to be run; When the tasks not yet

completed vie for attention, in contest with all that must

yet be achieved;

When each day is a whirlwind of obligations and demands,

break into our thoughts and concerns O Lord, and remind us

again how precious is the life you give to each of us.

As we grieve the loss of our dear friend and colleague

Representative Bill Pascrell, may it be his passionate and

compassionate commitment to this country--and the people he

was proud to represent--that inspires us to assess our spirit

of service.

May it be his tender heart and gracious kindness that call

us to love those with whom we labor in these chambers.

God our Creator, like trees planted by streams of water,

may we each, like Bill Pascrell, yield fruit in our season.

In the days that you give us, may our leaves not wither. In

all that we do, may all be done for you. In this may our

lives prosper with the certainty of your favor.

In your righteous name we pray.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address and speak about the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the number one antipoverty program for children, and the program that more veterans rely on for disability than the VA. Of course, I am talking about Social Security.

What the public doesn't know, but should, is that Congress hasn't acted to enhance Social Security since 1971. That is 53 years. A lot has transpired and happened over 53 years, and with 10,000 baby boomers a day becoming eligible for Social Security, it is long overdue that Congress acts.

We have a proposal. Our proposal is called Social Security 2100, and this is exactly what it does. It makes sure that no one can retire into poverty. We have over 5 million Americans who have paid into Social Security and get below-poverty-level checks.

Nobody gets wealthy on Social Security. The average is $18,000 per male and $14,000 per female. As I said, 5 million of our fellow citizens are getting below-poverty-level checks on a commitment they made to their government to get the insurance.

That is what we are talking about here. It is insurance. Social Security also is one of the most efficient government programs. Its administrative costs are under 1 percent. There is no other agency that does that and services over 70 million people.

I would also like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that Social Security is important because it impacts your district directly.

Mr. Speaker, for example, you have 134,536 recipients: 95,000-plus are retirees; 15,000 are disabled; 8,756 are widows; and 9,942 are children. That is not the most critical thing though. The critical thing is: How much money comes into your district on a monthly basis?

In California's 23rd District, it is $213 million a month, and that hasn't been adjusted since 1971.

What do these people do with this money when they get it?

They spend it right back in their district at the local grocery store, at the local pharmacy, to pay for their heating and cooling, to put gas in their automobiles. It, therefore, is a direct economic development plan for the people in this Nation who need it the most.

For more than 40 percent of Americans, Social Security is the only benefit they have. They don't have benefits like the Federal Government has or like the United States Congress has. All they have is that very simple policy and a commitment from their government that they would make it actuarially sound. Instead, what they get is doubt and fear and the fact that the trust fund will be cut 20 percent now by 2033 if Congress continues to do nothing.

It is long overdue.

Why is it, citizens must ask, that Congress can't come together to take care of the very citizens whom they are sworn to serve on an insurance plan that is the most efficient in government operating under at 1 percent administrative cost.

Mr. Speaker, you can't find another agency in the private sector, and I hail from an insurance capital, to administer insurances anywhere from 15 to 26 percent. In government they do it for under 1.

Act, Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I also extend my congratulations to Mr. Ferguson, and I thank Mr. Smith for his comments on this very important piece of legislation. I think the public is always glad to see bipartisanship at work, and there is nobody who exemplifies that more than the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Ferguson himself.

Americans are increasingly vulnerable to identity theft, as we all know. In 2023, the Federal Trade Commission received over a million reports of identity theft.

Addressing identity theft can be complex and time consuming. Currently, a victim could run into incredible red tape when you try to go through the current system and get a resolution to what, obviously, is a very disturbing incident that has just happened to you.

We must do everything we can to improve the process for victims. That is why we initiated this legislation that will allow that one-stop provision and allow the individuals to make sure that they have a point of contact and work this way through instead of working their way through an entanglement of bureaucracy.

We must also ensure that the SSA has the necessary funding, however, and the resources to carry out its mission. There have been years of underfunding. The American public should understand this.

Social Security manages over 70 million people. What other Federal agency do you know of that administers that bureaucracy for under 1 percent?

That is a shameful cut. We need to make sure that Social Security is funded appropriately and make sure they have all of the latest technology to deal with the more than 70 million people now that are receiving Social Security.

Again, I think the Nation is astounded. I come from the insurance capital of the world. On average, they administer their insurance programs for around 20 percent.

I think we ought to take a hard look, and I think everybody has to take a look into their heart. If we expect to provide people with the kind of service they should get from the number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the number one antipoverty program for children, then we have to make sure that that is appropriately funded.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me compliment the chairman, Mr. Ferguson, and thank him for his incredible work in this area. I also thank Commissioner O'Malley, who doesn't get the credit I believe he richly deserves, especially dealing with less resources and a larger and growing problem. Imagine, if you will, for I think most viewers don't know, that 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security, and it is growing rapidly.

I am glad that Republicans support this bill to improve customer service for victims of identity theft, but they must also support giving SSA the resources it needs to implement it. I think that is pretty clear and straightforward.

Mr. Speaker, I also believe that, as was pointed out by Mr. Smith and also by Mr. Ferguson, the unfortunate experience people go through is a crime, identity theft, and even more of a crime when you can't get service.

Yet, what is really criminal about Social Security is that Congress has not taken on the responsibility of enhancing a program that was last improved when Richard Nixon was President of the United States--53 years. Every single district, every single individual, everyone who is retiring is stuck at the same benefit level they were in 1971.

There are 5 million Americans who get below-poverty-level checks because Congress hasn't acted. For over 40 percent of Social Security recipients, which is 28 million people, all they have is Social Security. The only body that can resolve that problem for them is the United States Congress.

We took a baby step here as it relates to making sure about identity theft. We need to take a major step and vote for enhancements for people who richly deserve them. They are counting on us. It is the Nation's insurance program, and we have not done our job as a Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for yielding me time, and I congratulate the gentleman on this outstanding piece of legislation.

In my youth, I had the opportunity as then-president of the senate in the State of Connecticut to work with Dr. Edward Zigler, commonly referred to as the ``father of Head Start'' and really the person who came up with the concept and idea of family resource centers.

He looked out around the country and saw schoolhouses, and he saw them in communities where everybody attended and worked and said: Wouldn't that be a great idea?

What he understood most, of course, is that childcare is family care. That is something that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) has exemplified in my time with him on the Ways and Means Committee, and I am proud to be associated with the gentleman, this bill, and the work and effort of Dr. Edward Zigler of Yale University.

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Neal for putting this together. Mr. Kelly knows how much he loved him, and I think it is a great tribute.

I want to start by saying that we are having a planning meeting because we are going to do a longer memorial, and I thank Mr. Neal and Mr. Smith. We hope to do it in the Ways and Means Committee room and talk about his legislation and his work that is, in and of itself, a pretty good list and legacy to be remembered by. This evening, though, I want to talk about the man.

First and foremost, our hearts go out to Elsie, David, and Glenn. I am in touch with Bill III regularly, talking about his father.

Some of you know this story, but Bill III was actually flying out to the Democratic convention because his father asked him to, to tell everybody that he was okay and was returning. He felt bad that he wasn't at his father's side. I said, Bill, that is what your father wanted you to do.

That is the kind of guy Bill Pascrell was, but I don't think anyone described him better than Monsignor Silva and the relationship that he had with the monsignor in his parish in Paterson, New Jersey.

After all, they told me that there was a death that took place of a dear friend of theirs, and Bill was going to give the keynote. Father said, yes, Bill, but make sure--the mass is at 8. He said, yes, don't worry. I will be there.

About 10 till 8, Father gets a call, and it is Bill Pascrell. He says, Father, you have to postpone the mass for a half hour. I am running behind.

He said, Bill, I can't postpone a mass like this. He said, what do you mean, you can't do that? What kind of authority do you have?

He was arguing with the priest, and the priest said he argued for about 20 minutes, so they were able to start the mass about 5 minutes late, and they were able to pull it off. That is Bill Pascrell.

Bill Pascrell lived in Hill House, where a lot of us started off. I was his next-door neighbor. Jan Schakowsky was across the hall. Richie was upstairs.

I said, Billy, what are you doing? I hear a lot of noise over there in your room. He said, you know, those Republicans are right across the way from me?

I said, no, I never really thought about that. He said, well, they are. I said, well, what do you about it? He said, I will tell you what I do about it. You know what I do? I open my blinds every morning, go to the window, and I put a pressed ham up against the window and moon them every single morning.

That is Bill Pascrell, the guy that we know and love, the same guy in the story at the Swedish Embassy, where there was an elegant event, an affair. All these dignitaries are there, and they bring out very fancified hors d'oeuvres, and then they highlight it all by bringing out their delicacy, Swedish meatballs.

They bring them, and unfortunately, they set them down in front of Bill Pascrell, and he said, you call these meatballs? These are not meatballs. These little dinky things, who would possibly eat them?

He is insulting all of Sweden, but they ended up laughing with him, et cetera. That was our guy, Bill Pascrell.

These characters behind me, this is a picture from our bocce tournament. Both Mike Doyle and Mike Capuano could get under his skin very easily.

As you know, Bill was from New Jersey, and Mike Capuano would routinely say to him, Billy, if you had any guts--

you are such a big shot. You are always mouthing off about New York and everything.

If New Jersey had any nerve, why don't you call them the New Jersey Giants? That is where the stadium is. It is in New Jersey, but you guys don't have the nerve in New Jersey to stand up.

What is wrong with you and people in New Jersey? You are weak-kneed. If you were from Boston, you would have a lot more to say.

That would, of course, set Pascrell off like you can't believe.

I miss him dearly, as I know everyone here does. There are so many Bill Pascrell stories to tell, and hopefully we will have the time to do that at another event.

Again, as Father Sylva said, and I think he really knew Bill, he said: When you saw Bill and you saw the anger in him, he said it was a justified anger. It wasn't an anger of hatred. It was an anger about what he saw was wrong in the world and how he would change it.

The Father went on to explain that anger and courage are twin sisters. Along with the anger about what is wrong comes the courage, and that is what Bill Pascrell had, too, to want to step in and make a difference. From the General Assembly, to mayor of Paterson, to the United States Congress, that is who our guy was. That is why we love him and miss him so much.