Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As he said, he was one of us. He loved this place and so many of you. Monsignor Sylva, at that beautiful funeral that Frank was talking about, typified Bill by saying he was a man of justifiable anger.

Then he went on to say how Bill was driving someplace. He was supposed to appear at the church with the priest. He called the priest on the phone, and he said: Look, I am running about half an hour behind, could you hold the church service up until I get there? That was our guy.

The priest also went on. He had a beautiful way of putting this. He said that hope has two beautiful daughters: anger and courage--anger at the way things are and then the courage to step up and want to change that. That was Bill Pascrell at his core, as authentic, as original as they make them, not a phony bone in his body.

It should be called Pascrell's corner, and we appreciate the flowers that were put over there today. We plan to have an event. There will be a planning committee meeting Wednesday night in the Ways and Means Committee after votes, and they will be planning not only another memorial, but we are going to have, believe it or not, a little party in honor of Bill Pascrell.

Mr. Speaker, due to travel disruptions, I regrettably missed votes on July 22. Had I been present, I would have voted: Nay on Roll Call Vote 357, the Pro Codes Act, and Yea on Roll Call Vote 358, the Water Resources Development Act.

Mr. Chair, had I been present for Roll Call Vote 387, Brecheen Amendment 24, I would have voted No. Had I been present for Roll Call Vote 388, Brecheen Amendment 25, I would have voted No. Had I been present for Roll Call Vote 389, Harshbarger Amendment 45, I would have voted No. Had I been present for Roll Call Vote 390, Miller Amendment 57, I would have voted No.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present for Roll Call No. 349, Self Amendment No. 3, I would have voted Nay.

Had I been present for Roll Call No. 350, Jackon Amendment No. 4, I would have voted Yay.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record the following guest essay published in The New York Times, which my dear friend and prominent constituent, Ralph Nader, shared with me.

[From The New York Times, June 26, 2024]

We Are Israelis Calling on Congress to Disinvite Netanyahu

(By David Harel, Tamir Pardo, Talia Sasson, Ehud Barak, Aaron

Ciechanover and David Grossman)

The leaders of the U.S. Congress have invited Prime

Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to address a joint

meeting of the Senate and the House of Representatives on

July 24. Normally, we Israelis would consider the invitation

recognition of our two nations' shared values and a welcome

gesture from our closest friend and ally, to whom we are

deeply and morally indebted.

But Congress has made a terrible mistake. Mr. Netanyahu's

appearance in Washington will not represent the State of

Israel and its citizens, and it will reward his scandalous

and destructive conduct toward our country.

We come from a variety of areas of Israeli society:

science, technology, politics, defense, law and culture. We

are thus in a good position to assess the overall effect of

Mr. Netanyahu's government, and like many, we believe that he

is driving Israel downhill at an alarming speed, to the

extent that we may eventually lose the country we love.

To date, Mr. Netanyahu has failed to come up with a plan to

end the war in Gaza and has been unable to gain the freedom

of scores of hostages. At the very least, an invitation to

address Congress should have been contingent upon resolving

these two issues and, in addition, calling for new elections

in Israel. Inviting Mr. Netanyahu will reward his contempt

for U.S. efforts to establish a peace plan, allow more aid to

the beleaguered people of Gaza and do a better job of sparing

civilians. Time and again, he has rejected President Biden's

plan to remove Hamas from power in Gaza through the

establishment of a peacekeeping force. Such a move would very

likely bring in its wake a far broader regional alliance,

including a vision to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,

which is not only in Israel's interest but also in the

interest of both political parties in the United States. Mr.

Netanyahu constitutes the main obstacle to these outcomes.

The man who will address Congress next month has failed to

assume responsibility for the blunders that allowed the Hamas

assault, initially blaming security chiefs (then quickly

backtracking), and has yet to announce the establishment of a

direly needed state commission of inquiry headed by a Supreme

Court judge to look into the fiasco.

Despite the fierce fighting in Gaza and daily casualties on

both sides, following Hamas's terrible attacks on Oct. 7, Mr.

Netanyahu continues to push forward with the authoritarian

remaking of Israel as if nothing has changed. The Israeli

police force, under the command of the far-right-wing

security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has cracked down

violently on demonstrators. The appointments of court judges

and a Supreme Court president remain on hold Central

scientific and cultural institutions continue to endure

governmental attempts at political control. Large sums of

money have been channeled recklessly to the ultra-Orthodox,

who by and large do not share the economic and security

burden of Israel's citizens, especially by remaining exempt

from serving in the military. Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling

overturning the exemption is a step forward, although the

practical impact is unclear, given that Mr. Netanyahu has

proposed enshrining the exemption in a law.

Above all, many Israelis are convinced that Mr. Netanyahu

has obstructed proposed deals with Hamas that would have led

to the release of the hostages in order to keep the war going

and thus avoid the inevitable political reckoning he will

face when it ends.

Mr. Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, the finance minister,

whose support Mr. Netanyahu needs to maintain his government,

are strongly opposed to stopping the war in Gaza, even for a

temporary truce They demand that the Gaza Strip be conquered

and filled with new settlements.

For months now, many of us have participated in nationwide

demonstrations demanding an immediate release of the

hostages, an end to the war and immediate elections. Polls of

Israelis show that a majority want immediate elections, or

elections right at the end of the war.

A large portion of Israelis have lost faith in Mr.

Netanyahu's government. He is clinging to power thanks to a

tenuous parliamentary majority. That majority ignores the

plight of tens of thousands of Israelis displaced in the

south after the Hamas attack and in the north because of

attacks by Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the families of the

hostages, a powerful force now in Israel.

That's where Mr. Netanyahu's speech to Congress fits in

with his political needs No doubt it will be carefully stage-

managed to prop up his shaky hold on power and allow him to

boast to his constituents about America's so-called support

for his failed policies.

His supporters in Israel will be emboldened by his

appearance in Congress to insist that the war continue, which

will further distance any deal to secure the release of the

hostages, including several U.S. citizens.

Giving Mr. Netanyahu the stage in Washington will all but

dismiss the rage and pain of his people, as expressed in the

demonstrations throughout the country American lawmakers

should not let that happen. They should ask Mr. Netanyahu to

stay home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the number one antipoverty program for our children. That program, Mr. Speaker, as you know, is Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, and for the members in the gallery, I think it is important to understand the statistics that we are dealing with, most importantly, that there are now close to 70 million Americans who rely on Social Security, 40 percent of whom rely on a pension which is the only benefit that they have.

It is a testament to the genius of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. What is required in an entrepreneurial capitalist system is that there be a safety net for people.

Even more so, imagine that 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security. It is disheartening that Congress, the institution primarily responsible for Social Security's enhancement and protection, has not done anything in 53 years. Richard Nixon was the President of the United States the last time Social Security was enhanced.

Five million of our fellow citizens get below poverty-level checks from Social Security, the greatest insurance program in the Nation's history, but Congress has not attended to the program. That is why this is so vitally important that we do so.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, in Idaho in the First District there are 219,000-plus Social Security recipients, 170,000-plus who are retirees, and 21,000 who get disability. There are 10,000-plus widows, 5,600 spouses, and 11,000 children in Idaho who rely on Social Security. It brings in $388 million monthly to the First District and has not been adjusted in more than 50 years. This is an outrage.

When Members learn of this and when the public is aware of this, they say: Why hasn't Congress acted?

President Biden has suggested, and it makes sense, that in this great Nation of ours, why shouldn't everybody pay the same?

So he said: Let's just simply lift the cap on people making over $400,000 who don't pay nearly the same that a person making $30,000, $50,000, $75,000, or $100,000 does who pay into the program.

In doing so, we would be able to enhance Social Security not only in Idaho but across the entire United States.

Even former President Trump now is apparently changing the Republican platform to say that we are going to protect Social Security.

It is not enough to protect Social Security. Congress hasn't done anything in more than 53 years. So that means whether you are in Idaho or whether you are in Connecticut, those very citizens, those 10,000-a- day baby boomers who expect their Congress to take action on their behalf, need to enhance a program that provides them with the benefits. That money goes directly into every congressional district and every congressional community.

Where do the citizens spend that money?

They spend it at the grocery store, at the pharmacy, and at the gas station. It goes to the essential needs that Americans require. That is why Social Security is the number one antipoverty program for the elderly and also the number one antipoverty program for children.

What Congress needs to do is not talk about it. It needs to vote. Citizens in the gallery and across this Nation should demand that the United States Congress vote on Social Security and correct something that has gone in disrepair for more than 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the number one antipoverty program for our Nation's children, which is Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about why we need to vote in this Chamber and why we need to take action. Astoundingly, Congress hasn't taken action in over 53 years, which may surprise the members in the gallery and you as well, Mr. Speaker.

Richard Nixon was President of the United States the last time Congress enhanced Social Security. Congress is the only body that can do this. The President can't do it through executive order, and it is nothing that the Supreme Court is going to take up. Only Members of this institution can help out people.

There are more than 70 million Social Security recipients in the country today, Mr. Speaker. More than 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security, and we haven't enhanced a benefit for them in over 53 years.

Now, the Republican Study Committee has come up with a plan. They say what we need to do is cut $1.5 trillion out of Social Security over the next 10 years, and they say they want to raise the age.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, for every year you raise the age, that is a 7 percent cut in benefits. Raising the age to 70 is a 21 percent across-the-board cut to people that haven't had a benefit enhancement since 1971.

I don't know how that makes any sense, given the needs of our senior citizens and also, quite frankly, given

the needs of our children. Also, more veterans rely on Social Security disability than they do on the VA.

That is why we have proposed Social Security 2100, which will enhance Social Security across the board for everyone. Let no one work all their lives and retire into poverty.

Currently, more than 5.5 million people who have paid into Social Security and worked all their lives get below-poverty-level checks from the United States Government. That is unfair. That is unjust. That is wrong, and Congress needs to take action.

If you just want to say how much you like Social Security, but you don't have a plan and you don't want to vote, then you are not doing anything for Social Security and you are content with its cuts.

If you want a study commission as some have said, what is it that you are going to study? What is it that you don't know about the last 51 years? People at home at their kitchen tables pretty clearly know that Congress needs to act and enhance Social Security and increase the benefits that haven't been given to them in more than 53 years. It is outrageous.

More Americans need to know about it, but Congress needs to act. The Ways and Means Committee has cognizance over Social Security. We should be taking this up.

If you have got a better idea than our plan to enhance Social Security, by all means bring it out. By all means, let's have a debate on it. For God's sake, don't we owe the American people a vote? Aren't they entitled to know where their Members of Congress stand and what their plan is?

Mr. Speaker, it might amaze you to know that over 193,000 recipients of Social Security are in your district, and that brings in $324 million monthly to your constituents.

Where do they spend that money? They spend it right back in the district at the local pharmacy, at the local grocery store, paying for their rent, their mortgages, putting gas in their automobile. This is one of the best economic development programs that every Member of Congress benefits from and their constituents as well.

It is long overdue for the United States Congress to act. All we are asking for is to put out your plan and have a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this early afternoon to talk about the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly, the number one antipoverty program for children, and the program that provides more disability benefits to our veterans than the VA. I am talking about Social Security, Mr. Speaker.

This might be news to some of the viewers in our audience and at home, but Congress has not acted to enhance Social Security in more than 53 years. Richard Nixon was the President of the United States the last time Congress acted on this much-needed benefit, the number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the number one antipoverty program for children

Instead, what we find is our colleagues on the other side, the Republican Study Committee, have said that what we need to do is cut Social Security by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. In the process, Mr. Speaker, what they have done also is said that, yes, initially what we need to do is to raise the age of people.

What they don't tell the recipients is for every year you raise the age, that is a 7 percent cut in benefits. What they have proposed is a 21 percent across-the-board cut for Social Security. My good friend Jodey Arrington is the chairman of the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee meets this week, and I hope they get to explore the myths regarding Social Security.

It has nothing to do with the debt or the deficit of this country. The chief actuary will lay that out.

Mr. Speaker, you might be surprised to know that in your district, there are over 179,000 recipients. In your district, that brings in $306 million monthly. Where do they spend that money, Mr. Speaker? Right back in your district. They go to the pharmacy. They go to the grocery store. They put gas in their tank. They pay their rent. They pay their mortgage. They haven't had an increase since 1971.

It is long overdue for Congress to act. The President has put forward a proposal. Democrats have a proposal. All we need to do is vote.

If you have a better idea, by all means, put it out there. If you don't, at least allow a vote to take place so you can minimally help out the people in your district. On average, every Member of Congress gets more than $200 million monthly that comes into their district. There is no better economic development plan for people in your district because of where they are going to spend that money.

Nobody gets wealthy on Social Security. The average for a male is $18,000, and for a female, it is $14,000. For more than 5 million of our fellow Americans, they get below-poverty-level checks from the wealthiest Nation in the world. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are out proposing cuts for the very wealthy, the top 1 percent, and won't even take care of the 5 million people who have paid into a system and get below-poverty-level checks.

While we are speaking of tax cuts, as I noted to Mr. Arrington, how about the 23 million Americans who will receive a tax cut under the Democratic plan? How about we look at working Americans and give them a tax cut in their retirement instead of double taxing them on Social Security?

Twenty-three million Americans will benefit directly from this program that we have put forward. President Biden has said that we will pay for this as well by lifting the cap on people making over $400,000.

Now, to understand this, as Linda Sanchez said in the committee the other day, look at those expensive professional football or baseball players. For a baseball player, he is done paying Social Security after his first at-bat while the rest of America continues to pay into the system.

There are several millionaires and billionaires who circumvent the law completely and pay nothing into Social Security. Meanwhile, those men and women who defend this Nation--the firefighters, the police officers, and schoolteachers--many were double-victimized by WEP and GPO. We repealed WEP and GPO.

How about a vote, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to address a pertinent issue for all Americans, that being Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, it has been more than 50-plus years since Congress, the only body that can, has taken action to enhance Social Security.

What becomes even more confounding, Mr. Speaker, is that with 10,000 baby boomers a day becoming eligible for Social Security, Congress has not acted to enhance this program.

I was talking to my good friend, Jodey Arrington, the other day, and reminded him that in his district in Texas, for example, he has 128,000 Social Security recipients, and 90,000 retirees, 9,000 children, almost 10,000 widows, 4,679 spouses, and 14,000-plus disabled workers. They haven't received a benefit enhancement in more than 50 years.

Moreover, Social Security has nothing to do with the debt or deficit. It is an earned benefit. It is fully paid for, and the increases that we are calling for, well, the President said it best, we are going to pay for those by lifting the cap on $400,000.

You could have people in the audience, for example, raise their hand if they are making more than $400,000. I doubt that you would find anybody. It is about six-tenths of 1 percent, but most people are astounded to learn that there is a cap, and they haven't paid anything into the system, a system that all Americans pay into.

For example, Mr. Speaker, in Tennessee's Eighth District, 189,000 of your citizens receive Social Security benefits, and 136,000 of them are retirees, 25,000 disabled people, 4,000 spouses, and the list goes on.

Here is the most important thing: Your district gets $330 million monthly. That goes into your district.

I say this to my colleagues and good friends on the other side of the aisle who are always talking about economic development: What better economic development tool is there than for your citizens to get payments?

Nobody gets wealthy on Social Security. They haven't had an increase in more than 50 years.

This money would go right back into my colleagues' districts and be spent at the local grocery store, at the pharmacy, at the dry cleaners, to pay for rent or a mortgage, or to put gas in an automobile. The money all comes back, but Congress hasn't acted in over 50 years.

Mr. Arrington at least says this about Social Security 2100, the bill that we have put forward: It enhances benefits across the board by 2 percent and repeals WEP and GPO.

Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that there are more than 23 million Americans who pay taxes on their Social Security? My colleagues are quick to make sure that there is tax relief for billionaires. How about for people who are actually working for a living and then have to pay double taxation on their Social Security? Twenty-three million Americans.

There are 5 million Americans who get below-poverty-level checks from the Federal Government, from Social Security, even though they have paid in all their quarters. Why? Because Congress hasn't taken action, the only body that can. The President can't do this through executive order. The Supreme Court isn't going to act. We need to act on a bill.

As Representative Arrington says: Well, I don't agree with Larson.

I said: What don't you agree with? If you have a better idea, put it forward.

At least he is honest enough to say they don't have a plan, that they

haven't written anything down on paper.

The American people not only need a plan, but what they need is help and relief. In this time of global inflation, in this time that is coming, it is long overdue for Congress to act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening with my colleagues to have a discussion about the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the Nation's number one antipoverty program for children. More veterans rely on Social Security disability than they do on the VA.

Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that we are addressing this to our colleagues. Since you are in the chair from Minnesota, Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that you have more than 189,000 Social Security recipients in your district; more than 147,000 retirees; more than 20,000 disabled; 8,000 widows; 9,000 children.

Here is the key, Mr. Speaker, $335 million a month comes into your district for those Social Security recipients. Where do they spend it? Right back in their district.

Yet, it has been more than 53 years since Congress has enhanced Social Security. Richard Nixon was President of the United States the last time Social Security was enhanced.

Democrats are bound and determined to make sure that we get something simple like a vote here in Congress to help out all of those people in your district, Mr. Speaker, as well as highlight why this is so important.

Seventy million Americans rely on Social Security. Ten thousand baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security. Forty thousand Americans rely on Social Security in and of itself as their primary tenet for retirement.

It is the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and for children. That is why our colleagues have taken to the floor today, so that the American people understand that what is between them and enhancement to this program is a vote. It is a vote on Social Security 2100, that will extend the solvency of Social Security, but, as importantly, expand benefits, including making sure that the more than 23 million people that pay taxes on Social Security no longer have to do that.

What could be a better bipartisan plan than helping out every single individual in everyone's district and also providing for 23 million Americans, not the wealthiest Americans but the everyday citizens who work weeklong to provide for their families and pay into a system and haven't received an enhancement in 53 years.

That is why Joe Neguse is here as part of leadership that has strongly endorsed this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado, our esteemed leader, for his contribution. I would point out as well that the repeal of WEP and GPO, which directly impacts police officers and firefighters, is contained within our proposal. It needs a vote.

Social Security has no impact on the debt or deficit and, as President Biden has proposed, is fully paid for by--most Americans don't even realize this--lifting the cap on people making over $400,000. Doing so allows us to enhance the program for the first time in 20-plus years and also makes sure that we extend the solvency of the program.

Someone who knows that extraordinarily well is the gentleman from New Jersey, who also serves on the Social Security Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to Speaker Johnson that he has 158,000 Social Security recipients in his district, and in Louisiana, they receive $233 million in monthly benefits. Think about what that does for economic development for those people. Where do they spend that money?

Linda Sanchez knows this. Linda Sanchez, who also serves on the Ways and Means Committee and on the subcommittee, understands how vitally important this is and also that more than 5 million of our Americans receive below-poverty-level checks from Social Security after having paid into the system all of their lives. The majority of them happen to be women, and the majority of them are women of color.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for again highlighting what we are asking for: a vote. Imagine the United States Congress actually voting.

Here is the deal: If you have a better idea, please bring it to the floor. Let's vote on it. Don't we all agree that this is something that all Americans need?

Republicans in their hearts know that the American people desperately need this. I know Representative Jodey Arrington understands this on the Budget Committee. More than 50 years since we have enhanced a program for the people of this country is outrageous.

You can embrace tax cuts for billionaires as though they needed them, and yet, a tax cut for a person working, who still finds themselves working after they retire, is double taxed on their Social Security.

There should be outrage on this floor and demanding a vote. God only knows that if you have got a better idea or a better program, please put it forward. Let's do the democratic thing, and vote on it.

The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo) campaigned on this throughout his effort to be successfully elected to the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for his comments, and I wanted to say this, as well, that this is a bill that was constructed by more than 350 different groups across this great country and by Members of this body who put together their ideas.

The Ways and Means Committee merely took the great ideas of our colleagues and put them together--ideas that have been endorsed by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Social Security Works, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the California Alliance for Retired Americans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Strengthen Social Security Coalition, the NAACP, and the list goes on.

The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel) understands this, and Florida probably leads the country in terms of the number of seniors that it has in their districts. As we pointed out before to the Speaker, every district receives money--$364 million a month, but it has been that way for more than 50-plus years. These programs need to be enhanced and extended, not cut.

The provision by the Republican Study Committee, if there is nothing done by 2034, Social Security is cut by 20 percent. Instead, they are calling to raise the age now and cut Social Security by 21 percent today. How does that possibly make any sense?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel) who understands this.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her comments, and I reiterate that all we are asking for is a vote.

For those citizens tuned in to C-SPAN and listening tonight, if you are saying, What do you mean? Why is it that you can't get a vote on this in the United States Congress? Good question. Call your Representative and ask them why they aren't voting to improve a program that hasn't been enhanced in more than 50 years.

We hear from the other side all the time about what we need to do in terms of cuts. Imagine, this is what they would like to cut. If they have got a better idea, they should bring it to the floor. The way a democracy works is it is a debate about ideas, and then there is actually a vote that is cast.

The gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury) understands this and understands how important the money coming into her district is monthly, as well.

She understands how vitally important Social Security is to our economy, and not just to our retirees, but to our disabled and to their spouses and to children. The genius of Franklin Delano Roosevelt is what keeps entrepreneurialism and capitalism alive and allows people to take risks is because they know that there is a safety net there for its people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for her eloquence.

There is no one more eloquent or well-versed on this subject than the deaness of the House of Representatives. She is someone who has lived and breathed this issue and has stood up when the other side has referred to Social Security as an entitlement. It is not an entitlement. It is an earned benefit that people have paid for.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing they have to do is look at their pay stub, because on it, it says FICA. That stands for Federal insurance. It is not an entitlement. It is a Federal Insurance Contributions.

Whose?

The people of the United States of America who have paid into this program and that Congress has not enhanced.

This debate is not only about protecting Social Security, it is about expanding benefits that haven't been expanded in more than 50 years.

I commend President Biden for having the courage and the temerity on this floor in the State of the Union message to speak directly to the American people and even those colleagues on the other side who try to decry the efforts of Social Security and the President's plan to make sure that it is solvent by lifting the cap--imagine that, Mr. Speaker-- on people making over $400,000.

Marcy Kaptur understands this thoroughly when she talks to people in Ohio who are infuriated and who say: Well, wait a minute, you are telling me that a person making $50,000, $75,000, and $100,000 pays throughout the year, but somebody making over $400,000 is done paying in January?

Or as Ms. Sanchez said, a baseball player after their first at bat?

Nobody has fought harder for working people than the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio. She mentioned Mr. Cartwright who I think epitomizes the concern that exists in this body, in the Congress, for people who go back home every week and meet with their constituents.

The constituents of Pennsylvania are fortunate that they have someone who understands their needs and understands the neglect that Congress has shown in not addressing the number one anti-poverty program for elderly and for children in this country.

As difficult as times are now, we need to make sure that minimally we have a vote. I do not understand the reluctance on the other side to bring forward legislation and actually vote on it. If you have got a better idea, Mr. Speaker, or even if you object to the plan, please tell us what it is that you object to, and what it is about Social Security and making sure that nobody works all their lives and pays into a system and then retires into poverty.

Matt Cartwright understands that. He understands his district in Pennsylvania and the importance of getting this legislation done.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Yes, it is.

Not only is it true, but I think what the general public needs to understand, and as you point out, Mr. Cartwright, the saying goes like this: Well, people are living longer, so, therefore, because they are living longer, what we ought to do is raise the age.

What the study committee doesn't tell you is that for every year you raise the age, that is a 7 percent cut in benefits. Oh, so if you raise the age to 70, that is a 21 percent cut in your benefits going forward.

How is it, from just mere logic, that if you are living longer you need to live on 21 percent less?

The American people understand this, and that is why they are so upset, but that is why, Mr. Cartwright, we need a vote.

That is correct.

I guess the sad thing is that this needs a vote. It needs a debate. Philosophically, if you believe--and God bless, some on the other side do believe this is some form of socialism and that everybody ought to be able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and be able to make do for themselves, that you don't need the government to do anything for you even when you have paid in all of your life to a program that has been the greatest American program to sustain our elderly and children.

If you disagree with that, that is terrific, but let's then take that to the American people. Where do you do that? On the floor of the House of Representatives, where you actually will debate the issue and put forward your proposals versus ours.

Isn't that the way democracy is supposed to work, Mr. Cartwright?

Mr. Speaker, my good friend Jodey Arrington--and I sincerely mean that when I say that. A lot of times on this floor, we say ``good friend,'' but I appreciate the effort that he puts into his work.

I bring these cards here this evening just to point out to our colleagues what it is. We made one for every Member of Congress. This is just a direct plea: Understand what is going on in your district because of Social Security.

Citizens have every right to ask why Congress hasn't done anything to enhance this program, Democrats and Republicans, in more than 50 years, especially when we know how vital this program is to our own system of capitalism and entrepreneurialism and what it means to every single one of our communities.

There is not a better economic development program that Texas will receive than the individuals in everyone's district receiving their Social Security checks. They are not going out and buying stock options. They are buying groceries. They are going to the pharmacy. They are going to the dry cleaners. They are paying their rent and mortgages. They are meeting the concerns in their communities. In doing so, those communities can thrive. It is long overdue--more than 50 years.

All we are asking for is a vote. If you have a better idea, in a democracy, the way I was brought up, you put it out there, and then, lo and behold, we actually have a vote--a vote that requires a debate and a discussion and then Congress demonstrating what it believes in by actually casting a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) for a final comment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the body to discuss the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the Nation's number one antipoverty program for children. That is Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I know you know this, but can you imagine that Congress hasn't made an adjustment to Social Security in more than 53 years? Richard Nixon was President of the United States the last time that Congress enhanced benefits for the country. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, as 10,000 baby boomers a day become eligible for Social Security.

The fund is about to be cut by 20 percent in two ways. If Congress does nothing, by 2034, according to the latest report, it will be cut 20 percent. Basically, the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly will be cut by 20 percent if Congress does nothing, and it hasn't done anything in more than 50 years.

There are some proposals, including Social Security 2100, that would extend and pay for this. There are others, like the Republican Study Committee, that say what they want to do is raise the age. The idea is that people are living longer. Well, that is true. That is a good thing.

If people are living longer, they should be working longer and should be getting less. I don't know how that makes sense, that if you are living longer, when you retire, you should be receiving less.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, for every year you raise the age, that is a 7 percent cut in benefits. Raising the age to 70 is a 21 percent cut. If that were to be enacted, that would cut Social Security 21 percent before 2033--again, leaving our most vulnerable behind.

It is not only, Mr. Speaker, seniors. Social Security is also the number one antipoverty program for children. It is also the disability program that more veterans rely on than they do the VA.

This body, this Congress, is the only body capable of doing this. The President can't do it through executive order. The Supreme Court isn't going to rule on it. The only body that can act is the United States Congress, and it hasn't done a thing.

The American people, especially with 10,000 baby boomers a day becoming eligible for Social Security, are demanding that Congress act.

We have a proposal to enhance benefits. We have a proposal to lift up the more than 5 million Americans who get below-poverty-level checks from their government after having paid into Social Security throughout a lifetime. That simply isn't fair. We have a proposal to give a tax cut to 23 million Americans who currently continue to work because they have to and whose Social Security ends up being taxed.

The Republican Study Committee lays out tax cuts for the extraordinarily wealthy in the trillions. How about we do something for the average

American citizen, the guy who gets up and works every day?

President Biden has suggested what we need to do. Because these programs are all paid for and don't impact the debt or the deficit and are an earned benefit, he has suggested that we have people making over $400,000 pay their fair share. Currently, billionaires pay next to nothing. Millionaires are done paying Social Security on February 2. Everybody else has to pay in.

Mr. Speaker, it is about time we own up to our responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here this morning, and I rise to discuss the ongoing issue of Social Security.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, more than 70 million Americans rely on Social Security, and Social Security is the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the number one antipoverty program for children.

It also, Mr. Speaker, is the number one program with regard to disability, and more veterans rely on Social Security disability than they do on the VA.

Mr. Speaker, I know that Speaker Houchin was in the chair before, and part of our rising to speak about Social Security is to make people aware in their districts of how many retirees they actually have.

For example, in New York's 19th, you have 173,667 recipients. More than $300 million comes into the 17th District in New York monthly for those recipients; 130,000 of which are retirees, 20,000 disabled workers, 8,900 widows, 4,247 spouses, and almost 10,000 children.

What is astounding, Mr. Speaker, is that Congress has done nothing. In fact, what will shock the public is that Congress has not extended the benefits of Social Security in more than 50 years.

Richard Nixon was President of the United States when Congress last acted. Imagine 10,000 baby boomers a day becoming eligible for Social Security. Yet, Congress has done nothing.

More than 70 million Americans rely on Social Security, again, the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the number one antipoverty program for children.

Congress continues not to do what our constituents send us here to do; vote. President Biden has put out a plan. We have put out a plan called Social Security 2100 that is detailed and paid for.

This might also surprise you, too, Mr. Speaker, as I know it does many citizens, that the President's called to lift the cap on people making over $400,000 who pay nothing into Social Security.

Imagine the workers, the more than 170,000 in your district who pay in to Social Security and have done so all throughout their lives, and yet, others pay nothing for the Nation's number

one antipoverty program. That is why this is so important that Congress take action and step up and do the right thing.

With $300 million coming into New York's 17th District, Mr. Speaker, those are dollars that are spent locally right back in the community.

For all people listening to C-SPAN or people that are guests in our audience, Mr. Speaker, they should be making sure that they are calling their Representatives and making them aware of the fact that this program has not been enhanced.

This is no entitlement. This is an earned benefit that people have paid for and that only the United States Congress can act to change so that these individuals will get relief.

Imagine a cost-of-living increase that hasn't been enhanced in over 50 years. I hope that the American people, and more importantly, this Congress acts on behalf of the people that desperately need our help.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with an enormous sense of pride today. April 9 is my mother Pauline Nolan Larson's birthday. She would be 99 today, and I am sure she is smiling down on this magnificent day when we also celebrate Connecticut being the basketball capital of the world with Connecticut's UConn Huskies now winning back- to-back national championships and both the men and women going to the Final Four.

I won't go into the call on Friday night, but I will just say that Geno Auriemma and the women's team were outstanding, and Dan Hurley and the men's basketball team deserve all the credit in the world.

When you see Joe Courtney on the floor, Mr. Speaker, recognize his district in Storrs, Connecticut, as the basketball capital of the world.

I especially commend Dan Hurley for the shout-out he gave to all the former

players and former coaches, from Dee Rowe to Dom Perno and Kevin Ollie, and, of course, the house that Jim Calhoun built, bringing those initial championships to Connecticut, and nobody has won more basketball championships than Geno Auriemma and the women's team, as well.

Connecticut rightfully deserves that. We are so proud of everything that they have done, and we commend and congratulate them.

Enhance Social Security

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. 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.

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.

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