Airworthiness Directives for the Diamond DA40 Tundra Star

Dynamics Electric Boat, Mr. Kevin Graney of Stonington, Connecticut. On December 1, in a couple weeks, Kevin is slated to retire from his event- ful and impactful 5-year term as the shipyard lead for the United States Navy’s submarine force, and it is more than fitting that this Chamber take a moment to recognize his extraordinary service to our Nation. A native of Cheektowaga, New York, Kevin’s career spans nearly 40 years of service to the Navy’s shipbuilding en- terprise. His intelligence, patriotism, and leadership qualities stood out at an early age, foreshadowing a promising career as a naval officer. Upon graduating high school, he at- tended State University of New York Maritime College, earning a bachelor’s degree in marine engineering and nu- clear science, which would serve him well as a submariner and instructor at the Naval Nuclear Power Training Unit in Ballston Spa, New York. Following a distinguished career at sea, Kevin began his shipbuilding ca- reer at General Dynamics Electric Boat in 1995 as a senior engineer work- ing on critical power components for the Virginia-class submarine program. Following his assignment at Electric Boat, he moved to Newport News Ship- building in Virginia to design the reac- tor plant for the next-generation air- craft carrier, the CVN–78 program. He then moved overseas and managed Electric Boat engineers to assist our allies in the U.K. as they built their British Astute-class nuclear submarine program. Eventually, he returned to Electric Boat and began his last term over the last 5 years in 2019 as CEO of the shipyard. During his time, the 120-year-old EB shipyard experienced a massive genera- tional transformation with new and improved infrastructure, increased hir- ing, and new operations to dramati- cally improve performance and effi- ciency in the submarine industrial base. In 2023, Electric Boat hired nearly 5,400 new workers, the biggest number in its history, even surpassing its growth in World War II and the Cold War. The total workforce today now exceeds 23,000, and they are still hiring today. If that was not challenging enough, 5 months into Kevin’s ascension to presi- dent, the shipyard was confronted with the global COVID pandemic. It is hard to visualize how difficult it is to man- age an airborne pathogen in a shipyard, particularly a submarine shipyard where, again, the quarters are so tight. Nonetheless, they kept the shipyard open. They did not close for a single day during the pandemic, and that is because Kevin Graney overcame this crisis and skillfully managed oper- ations to continue as a critical indus- try in our Nation’s security. After performance across the ship- yard and the nationwide industrial base was stabilized, it was then faced with increased rates of retirement of senior workers and a corresponding re- duction in the supervisory trade work- force. Since then, Kevin has spearheaded recovery efforts that have transformed the shipyard in just a short time. A few months ago, he signed a 5-year Metal Trades collective bargaining agree- ment with the Metal Trades Council, which represents machinists, elec- tricians, carpenters, teamsters, and boilermakers that increased their pay by 25 percent, retaining their pension and health benefits at the same time. Next to me is the USS Iowa, the 24th Virginia-class submarine, which was de- livered to the Navy a couple of weeks ago. As I stand here today, it is under- going sea trials and will be commis- sioned to the U.S. Navy in a few months or so. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member and chair of the House Armed Services’ Seapower and Projection Forces Sub- committee and the Congressman rep- resenting EB’s facility in Groton, Con- necticut, I have had a front-row seat to Kevin’s tenure. It was not an easy time. Through it all, though, he main- tained a steady level of confidence from his peers and overcame adversi- ties that were not anticipated at the start of his tenure. I haven’t even talked about the AUKUS security agreement, which last December this Congress voted to sell three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to our great ally, Aus- tralia, the first time in history our country has ever made that commit- ment. He has built the foundation, and it will be incredibly difficult to replace him, but we welcome the next presi- dent of Electric Boat, Mark Rayha, who I am sure will continue in Kevin’s steps. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Kevin as he enters this new era of retirement with his wife, Cheryl, and his daughter, Katherine. I ask that my colleagues in the House, and particularly those who serve on the House Armed Services Committee along with me, join me in recognizing his life of service to the Navy and the United States by submit- ting his legacy into the permanence of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. f THE TRUMP MANDATE The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. WILSON) for 5 min- utes. Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the people spoke and Donald Trump and J.D. VANCE achieved the most historic political comeback in American history, while also naming extraordinary patriots to his cabinet: E LISE STEFANIK as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Tom Homan as the border czar, MARCO RUBIO as Secretary of State, Kristi Noem as Homeland Secu- rity Secretary, MIKE WALTZ as Na- tional Security Advisor, LEE ZELDIN as Environmental Protection Agency Ad- ministrator, Governor Mike Huckabee as U.S. Ambassador to Jerusalem, and the extraordinary Susie Wiles as Chief of Staff, working with the deputy chief of staff for policy, Stephen Miller. The Trump mandate is a recognition of his policy achievements, which I submitted to the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD , January 21, 2021, pages E60– E62, and achievements to the First Lady, Melania Trump, on January 21, 2021, pages E52–E53. As chairman of the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia Sub- committee and chairman of the Hel- sinki Commission, I especially appre- ciate Donald Trump, who will achieve peace through strength. Without equivocation, he stood with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, clearly stating Iran must not secure a nuclear weapon, threat- ening our Arab allies from Kuwait to UAE to Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Ara- bia, along with NATO member Turkiye. Trump stood with Ukraine against war criminal Putin, supplying Volodymyr Zelenskyy Javelin missiles, placing troops in Poland, and stopping the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which fi- nanced Putin’s murderous atrocities. Trump stood with Taiwan, supplying defensive weapons to deter the Chinese Communist Party from an invasion threatening the Korean and Japanese shipping lanes, along with the shipping capabilities of our great ally, India. In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Open borders for dictators put all Americans at risk of more 9/11 attacks imminent as warned by the FBI. Trump will reinstitute existing laws to protect American families with peace through strength. f RECESS The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- ant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess until 2 p.m. today. Accordingly (at 12 o’clock and 13 minutes p.m.), the House stood in re- cess. f b 1400 AFTER RECESS The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania) at 2 p.m. VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:55 Nov 13, 2024 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12NO7.002 H12NOPT1 DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HOUSE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5919 November 12, 2024 PRAYER The Chaplain, the Reverend Margaret Grun Kibben, offered the following prayer: Holy and eternal God, we come before You, humbled by the mercy You have shown us in these last days and months. From Your throne, You have borne witness to our less than loving behavior, our harsh rhetoric of the election season, and our insatiable de- sire to ensure that the balance of power tips in our favor. Remind us again that the mellifluent words, the most convincing arguments are but a noisy gong or a clanging cym- bal if they are not grounded in love. Even if our certitude and sureness, our knowledge and conviction are enough to move mountains, if we do not love both our neighbor and our ad- versary, all our success amounts to nothing. Teach us again how to be patient and kind, neither envious nor boastful, ar- rogant or rude. Wherever we stand, may we not insist things go our way, nor hold a grudge when they don’t. In Your truth, show us how to bear all things, believe all things, hope all things, and endure all things; and, above all, to strive to be bearers of the greatest of all things: love. In Your merciful name we pray. Amen. f THE JOURNAL The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day’s proceedings and announces to the House the approval thereof. Pursuant to clause 1 of rule I, the Journal stands approved. f PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. WILSON) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. WILSON of South Carolina led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Repub- lic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. f VACATING ORDER OF THE HOUSE OF NOVEMBER 5, 2024 Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the order of the House of November 5, 2024, regard- ing H.R. 82 be vacated. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gen- tleman from Maryland? There was no objection. f EXPLANATION REGARDING VACATING OF ORDER (Mr. HARRIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, I rose to vacate the order of the House of No- vember 5 because, having reviewed the Speaker’s announced policies, the deci- sion in the Chair should have been to not entertain the motion to table on that day. f CONGRATULATING DR. VICTOR AMBROS (Mr. MCGOVERN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor my con- stituent, Dr. Victor Ambros of the Uni- versity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, on being awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on microRNA. He shares this tremendous distinc- tion with Gary Ruvkun of Harvard Medical School. I am proud to be from Massachusetts today. Mr. Speaker, decades ago, scientists discovered that our genes, the tiny strands of DNA that make us who we are, are translated into another com- pound called RNA, which helps make sure our cells function. Thanks to the laureates’ work, we now know that tiny pieces of RNA called microRNA can actually do things all by themselves, speeding up or slowing down important cellular functions. Their work has opened up unprece- dented new research opportunities when it comes to all kinds of things, including cancer treatment. Thanks to this work, we have learned more about how we become who we are. I speak for Worcester, for Massachu- setts, for the United States, and the world when I say thank you to Dr. Ambros for his contributions to our un- derstanding of how we become who we are. f ACHIEVEMENTS OF SPEAKER JOHNSON (Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to ad- dress the House for 1 minute and to re- vise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Speaker MIKE JOHNSON for his achievements of the passage of critical legislation in the House and his leadership in main- taining the Republican majority. ‘‘We flipped blue seats red . . . and we kept this majority,’’ said the Speaker today on the Capitol steps with the proven leaders STEVE SCALISE, T OM EMMER, and RICHARD HUDSON. The Speaker heard from the Amer- ican people and has given them voice and change that Americans deserve. Families have suffered high prices for everyday items, dangerously open bor- ders, and national security in jeopardy. Speaker JOHNSON has pledged: ‘‘We are going to raise the America First ban- ner over this place.’’ I was grateful in July to be with the Speaker in Milwaukee to lead the ap- plause for his statement of being a Reaganite for peace through strength. In October at Lake Como, Italy, I was there as he represented America so well. Last month at Mar-a-Lago, I was grateful to be present as he confirmed the Trump-Johnson partnership. In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Open borders for dictators put all Americans at risk of more 9/11 attacks imminent as warned by the FBI. Trump will reinstitute existing laws to protect American families. f PUBLIC SERVANTS DESERVE THEIR EARNED BENEFITS (Mr. KENNEDY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act. People in western New York and across the country rely on Social Secu- rity to meet their basic needs and live well. This bipartisan legislation fixes loopholes that unjustifiably cut bene- fits for millions of Social Security re- cipients. The Social Security Fairness Act re- peals the Windfall Elimination Provi- sion and the Government Pension Off- set, existing provisions of the Social Security Act that slash Social Security for millions of public workers. Dedicated public servants—teachers, firefighters, postal workers, police offi- cers, and their spouses or widows—are unfairly seeing Social Security cuts be- cause of these loopholes. This is a slap in the face to the people who have given so much to our communities. All Americans deserve the benefits they worked so hard to earn, and this bill delivers on this promise but espe- cially those who have dedicated their lives to public service. I urge my colleagues to pass this leg- islation swiftly and deliver for our fel- low Americans. f RECESS The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- ant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair. Accordingly (at 2 o’clock and 7 min- utes p.m.), the House stood in recess. f b 1600 AFTER RECESS The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. MORAN) at 4 o’clock and 1 minute p.m. f ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- ant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:40 Nov 13, 2024 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12NO7.004 H12NOPT1 DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HOUSE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5920 November 12, 2024 today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or votes objected to under clause 6 of rule XX. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. f EQUAL TREATMENT OF PUBLIC SERVANTS ACT OF 2023 Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5342) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to replace the windfall elimination provision with a formula equalizing benefits for certain individuals with noncovered employ- ment, and for other purposes. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows: H.R. 5342 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- resentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Equal Treat- ment of Public Servants Act of 2023’’. SEC. 2. REPLACEMENT OF THE WINDFALL ELIMI- NATION PROVISION WITH A FOR- MULA EQUALIZING BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WITH NON- COVERED EMPLOYMENT. (a) I N G ENERAL.—Section 215(a) of the So- cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)) is amend- ed by inserting after paragraph (7) the fol- lowing: ‘‘(8)(A) In the case of an individual whose primary insurance amount would be com- puted under paragraph (1) of this sub- section— ‘‘(i) who first becomes eligible for an old- age or disability insurance benefit after 2067, ‘‘(ii) who subsequently becomes entitled to such benefit, and ‘‘(iii) who has earnings derived from non- covered service performed in a year after 1977, the primary insurance amount of such indi- vidual shall be the amount computed or re- computed under this paragraph. ‘‘(B) The primary insurance amount of an individual described in subparagraph (A), as computed or recomputed under this para- graph, shall be the product derived by multi- plying— ‘‘(i) the individual’s primary insurance amount, as determined under paragraph (1) of this subsection and subparagraph (C) of this paragraph, by ‘‘(ii) a fraction— ‘‘(I) the numerator of which is the individ- ual’s average indexed monthly earnings (de- termined without regard to subparagraph (C)), and ‘‘(II) the denominator of which is an amount equal to the individual’s average in- dexed monthly earnings (as determined under subparagraph (C)), rounded, if not a multiple of $0.10, to the next lower multiple of $0.10. ‘‘(C)(i) For purposes of determining an in- dividual’s primary insurance amount pursu- ant to clauses (i) and (ii)(II) of subparagraph (B), the individual’s average indexed month- ly earnings shall be determined by treating all recorded noncovered earnings (as defined in clause (ii)(I)) derived by the individual from noncovered service performed in each year after 1977 as ‘wages’ (as defined in sec- tion 209 for purposes of this title), which shall be treated as included in the individ- ual’s adjusted total covered earnings (as de- fined in clause (ii)(II)) for such calendar year together with amounts consisting of ‘wages’ (as so defined without regard to this sub- paragraph) paid during such calendar year and self-employment income (as defined in section 211(b)) for taxable years ending with or during such calendar year. ‘‘(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph: ‘‘(I) The term ‘recorded noncovered earn- ings’ means earnings derived from non- covered service (other than noncovered serv- ice as a member of a uniformed service (as defined in section 210(m)) for which satisfac- tory evidence is determined by the Commis- sioner to be available in the records of the Commissioner. ‘‘(II) The term ‘adjusted total covered earnings’ means, in connection with an indi- vidual for any calendar year, the sum of the wages paid to the individual during such cal- endar year (as adjusted under subsection (b)(3)) plus the self-employment income de- rived by the individual during any taxable year ending with or during such calendar year (as adjusted under subsection (b)(3)). ‘‘(iii) The Commissioner of Social Security shall provide by regulation or other public guidance for methods for determining wheth- er satisfactory evidence is available in the records of the Commissioner for earnings for noncovered service (other than noncovered service as a member of a uniformed service (as defined in section 210(m))) to be treated as recorded noncovered earnings. Such meth- ods shall provide for reliance on earnings in- formation which is provided to the Commis- sioner by employers and which, as deter- mined by the Commissioner, constitute a reasonable basis for treatment of earnings for noncovered service as recorded non- covered earnings. In making determinations under this clause, the Commissioner shall also take into account any documentary or other evidence of earnings derived from non- covered service by an individual which is provided by the individual to the Commis- sioner and which the Commissioner con- siders appropriate as a reasonable basis for treatment of such earnings as recorded non- covered earnings. ‘‘(D) Upon the death of an individual whose primary insurance amount is computed or recomputed under this paragraph, such pri- mary insurance amount shall be computed or recomputed under paragraph (1) of this sub- section. ‘‘(E) In the case of any individual whose primary insurance amount would be com- puted under this paragraph who first be- comes entitled after 1985 to a monthly peri- odic payment made by a foreign employer or foreign country that is based in whole or in part upon noncovered service, the primary insurance amount of such individual shall be computed or recomputed under paragraph (7) or paragraph (1), as applicable, for months beginning with the first month of the indi- vidual’s initial entitlement to such monthly periodic payment.’’. (b) C ONFORMING A MENDMENTS.—Section 215(a)(7)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(7)(A)) is amended— (1) in clause (i)— (A) by striking ‘‘after 1985’’ and inserting ‘‘after 1985 and before 2068’’; and (B) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end; (2) in clause (ii)— (A) by striking ‘‘after 1985’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘after 1985 and before 2068’’; and (B) by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end; (3) by inserting after clause (ii) the fol- lowing: ‘‘(iii) is an individual described in para- graph (8)(E),’’; and (4) by striking ‘‘hereafter in this paragraph and in subsection (d)(3)’’ and inserting ‘‘in this paragraph, paragraphs (8) and (9), and subsection (d)(3)’’. (c) E FFECTIVE D ATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable on or after January 1, 2025. SEC. 3. BENEFIT CALCULATION DURING TRANSI- TION PERIOD. (a) I N G ENERAL.—Section 215(a) of the So- cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)), as amended by section 2, is further amended by inserting after paragraph (8) the following: ‘‘(9) In the case of an individual whose pri- mary insurance amount would be computed under paragraph (1) of this subsection— ‘‘(A) who first becomes eligible for an old- age or disability insurance benefit after 2024 and before 2068, ‘‘(B) who subsequently becomes entitled to such benefit, and ‘‘(C) who has earnings derived from non- covered service performed in a year after 1977, the primary insurance amount of such indi- vidual shall be the higher of the amount computed or recomputed under paragraph (7) without regard to this paragraph or the amount that would be computed or recom- puted under paragraph (8) if the individual were an individual described in subparagraph (A) of such paragraph.’’. (b) C ONFORMING A MENDMENT.—Section 215(a)(7)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(7)(A)), as amended by section 2(b), is further amended by striking ‘‘shall be com- puted or recomputed’’ and inserting ‘‘shall, subject to paragraph (9), be computed or re- computed’’. (c) E FFECTIVE D ATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable on or after January 1, 2025. SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL MONTHLY PAYMENT FOR IN- DIVIDUALS WHOSE BENEFIT AMOUNT IS REDUCED BY THE WIND- FALL ELIMINATION PROVISION. (a) I N G ENERAL.—Section 215(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)), as amended by sections 2 and 3, is further amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(10)(A) For any month beginning at least 270 days after the date of enactment of the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act of 2023, the Commissioner of Social Security shall, subject to subparagraphs (C) and (D), make an additional monthly payment of $100 to each individual who is an eligible indi- vidual for such month, and an additional monthly payment of $50 to each individual (other than an eligible individual) who is en- titled to a benefit under section 202 for such month on the basis of the wages and self-em- ployment income of such eligible individual. ‘‘(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘eligible individual’ for a month means an individual who— ‘‘(i)(I) first becomes eligible for an old-age or disability insurance benefit under this title before 2025, or ‘‘(II) is an individual described in para- graph (8)(E), and ‘‘(ii) is entitled to an old-age or disability insurance benefit under this title for such month based on a primary insurance amount that was computed or recomputed under paragraph (7) (and not subsequently recom- puted under any other paragraph of this sub- section). ‘‘(C) In any case in which this title pro- vides that no monthly benefit under section 202 or 223 shall be paid to an individual for a month, no additional monthly payment shall be paid to the individual for such month. This subparagraph shall not apply in the case of an individual whose monthly benefit under section 202 or 223 is reduced, regardless of the amount of the reduction, based on the individual’s receipt of other income or bene- fits for such month or the application of sec- tion 203(a) or due to the adjustment or recov- ery of an overpayment under section 204. ‘‘(D)(i) An individual is not entitled to re- ceive more than one additional monthly pay- ment for a month under this paragraph. VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:40 Nov 13, 2024 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12NO7.007 H12NOPT1 DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HOUSE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5921 November 12, 2024 ‘‘(ii) An eligible individual who is entitled to a benefit under section 202 on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of another eligible individual for a month shall receive an additional monthly payment under this paragraph in the amount of $100 for such month. ‘‘(E) Except for purposes of adjustment or recovery of an overpayment under section 204, an additional monthly payment under this paragraph shall not be subject to any re- duction or deduction under this title. ‘‘(F) Whenever benefit amounts under this title are increased by any percentage effec- tive with any month as a result of a deter- mination made under subsection (i), each of the dollar amounts in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by the same percentage for months beginning with such month.’’. (b) E FFECTIVE D ATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable for months beginning at least 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 5. REPORTING OF NONCOVERED EARNINGS ON SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT STATEMENTS. (a) I N G ENERAL.—Section 1143(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b–13(a)(2)) is amended— (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (E) as subparagraphs (C) through (F); and (2) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following: ‘‘(B) the amount of earnings derived by the eligible individual from service performed after 1977 which did not constitute employ- ment (as defined in section 210), not includ- ing service as a member of a uniformed serv- ice (as defined in section 210(m)), as shown by the records of the Commissioner at the date of the request;’’. (b) EFFECTIVE D ATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to Social Security account statements issued on or after January 1, 2025. SEC. 6. STUDY ON PARTNERING WITH STATE AND LOCAL PENSION SYSTEMS. (a) S TUDY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner of So- cial Security shall study and test the admin- istrative feasibility of partnering with State and local pension systems, or other govern- mental entities, to improve the collection and sharing of information relating to State and local noncovered pensions. (2) C OORDINATION WITH STATE AND LOCAL PENSION SYSTEMS.—In conducting the study described in paragraph (1), the Commissioner shall coordinate with State and local pension systems that reflect the diversity of systems and individual experiences to explore the de- velopment of automated data exchange agreements that facilitate reporting of infor- mation relating to noncovered pensions. (b) R EPORT.—The Commissioner of Social Security shall conclude the study described in subsection (a) not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this Act. As soon as possible after conclusion of the study and not later than 4 1⁄2 years after the date of en- actment of this Act, the Commissioner shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate a report on the results of the study. Such re- port shall include the following: (1) A discussion of how the automated data exchange agreements could be implemented to cover noncovered pensions nationally, in- cluding the range of implementation timelines across State and local pension sys- tems, or with other governmental entities. (2) An analysis of the barriers to devel- oping automated data exchange agreements and lessons learned that can help address these barriers. (3) A description of alternative methods for obtaining information related to noncovered pensions, and an analysis of the barriers to obtaining noncovered pension data through such methods. (4) An explanation of how coverage infor- mation is obtained by the Social Security Administration when an individual pur- chases service credits to apply to a new cov- ered or noncovered pension after moving from another covered or noncovered pension within the State or in another State. (5) An estimate of the total amount, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, of noncovered pensions not reported to the So- cial Security Administration as a result of noncompliance with voluntary reporting policies. (c) S TATE AND L OCAL P ENSION I NFORMATION T O B E R EQUESTED BY THE C OMMISSIONER.— Section 202 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402) is amended by inserting after sub- section (l) the following: ‘‘(m) S TATE AND L OCAL P ENSION INFORMA- TION T O B E R EQUESTED BY THE C OMMIS- SIONER.— ‘‘(1) The Commissioner may partner with States to request information, including the information specified in paragraph (2), with respect to any designated distribution (as de- fined in section 3405(e)(1) of the Internal Rev- enue Code of 1986) from an employer deferred compensation plan (as defined in section 3405(e)(5) of such Code) of the State (or polit- ical subdivision thereof) to a participant of such plan in any case in which any portion of such participant’s earnings for service under such plan did not constitute ‘employment’ as defined in section 210 for purposes of this title. ‘‘(2) The information specified in this para- graph is the following: ‘‘(A) The name and Social Security ac- count number of the participant receiving the designated distribution. ‘‘(B) The dollar amount of the designated distribution and the date paid. ‘‘(C) The date on which the participant ini- tially became eligible for a designated dis- tribution under the plan and, if different, the date of payment of the initial designated dis- tribution. ‘‘(D) The dates of each period of service under the plan that did not constitute ‘em- ployment’ as defined in section 210 for pur- poses of this title, and the dates of any other period of service under the plan.’’. (d) D EFINITIONS.—In this section— (1) the term ‘‘noncovered pension’’ means a pension any part of which is based on non- covered service (within the meaning of sec- tion 215(a)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(a)(7))); and (2) the term ‘‘covered pension’’ means any other pension. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- ant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. ARRINGTON) and the gen- tleman from Connecticut (Mr. LARSON) each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas. GENERAL LEAVE Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and in- clude extraneous material on this bill under consideration. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gen- tleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may con- sume. Mr. Speaker, we have a great injus- tice that has persisted now for four decades. Some of our hardest working fellow Americans who are public serv- ants in certain States where they have non-Social Security covered employ- ment—or to say it this way, where they have teacher retirement systems sepa- rate from Social Security, or fire- fighter retirement systems separate from Social Security—have what is called a windfall elimination provision in the Social Security law, which has shortchanged roughly 2 million hard- working public servants. Some people are still getting a wind- fall, but the vast majority are not get- ting what they earned and what they put into the Social Security system. So my colleague, Representative JOHN LARSON, who I serve with on the Com- mittee on Ways and Means, and who I consider a dear friend and someone who I know is very passionate about fixing Social Security’s insolvency, which looms large over the next 10 years, this is but one element of what is not work- ing in Social Security for our retirees and Social Security recipients. To solve this inequity and injustice, some of my colleagues have decided they would just repeal the windfall elimination provision altogether. That sounds good, but it is going to cost $192 billion to do that. We shouldn’t be con- strained by cost to do the right thing, but to repeal the windfall elimination provision would go back to pre-1983 when we had a windfall to certain Americans in the same States where they had independent retirement sys- tems, and we were spending more money for certain retirees than they put into the Social Security system. There was a great discrepancy and inequity between these individuals in these States and the vast majority of the tens of millions of other retirees across the country. So you had a teach- er or a firefighter in certain States, like Texas, pre-1983 getting a windfall, large sums of money, over similarly situated people in other States. Fire- fighters and teachers are doing the same work, making roughly the same amount of money, but getting less ben- efits. What we should do is fix the inad- equacy of the windfall elimination pro- vision that was oversimplified and did not use the data that we have today and make sure that people are paid what they are owed in terms of their benefits, but not revert back to pre- windfall elimination provision, where we were spending tens of billions of dollars more than we needed to accord- ing to what people put in it. Why does that matter? Because we should have a system of fairness for every public servant in every State, every retiree who fits that definition. It is also because if we start just throwing money at this and allowing windfall payments to certain retirees, we are going to accelerate the insol- vency of the Social Security trust fund. VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:40 Nov 13, 2024 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A12NO7.001 H12NOPT1 DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HOUSE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5922 November 12, 2024 One outside expert says that we will accelerate that if we go to H.R. 82 and just pull the plug on the windfall elimi- nation provision, as opposed to fixing it and getting it right. We will accel- erate it by 6 months. We should be responsible in how we do this. We should consider retirees in every State, and we should also con- sider future retirees because what we do and how we solve problems doesn’t just impact the people who have been shortchanged, and we need to deal with that, but we will impact future retir- ees, as well. I am simply asking my colleagues to do the right thing, address this in- equity with WEP and our public serv- ants, but do it the right way so that we don’t compromise the integrity and the fiscal responsibility of managing the trust fund and put these public serv- ants now once again at odds with the vast majority of public servants who are retired. Mr. Speaker, that is a mouthful, by the way. This is a complex issue, but what is not complicated is people who have been shortchanged need to get the money that they rightfully are owed by their government. I can start there and say that Democratic and Republican colleagues alike agree on that, but my bill will do it in a fiscally responsible way. I think this H.R. 82 is well-intended, but it is going to accelerate the bank- ruptcy of Social Security. That is not good for anybody, current or future re- tirees. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I start by acknowl- edging 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 por- tion of it, come to the floor, albeit under suspension and not through reg- ular order, Mr. Speaker, is a step in the right direction, but the American peo- ple 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 Secu- rity for its recipients. Imagine that. Do you think a few things have hap- pened since Richard Nixon was Presi- dent of the United States? Do you think a few things have happened, es- pecially as we live in this post-COVID and now inflationary period? It impacts over 70 million of our fel- low 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 Ameri- cans rely on Social Security, and it is the Nation’s number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the num- ber one antipoverty program for chil- dren. More veterans rely on Social Se- curity 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 So- cial Security. What we need to do today, and in both of these bills that are coming be- fore 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 in- dividuals 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 be- lieve 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 sus- pension, 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 pov- erty, 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 af- ford this cut. b 1615 Now, here is the other irony. Here we have one of the great economic devel- opment 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 col- league 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 Re- publican 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 liv- ing longer, we expect that you will get less in retirement, not more. It makes no sense whatsoever. We need to come together as a Con- gress 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 anti- poverty program for the elderly and for our children. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may con- sume. My friend mentioned my seniors in west Texas. Let me tell you what they sent me here to do. They sent me here to be an advocate for them, to ensure that we have fair and just laws, to fix what is broken about Social Security but do it in a way that we don’t accel- erate what will be an automatic cut in less than 10 years. By repealing the windfall that ex- isted before 1983, you are saying you are okay with taxpayers just spending more money than they should, more money than what has been earned and owed to the seniors, and in a way that creates a vast and tremendous discrep- ancy and inequity between 2 million people in several States as opposed to almost 60 million across the country. How unfair and how nearsighted and narrow-minded can we be not to con- sider the fact that we will have a bank- rupt system and that we have future seniors who can’t bank on their retire- ment because we want to go back to prewindfall? It doesn’t make sense, Mr. Speaker. The Democrats had control of this place from top to bottom from 2020 to VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:40 Nov 13, 2024 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12NO7.008 H12NOPT1 DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HOUSE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5923 November 12, 2024 2022, and they didn’t fix it. Republicans had control when I was a freshman in 2017. Let me tell the world: They didn’t fix it. The only way we are going to fix it is if we come together. I agree with Mr. LARSON that there are broader pro- visions to look at and the system as a whole to address going forward. You mentioned benefits. That is a great place to do it, but to suggest that we are going to go back prewindfall elimination provision and have a $2,500 additional cut in 2033 because we are not doing it the right way and respon- sible way and equitable way because we now have the data, I just think is egre- giously irresponsible for all parties in- volved, including our children, who don’t have much of a say in this, even though they own the deferred tax on all of these programs that are bank- rupt, including Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. ROY). Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in sup- port of H.R. 5342, the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act, which my friend from Texas introduced, which was modeled or introduced similarly to a bill that our fellow Texan, Kevin Brady, introduced, because it is a re- sponsible piece of legislation designed to address a problem head-on. Here is the problem. Everybody at home watching this needs to under- stand the joke. We are playing with house money yet again. We are playing with funny money. We are pretending and lying to the American people that the Social Security funds that are ex- tracted from their checks are sitting in a lockbox, sitting in an account for them. It is not. That is a lie. The money is taken out of your check now, and that money is then given to those people who are retiring now, those who have retired. That is the truth. It is a tax. What happened here was we messed up because we are government. We mess up almost every single second. Government messed up, and now we are trying to fix the mess up. In this case, my friend from Texas has introduced a bill that responsibly fixes the mess up. It actually tries to go in and say if you are a firefighter, if you are a cop, if you are a teacher and you have got the situation where you have got another job and that Social Security was taken out of your check but you are not getting the benefit of that because you have a pension, this proportional model, which is $25 bil- lion, according to the Social Security Administration, would responsibly ad- dress it. Now, I wish it was paid for. We don’t pay for anything in this town. $25 bil- lion at least addresses it responsibly. What has happened, this legislation that we are voting on—the gentleman is correct—under suspension of the rules, without going to the Rules Com- mittee, I disagree with that. It should not be being done under suspension. The reason it is being done under sus- pension is because a majority of people in this body discharged another bill, H.R. 82, which would spend $200 billion over 10 years to reinstate the windfall, to basically take money away from So- cial Security and make it be bankrupt 6 months earlier. That is what this town does. My friend from Texas is trying to prevent that. We had to engage in po- litical rulemaking warfare on the floor of the House, which we addressed today to try to fix it and put the genie back in the bottle, to guarantee that we would at least get a vote on this good bill instead of the disaster that is a $200 billion hole in the deficit that will bankrupt Social Security at least 6 months earlier, according to the Social Security Administration. I thank my friend from Texas. I rise in support of it. We should not have to do this. This should have gone through the Rules Committee. We should have amended the bill. We should have a de- bate about it. We should pay for it. In- stead, we are doing the same crap we always do. I support this bill. Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, this will be budget neutral over 75 years for the trust fund, according to the actu- aries, and I thank Mr. ROY for his com- ments. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. 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 some- thing 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 under- stands this. All of us are Americans. The Presi- dent of the United States, Mr. Biden, has made a proposal. The incoming President, Mr. Trump, has made a pro- posal also. He has made a proposal to cut taxes for people on Social Security. We have that proposal in our bill, ex- cept we pay for it. That is the respon- sible thing to do. What has been irresponsible is Con- gress not debating this in regular order and bringing it to the floor. How about doing something incredible here, actu- ally have a vote on the Nation’s num- ber one antipoverty program for the el- derly and number one antipoverty pro- gram 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 re- spected by the American people that overwhelmingly Independents, Repub- licans, and Democrats, all believe that it should be supported, expanded, be- cause 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 dis- cussion 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 Ameri- cans 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. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. SMITH), my colleague and friend. Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, the windfall elimination provision, or WEP as it is more commonly known, was put in place more than four dec- ades ago to prevent workers with earn- ings that were exempt from Social Se- curity payroll taxes from getting more generous treatment from Social Secu- rity than workers who spent their whole careers contributing to Social Security. Unfortunately, WEP still results in overly generous payments for some while unfairly penalizing others. H.R. 5342, the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act, provides current beneficiaries affected by the WEP with an additional $100 per month and re- places the current-law WEP for future beneficiaries with a new formula that bases benefits on a worker’s total ca- reer earnings. This past year, the Ways and Means Committee has held more hearings on WEP than in any other Congress in the past 20 years and identified that the WEP formula could be replaced with a formula that provides all beneficiaries with a fair benefit based on their ac- tual earnings using data that wasn’t available when the WEP was put in place 40 years ago. b 1630 The bill before us today, the Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act, re- places the WEP with a new formula based on this now-available earnings data to more accurately adjust bene- fits. While I have concerns with this bill’s short-term costs, I commend my col- leagues and the chairman of the Budg- et Committee, Congressman JODEY A RRINGTON, for his dedication to find- ing a pragmatic solution that ulti- mately improves the financial health of the Social Security programs over the long term. It is vital that any solution to WEP protects the Social Security trust funds that all beneficiaries rely on. I know a very similar proposal to perma- nently replace the WEP used to share bipartisan support of members of the Ways and Means Committee, but, un- fortunately, my Democrat colleagues abandoned this approach several years back. VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:40 Nov 13, 2024 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12NO7.010 H12NOPT1 DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HOUSE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5924 November 12, 2024 I share the goals of this legislation and encourage my colleagues to work with myself and Chairman ARRINGTON to develop a permanent, bipartisan so- lution that permanently fixes the Windfall Elimination Provision, and the related government pension offset, while also protecting the Social Secu- rity benefits of all retirees, which could actually pass the United States Senate and become law. Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may con- sume. I thank the gentleman from Mis- souri for his comments. I don’t know that I could add anything more to what he said. We are trying to fix this in- equity that exists with this subset of the retirement or Social Security bene- ficiary population. I agree with Mr. LARSON that we need a broader debate on Social Security, and we had better hurry up because it will be insolvent in less than 10 years, so we need to talk about the solvency and sustainability, the entirety of the program, the pay-fors, programmatic reforms, and the benefits. All of it should be on the table. That is why as budget chair, I passed a bipartisan fiscal commission that would look at that and also at Medi- care, which is another important safe- ty net for seniors. However, we are talking about one specific subset. I love the gentleman’s passion, and I hope that we can get thoughtful Mem- bers on both sides of the aisle, like my friend, to sit at the table and do the right, the responsible, and the mature thing and actually work on a com- promise solution like Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill did, and I will bet the gentleman agrees with that. However, we are not talking about the entirety of Social Security. We are talking about this subset, this subset of people affected by WEP. It is about 2 million people. I want to fix that for them. I want them to get the money they have earned, because the windfall elimination provision wasn’t adequate. It didn’t use good information. We still have people who are shortchanged. We still have people getting a wind- fall, albeit less, when we have the abil- ity, the wherewithal, the tools, and the data to actually fix it without just eliminating WEP and going back to where the inequity is greater than what it is today. That is because if the public servants of my State and the gentleman’s State would get more than they put into So- cial Security, then we accelerate the insolvency. Then we add to the cuts that will be automatic on seniors that would be $2,500 in 2033, and we give al- most no peace of mind and hope for fu- ture seniors and our children and grandchildren that this important antipoverty safety net program for sen- iors will still be there when they need it. Mr. Speaker, it is too easy just to throw money at every problem up here when you are borrowing from China, and you have a $2 trillion deficit that will double in 10 years. We have higher levels of indebtedness than we had when we were fighting Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. This country is going to go into the fiscal ditch never to come out, never to prosper, never to be offered the Amer- ican promise, and never to lead the free world because we are going to bank- rupt it because we don’t know how to address these problems like every American does in their own household, in their businesses, and at the State and local level, and that is conducting their business within their means and not like there is a money tree at the Treasury Department where they can borrow ad infinitum. That is not re- ality. That is not reality. Let’s fix it. Let’s do it the right way. Let’s not add to the debt. Let’s not add to the inequity. Let’s not accelerate the trust fund insolvency. Then let’s do what the gentleman said. I agree with the gentleman. Let’s be men and women who love this coun- try and are more concerned with solv- ing these big problems than staying up here and being called Congressman and chairman. Let’s do the people’s busi- ness. I am ready. I am ready. This is a very finite subset, and we have the solution. It is not perfect, but it balances the things that need to be balanced like these folks up there would at their homes and like my par- ents have to do back home in Plain- view, Texas. Taxpayers deserve a voice as much as seniors, and my children deserve a voice as much as taxpayers. That is what we are trying to do here. I hope we can get my friend’s sup- port. I feel like that is about as com- pelling a pitch I can make. I think JOHN LARSON ought to come over and fix this the right way with me, then let’s get that fiscal commission going, get our President to lean into this and do the Reagan-Tip O’Neill grand bar- gain so we can actually solve the big- ger and broader issues that plague So- cial Security. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. 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 mil- lion people with regard to WEP. We are talking about 70 million Americans. They understand this program. Frankly, it doesn’t need to be stud- ied. 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 en- hance Social Security, not to cut it, so that people who are currently strug- gling, 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 num- ber one antipoverty program for the country. I don’t care what party you are in or who you are, you understand what So- cial Security has meant to you. Social Security is the safety net for cap- italism. It is what allows entrepreneurialism to succeed, for peo- ple to take risks, and if they fail unin- tentionally 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 oppor- tunity 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 peo- ple 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 eco- nomic 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 any- thing for you, even though your dis- tricts all receive over $200 million, and yet we haven’t done anything to en- hance 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 VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:40 Nov 13, 2024 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12NO7.012 H12NOPT1 DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HOUSE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5925 November 12, 2024 obstinate of Congress to not vote to en- hance 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 under- stand 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 constitu- ents 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 mil- lion. That is not acceptable. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Mem- bers are reminded to direct their com- ments to the Chair. Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, only in Washington, D.C., and, unfortu- nately—I respect my Democrat col- league and many of my Democrat col- leagues—only from the Democrat side of the aisle could I hear that paying above and beyond what we defined as an earned benefit and has now become a windfall for 2 million people at the expense of 60 million people who don’t receive the same benefit so that we can give people equal treatment and not accelerate the insolvency, only in this town could I hear that as a solution. That is not a solution. It is a bad plan. Let’s have the broader debate about Social Security, which is what the gen- tleman is suggesting, but let’s fix this. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. b 1645 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. ARRINGTON) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5342. The question was taken. The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it. Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- ant to clause 8 of rule XX, further pro- ceedings on this motion will be post- poned. f SOCIAL SECURITY FAIRNESS ACT OF 2023 Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 82) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and wind- fall elimination provisions. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows: H.R. 82 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- resentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Secu- rity Fairness Act of 2023’’. SEC. 2. REPEAL OF GOVERNMENT PENSION OFF- SET PROVISION. (a) I N G ENERAL.—Section 202(k) of the So- cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(k)) is amend- ed by striking paragraph (5). (b) CONFORMING A MENDMENTS.— (1) Section 202(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(2)) is amended by strik- ing ‘‘subsections (k)(5) and (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (q)’’. (2) Section 202(c)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘sub- sections (k)(5) and (q)’’ and inserting ‘‘sub- section (q)’’. (3) Section 202(e)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsection (k)(5), subsection (q),’’ and in- serting ‘‘subsection (q)’’. (4) Section 202(f)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘subsection (k)(5), subsection (q)’’ and in- serting ‘‘subsection (q)’’. SEC. 3. REPEAL OF WINDFALL ELIMINATION PRO- VISIONS. (a) I N G ENERAL.—Section 215 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415) is amended— (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (7); (2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (3); and (3) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (9). (b) C ONFORMING A MENDMENTS.—Sub- sections (e)(2) and (f)(2) of section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402) are each amended by striking ‘‘section 215(f)(5), 215(f)(6), or 215(f)(9)(B)’’ in subparagraphs (C) and (D)(i) and inserting ‘‘paragraph (5) or (6) of section 215(f)’’. SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable under title II of the Social Security Act for months after December 2023. Notwithstanding section 215(f) of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall adjust primary insur- ance amounts to the extent necessary to take into account the amendments made by section 3. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- ant to the rule, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. SMITH) and the gen- tleman from Connecticut (Mr. LARSON) each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri. GENERAL LEAVE Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Mem- bers may have 5 legislative days to re- vise and extend their remarks and in- clude extraneous material on the bill under consideration. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gen- tleman from Missouri? There was no objection. Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may con- sume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act of 2023, which fully repeals Social Secu- rity’s windfall elimination provision and government pension offset. The WEP and GPO are two Social Se- curity policies that adjust benefits for workers who receive a pension from jobs that were exempt from Social Se- curity payroll taxes, frequently police officers, firefighters, teachers, and other public servants. These two provi- sions affect around 4 percent of all So- cial Security beneficiaries, more than 60 percent of whom are concentrated in 10 States. These two policies were put in place more than four decades ago to prevent workers with earnings that were ex- empt from Social Security payroll taxes from getting more generous treatment from Social Security than workers who spent their whole careers contributing to Social Security. Unfor- tunately, these policies still result in overly generous benefits for some while unfairly penalizing others. This Congress, the Ways and Means Committee has held more hearings on WEP and GPO than any other Congress over the past 20 years. At our first hearing, held at a fire station in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, we heard directly from American retirees who have been affected by these flawed provisions, which took most of them completely by surprise. At our second hearing, we identified that there are alternatives to the cur- rent WEP and GPO formulas, using data which wasn’t available when those two provisions were put in place 40 years ago, which would provide all beneficiaries with a fair benefit based on their actual earnings. Mr. Speaker, while the Social Secu- rity Fairness Act repeals the flawed WEP and GPO, it is far from being a perfect solution and does nothing to re- place them with a fair formula. Unfortunately, without a replace- ment, this bill is projected to cost So- cial Security almost $200 billion over the next 10 years and expedite Social Security’s insolvency by about 6 months. When that happens, it is pro- jected that all beneficiaries, not just those affected by the WEP and GPO, will receive a 20 to 25 percent benefit cut. The WEP and GPO are flawed, but they were put in place for a reason: to try to fairly account for workers hold- ing jobs both outside and inside the So- cial Security system. I think everyone agrees they have done an imperfect job in treating all workers fairly, and that is certainly something we need to fix. However, to get rid of them without a replacement potentially trades unfair treatment for preferential treatment. Like many of the Members who sup- port this legislation, I share the goal of providing real relief to those who are harmed by these unfair Washington rules, which is why it is unfortunate that this legislation had to come to the floor this way. I would have much rath- er had a bipartisan solution that came VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:42 Nov 13, 2024 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12NO7.013 H12NOPT1 DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HOUSE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5926 November 12, 2024 to the floor through regular order that both repealed this formula but also re- placed it while holding retirees and current workers harmless. It is why I appreciate that while the gentleman could have filed a Consensus Calendar motion for H.R. 82 more than 460 days ago, Representative GARRET GRAVES instead chose to work in good faith with the committee to find an alter- native that is fully paid for. Unfortunately, Democrats and key stakeholders were ultimately unwilling to come together and identify a real bi- partisan solution that would protect both those harmed by the WEP and GPO and the Social Security trust fund, which all beneficiaries rely on. Mr. Speaker, if Members don’t want to be right back here next Congress, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work with us to fix this issue moving forward and protect the retire- ment security of all American seniors. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I commend Representatives ABIGAIL S PANBERGER and GARRET GRAVES for their extraordinary work. It is not often in this body, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues are going to find a bipar- tisan 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 be- cause of the impact on schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, and munic- ipal 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 discus- sion, no debate on the number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the number one antipoverty pro- gram for children, a program that pro- tects spouses and their children, which every American agrees with and under- stands. 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 Secu- rity 2100, we repeal it, as well, and pay for it. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the chair- man. 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 recog- nizes 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 ben- efits 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 re- tired 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 Mem- bers 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). Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the Representative for tens of thousands of Virginians whose earned retirement benefits have been slashed by the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset for far, far too long. I urge my colleagues, 330 of whom have cosponsored this legislation, to join us in passing the Social Security Fairness Act this evening and put an end to this theft. For generations, hardworking Ameri- cans have been promised that if they work hard, save, and contribute to their Social Security, they will be af- forded a secure retirement with their earned benefits. The WEP and the GPO, two mis- guided provisions that were added to the Social Security Act in 1983, have denied Americans the retirement secu- rity they worked for and expected to receive. Today, the WEP steals benefits from more than 2 million retired Americans, more than 45,000 Virginians, who both paid into Social Security for long enough to earn these benefits and worked in the public sector during their careers. These are firefighters who worked a second job to make ends meet, police officers who began a sec- ond career after leaving the force, and teachers who took a summer job to cover the bills and buy school supplies. They are Federal employees who went on to work in the private sector. They are all receiving a fraction of their earned Social Security benefits. The GPO denies benefits to more than 750,000 Americans and nearly 8,000 Virginians, people who dedicated their careers to public service who were then robbed of the survivor benefits that they should have received while deal- ing with the death of a spouse. These Americans have been punished simply because they chose to selflessly serve our communities and our country. Mr. Speaker, I have heard from thou- sands of Virginians about this issue. Francis, a retired police officer in Vir- ginia, is seeing his benefits slashed by the WEP. Richard, a veteran who served our Nation first in the military, then in civil service, and then in the private sector, sees nearly half of his Social Security benefits stolen. That has been the case for the past 15 years, even though he started working when he was 16 years old and started paying into Social Security. For more than 40 years, public serv- ants have tirelessly implored their Representatives in Congress to listen to their stories and to correct this glaring injustice. Today, for the first time, Congress will vote on the Social Security Fairness Act, to repeal the WEP and the GPO, and to finally put an end to this theft. Let me be very clear. The long-term solvency of Social Security is an issue that Congress must address, and the issue of how much those earned bene- fits pay to those who are in their re- tirement is something that must be ad- dressed, but that is a separate issue. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia. b 1700 Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, that is a separate issue from allowing Americans who did their part, who con- tributed their earnings, for them to re- tire with dignity. In signing their names onto this leg- islation, more than 330 lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, have made clear their be- lief that we must repeal the WEP and GPO. We must pass it tonight. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this legislation and in sending it over to the United States Senate, where 61 Senators who are cur- rently serving in that body are cospon- sors of our legislation. By passing the Social Security Fairness Act, we can deliver long-overdue relief to the American public, to our public serv- ants, to those who have served our communities. I thank everyone who will speak on behalf of this bill this evening. I thank my cosponsor, Congressman GARRET G RAVES, for his extraordinary partner- ship as we have worked with public servants from around the country to get to this point tonight. Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. G RAVES), the author of this legislation. Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman SMITH for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I listened to this debate and heard so many things that are sim- ply misunderstandings or maybe just intentionally telling things that aren’t true. When I was growing up, my mom used to ask me: ‘‘Is it going to take an act of Congress for you to clean your room?’’ She would say it all the time. ‘‘Is it going to take an act of Congress for you to clean your room?’’ I didn’t know what she meant because I thought my room was pretty clean. What she meant is: Is it going to take the Earth, wind, stars, and moun- tains all moving in order for you to act? Mr. Speaker, this has been 40 years of treating people differently, discrimi- nating against a certain set of workers. VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:42 Nov 13, 2024 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12NO7.015 H12NOPT1 DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HOUSE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5927 November 12, 2024 These are police officers, teachers, fire- fighters, and other public servants. Mr. Speaker, I worked side by side with these folks. They are not people who are overpaid. They are not people who are underworked. Think about the crime issue, the defund the police issue, the safety of our communities. Police officers are integral to our State. They are integral to our Nation. We need to treat them fairly, respectfully. That means not treating them differently and discrimi- nating against them and their benefits. Teachers are the ones who train the next generation. Firefighters—who are you going to call when your house is on fire? These are the very people whose benefits we are cutting. Mr. Speaker, I have heard people sit here and say the solvency of this Social Security trust fund is going to move forward 6 months with this bill. Mr. Speaker, the solvency has been delayed years because you have stolen from these people. Do you not understand math? This number right here—the Congressional Budget Office, $195 bil- lion—do you know what that number is? That is the number that you are going to be stealing from these same public servants over the next 10 years if you don’t fix this. Mr. Speaker, we can sit here and talk about all of these numbers and math. Here is the reality. Probably some- where between $600 billion and $700 bil- lion in Social Security benefits from police officers, teachers, firefighters, and other public servants has been sto- len. If we don’t pass this, the Congres- sional Budget Office says we are going to steal another $995 billion. An interesting nugget that was in the Congressional Budget Office’s evalua- tion is they also said if we actually pass this law, we are going to save money on social welfare programs be- cause we are going to lift people out of poverty. They will no longer be depend- ent upon our social welfare programs. Mr. Speaker, we can’t keep doing this. I heard people talking about pe- nalizing people and taxes and all of that stuff. Let me tell you what is hap- pening. There is a group of people right now that effectively is paying a higher tax than anyone else. That is what is happening. It is the reason why the So- cial Security trust fund is going to re- main solvent for years longer. It is un- fair. It is unjust. Mr. Speaker, I am going to say it again. This is a community of people who cannot afford this. This is a com- munity of people who are some of the hardest working folks in our commu- nity, and they have been stolen from for 40 years. Mr. Speaker, very simply, here is the scenario. Let’s say that Chairman SMITH and I were both security guards. We were paid the same amount of money over the same period of time. After 20 years, I say that I am out. I go back and help raise a family. Chairman SMITH goes on to become a sheriff’s deputy. He does it for 10 years. When we retire on the same exact date, my Social Security benefits may be $1,500 to $1,800 more. Why? We paid the same amount for same period of time into the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, look, there are folks who have tried to throw up other legis- lation and say that these other alter- natives are the right way to go. There is one bill in this Congress that has a majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats. I don’t know the number right now. I know that, recently, it was the most cosponsored bill in all of Con- gress. With over 12,000 bills introduced, it was the most cosponsored bill. Mr. Speaker, do you know what? We didn’t go through the regular com- mittee process. I do want to thank Chairman SMITH for working with us. Do you know what we did? We had a hearing in Louisiana. We had a hearing in Washington, D.C. We negotiated for months, trying to get there. We couldn’t. Mr. Speaker, there is one package that has the support of the majority of Republicans and the majority of Demo- crats that will fix this once and for all. How in the world are we trying to beat up on the bill that is the most cospon- sored bill in Congress? My friend, Mr. LARSON, was talking about the divisiveness, the polariza- tion. My gosh, we have finally come to- gether on something. Mr. Speaker, let’s pass this bill. Let’s show America that we can do what is right and what is just. Let’s make sure this bill gets through the Senate and to the President’s desk and that it doesn’t take another 40 years to do what is right. Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentle- woman from Illinois (Ms. BUDZINSKI). Ms. BUDZINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my Democratic colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act. Right now, millions of Americans who have paid into Social Security are being cut short in their benefits. Police officers, firefighters, and educators, working people who have devoted their professional lives to public service, are being unfairly punished by the windfall elimination provision and the govern- ment pension offset. Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Fairness Act is a bipartisan bill to fix this, restoring benefits that our public servants have paid into throughout the years and ensuring that every Amer- ican receives the Social Security bene- fits that they have earned and deserve. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to come to- gether this evening to support this leg- islation so that we can give these working people the retirement security that they have worked for and earned. Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. HIGGINS). Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, Congress frequently falls short of the will of we the people. We know this as Representatives. We struggle to do our best. Rarely do we have an opportunity to set things right. I have worked for 8 years on the Social Security Fairness Act, and to- night, it comes to the floor for a vote. Mr. Speaker, tonight, we can repeal the unrighteous law. Tonight, men and women of this Chamber, of this hon- ored body, can recognize the signifi- cance of their signature and can honor their own signature and cast a vote in support of H.R. 82. Mr. Speaker, I have watched Con- gress after Congress after Congress as this bill has been skillfully and devi- ously killed in every Congress by one means or another. There is an echo through the Chamber of: ‘‘There is a better bill pending. We will get it next Congress. There is a more conservative bill in the Senate. We can’t pass this bill. It won’t see the light of day in the Senate.’’ Mr. Speaker, we shall shine the light of the American people upon this body and upon the Senate. We demand a clean vote. This is why we have forced it. By God, we shall get it. It is totally unrighteous to state that we can use seized and stolen money to address our ledger as a nation. Mr. Speaker, we must stop the un- righteous theft. H.R. 82 has my full and vigorous support. It carries the signa- tures of over 300 Members of this peo- ple’s House. I expect its passage to- night. Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gen- tleman from Ohio (Mr. LANDSMAN). Mr. LANDSMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone who has worked so hard on this bill for as long as they have. It has been years, way too long. Tonight is a bill vote. This is one of the most significant votes as a new Member I have been a part of because of the impact it will have on millions and millions of working people and public retirees. It is a huge win for them. Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan Social Security Fairness Act will help over 160,000 people in Ohio alone. As has been said, these are people who served us. These are retired teachers, retired police officers, retired firefighters, re- tired nurses, and our letter carriers. They have paid into the system like everyone else, but they don’t get all of their benefits. As has been said, this is theft. Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell one quick story about a woman named Me- lissa from my district. She has been teaching kindergarten at a public school. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. D’ESPOSITO). The time of the gen- tleman has expired. Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. LANDSMAN. Mr. Speaker, she has taught public school for 20 years. VerDate Sep 11 2014 05:42 Nov 13, 2024 Jkt 059060 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K12NO7.017 H12NOPT1 DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with HOUSE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5928 November 12, 2024 When she retires next year, she is set to lose $2,000 a month that she has earned because of this provision. She is not alone. As I mentioned, there are over 160,000 others in Ohio and millions across the country. Mr. Speaker, this is the most cospon- sored bill in the United States Con- gress. There are more than 60 Members of the Senate who will pass this bill or at least have said that they will pass this bill. With our vote tonight, it will get sent to the Senate. It will become law. It will make an enormous difference in the lives of working people, public re- tirees, so that they can pay all of their bills. Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. GROTHMAN). Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. We wrapped up our election season last Tuesday. I participated in debates. Other people participated in debates. We are all ready to go after that in- flation, that inflation driving up food costs, driving up housing costs, driving up the cost of gasoline. We are ready to get back here and be a little respon- sible. Mr. Speaker, what is the first bill up, the first bill on the first day? It is a bill that is going to cost just short of $200 billion, not cut $200 billion, as we try to strengthen the dollar. It is going to cost $200 billion. It is illuminating that the most co- sponsored bill is a bill that will add an- other $200 billion to the country’s debt, but that is the situation that we are in. Mr. Speaker, let’s forget about the flowery language here. Now is the first opportunity to say no to spending. I was anticipating this biennium. We fight over bills worth $500 million or $1 billion. Now, we have a bill before us for $190 billion, and everyone says it is time to, in a bipartisan way, spend more. The average American is already $100,000 in debt. b 1715 Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please remember the promises about excessive spending that we were all saying just 2 weeks ago and please vote against this bill. I don’t know what is going to happen to me if the first thing the Republicans do after coming back after this elec- tion season is pass a bill that is going to cost $200 billion. Remember, the cur- rent system is built to provide a ben- efit for the low earner. These folks al- ready have a pension and knew what the situation was going to be. Please don’t spend $200 billion. Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. 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). Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, my father was in the fire service when this was passed in 1983. He retired in 1991, and because of this wrong, he will get less than people who have private pensions simply because he chose to protect and serve our community. I agree with what has been said ear- lier. We need to fix what is broken and do it the right way. It is why I believe we should pass the Social Security Ex- pansion Act, so that we can extend the solvency of Social Security. That is not what is on the floor today. I could say a lot of things, but I think my cousin said it best. He called me when I was on the way here. He is suffering permanent health effects from the time he spent at the World Trade Center after 9/11 and for the time he spent in the fire service running into fires when everybody else was run- ning away. He said, public employees, police officers, teachers, firefighters, and their spouses are punished for our commitment to serve our community. While trust fund babies and day traders get their full benefits, we do not. This is only part of the solution. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon. Ms. HOYLE of Oregon. He said, VAL, tell them they need to pass this bill. It is time to right this wrong. We have earned our benefits. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my col- leagues to vote ‘‘yes.’’ Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, 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 re- ceive nothing. It is wrong. We all know that it is wrong. It needs to be cor- rected, and it needs to be paid for. I respect the idea and notion that we have to be fiscally responsible, but So- cial 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 teach- ers, for firefighters, and for police offi- cers. 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 dis- advantage people who are in the fund currently by not comprehensively ad- dressing 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 de- bated in committee and on the floor, and then voted on. The great news is that there will ac- tually 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 some- thing we are embracing where both sides have good points to make, but one of them clearly isn’t cutting bene- fits intentionally or unintentionally that end up hurting the very people we are sworn to serve, the very people that Social Security was meant to pro- tect. 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 ben- efits 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 ne- glected. There are 5 million fellow Americans in all of our districts get- ting 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. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, America’s public servants deserve to be treated fairly