[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 10 (Thursday, January 18, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H191-H192]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        FATE OF SOCIAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as we sit here currently, the 
Budget Committee is undertaking a matter of grave concern.
  I include in the Record letters from both the AFGE and the AFL-CIO 
with respect to the establishment of the so-called fiscal commission.
                                                 January 12, 2024.

       AFGE Applauds Lawmakers' Call To Reject Fiscal Commission

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

                                                          AFL-CIO,


                                            Legislative Alert,

                                                 January 17, 2024.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I urge you 
     to oppose the Fiscal Commission Act (H.R. 5779), the Debt-to-
     GDP Transparency and Stabilization Act (H.R. 6957), and the 
     Fiscal State of the Nation Act (H.R. 6952), when they are 
     considered by the House Budgt Committee tomorrow. These bills 
     would help set the stage for the kind of fiscal brinksmanship 
     that demands cuts to workers' Social Security, Medicare, and 
     Medicaid benefits as the price of preventing government 
     shutdowns. Instead of perpetuating this dysfunction, we 
     believe Congress should commit to deliberating fiscal issues 
     through the committees charged to examine these issues with 
     transparency and an open process.
       The AFL-CIO strongly opposes the Fiscal Commission Act. 
     Under this bill, closed-door drafting of provisions to reduce 
     federal deficits through program cuts and revenue changes 
     would produce a bill that cannot be amended. Fast track 
     procedures would require expedited floor consideration in the 
     House and in the Senate without filibuster. The lack of 
     transparency and accountability in such a process raises 
     significant doubts about the intentions behind the approach, 
     such as substantial benefit cuts in Social Security and other 
     federal programs. We share The White House's characterization 
     of this commission as a potential ``death panel'' for Social 
     Security.
       The Debt-to-GDP Transparency and Stabilization Act would 
     establish a reporting mechanism that could be incorporated in 
     a debt enforcement trigger for social benefit cuts in 
     subsequent legislation. Such a debt trigger would come into 
     play in times of recession when GDP contracts--exactly the 
     worst time to implement benefit cuts on working families and 
     slow the economy. Congress can acquire this data for its 
     deliberations without establishing this mechanism, and we ask 
     you to oppose this bill.
       We also oppose the Fiscal State of the Nation Act in its 
     current form. The bill would require an annual joint session 
     of Congress to review reports of the government's assets and 
     liabilities audited by the Government Accountability Office. 
     We believe this annual session would be used to fan the 
     flames of fiscal brinksmanship.
       The recent history of fiscal commissions and super 
     committees has shown that they

[[Page H192]]

     have failed to initiate salutary legislative efforts to 
     reduce the deficit. Unfortunately, they were successful in 
     paving the way for legislative efforts to cut federal 
     worker's pay and benefits and in imposing budget caps that 
     impacted appropriations for essential federal services. They 
     did not lead to more equitable approaches to deficit 
     reduction that balance program cuts with higher taxes for the 
     wealthy.
        We urge you to consider alternative legislation that can 
     secure programs like Social Security and Medicare for the 
     future while also improving affordability for seniors and 
     working people. For instance, supporting legislation to 
     extend Medicare's negotiation of lower drug prices for 
     seniors and extending these savings to all working people. In 
     addition, we encourage you to support Ranking Member Boyle's 
     Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act (H.R. 4535), 
     which would ensure those earning more than $400.000 pay their 
     fair share in taxes to extend the sufficiency of the Social 
     Security trust fund and Medicare.
       In conclusion, I urge you to oppose the legislation that 
     will be considered in tomorrow's mark up and to help advance 
     the many bills already introduced that manage to 
     simultaneously reduce the deficit and inequality.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William Samuel,
                                     Director, Government Affairs.

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

                          ____________________