[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 189 (Thursday, December 19, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7216-S7218]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If the Senator-elect will now present 
himself at the desk, the Chair will administer the oath of office.
  The Senator-elect, Adam B. Schiff, escorted by Mr. WELCH and Mr. 
PADILLA, advanced to the desk of the President pro tempore; the oath 
prescribed by law was administered to him by the President pro tempore; 
and he subscribed to the oath in the Official Oath Book.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Congratulations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). The Senator from Vermont.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all 
postcloture time on the motion to proceed to H.R. 82 be considered 
expired following the remarks of Senator Lee for up to 30 minutes; 
further, that following the motion to proceed vote, the Senate proceed 
to executive session; and further, that the cloture motions with 
respect to the Cheeks and Murillo nominations ripen at 11 a.m. on 
Friday, December 20.

[[Page S7217]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.


                                H.R. 82

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Congress must address the challenges facing 
Social Security. Unfortunately, the Social Security Fairness Act fails 
on all counts and doesn't even come close to living up to its name.
  Let's start with the flawed benefit calculation this legislation 
seeks to return to. The government pension offset, or GPO, and the 
windfall elimination provision, or WEP, were enacted to fix serious 
problems in how Social Security benefits were calculated. Before the 
WEP existed, individuals with mixed careers in public and private 
sectors often received more in Social Security benefits than they were 
entitled to receive.
  Imagine two people, each earning $85,000 annually in their respective 
primary jobs. One worked in the private sector and paid into Social 
Security, but the other person worked in the public sector, 
contributing to a State pension fund instead of Social Security. Both 
earned an additional $10,000 a year from the side job that did pay into 
Social Security. Without WEP, the public sector workers would receive 
Social Security benefits as though they were a low-income earner, based 
solely on their $10,000 in side income. This miscalculation would grant 
them overly generous Social Security benefits on top of their public 
pension and act contrary to and against the interests of other Social 
Security beneficiaries.
  The GPO addresses a similar issue with spousal benefits. It ensures 
that spousal benefits are adjusted to reflect income from public 
pensions, preventing unfair overpayments under Social Security.
  The WEP and the GPO are far from perfect. They are very imperfect. 
They were enacted at a time when Congress lacked access to the full 
data needed to make precise adjustments, but they were designed to fix 
real problems, and they do exactly that. If Congress repeals these 
provisions without replacing them with a better system, we will revert 
to a broken model that unfairly rewards some at the expense of others--
and that is not ideal.
  But let's talk about what this bill would mean for the solvency of 
Social Security.
  Social Security is already on a dangerously unsustainable path. The 
trust fund, which has been raided time and time again by Congress, is 
projected to run out of money in the next decade, which would lead to 
across-the-board benefit cuts. This bill would not fix that. In fact, 
this bill would accelerate that crisis.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing the GPO and 
WEP would cost $196 billion over the next 10 years. It would push 
Social Security's insolvency up by 6 to 8 months, making an already 
dire situation worse. Congress must focus on solutions that strengthen 
Social Security's financial health, not hasten its collapse.
  Look, there is just no reason--certainly no legitimate reason--to 
force a vote on this issue right now before we have an administration 
that will prioritize meaningful, fiscally responsible reform. 
Republicans should focus on advancing solutions that align with our 
principles. We have an incoming Republican Senate majority and an 
incoming Republican President. We should stick to the principles that 
have gotten us elected and reelected.
  This bill is fundamentally unfair. It is unfair to the vast majority 
of Americans who have paid into Social Security their entire working 
lives. About 96 percent of the workforce contributes to Social 
Security. They rely on it as an important part of their retirement 
security. This bill would force those workers--96 percent of them in 
America--to subsidize overly generous benefits for the 4 percent of the 
workforce--those who do not participate in Social Security--and, 
instead, contribute to noncovered pensions. Most State employees 
already pay into Social Security and would be harmed, not helped, by 
this legislation. The Social Security Fairness Act would reward a small 
minority at the expense of the vast majority of American taxpayers. 
That is not fair.
  When we look at the overwhelming majority--96 percent--those who 
would be harmed by this--it is not fair to take something away from 
them to move up by 6 to 8 months the insolvency of the Social Security 
trust fund just to address the other 4 percent. Now, that is not to say 
that those 4 percent don't need to be addressed in some way, but the 
way that this bill does it isn't fair, and it is unsafe.
  Look, the challenges of Social Security require solutions that 
prevent further mismanagement. The Social Security Fairness Act--a 
somewhat Orwellian name as I think about it--would take us back to a 
broken system, push the trust fund even closer to insolvency than it is 
already, and unfairly shift costs onto hard-working Americans.
  I have been in this Chamber before when this body has voted to raid 
the Social Security trust fund. I have raised the alarm, and it has 
happened anyway. It is unpleasant; it is not an experience I care to 
revisit. But never have I seen us raid that fund to this degree--to the 
tune of almost $200 billion. This is reckless, but it is worse than 
that; it is cruel.
  We need real solutions that address the root causes of these 
challenges. Repealing the GPO and the WEP without fixing the underlying 
issues would be a step backward--a huge, painful step backward--and 
profoundly unfair. Congress has a responsibility to address Social 
Security's flaws with clarity and with courage. I urge my colleagues to 
reject this flawed legislation and commit to reforms that serve all 
Americans, not just a select few.
  To reiterate, there is no reason why we have to rush this. This 
particular problem was many decades in the making. We can fix it. We 
can fix it responsibly. We don't have to rush it.
  I implore my colleagues: You don't have to do this. We can fix this 
next year and fix it the right way. I ask my colleagues to oppose the 
motion to proceed.


                       Vote on Motion to Proceed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Manchin) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), 
and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).
  The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 328 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Ricketts
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--23

     Barrasso
     Britt
     Budd
     Carper
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Grassley
     Johnson
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Paul
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Capito
     Manchin
     Rubio
     Vance
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). On this vote, the yeas are 73, 
the nays are 23, and the motion is agreed to.
  The motion was agreed to.

[[Page S7218]]

  

                          ____________________