    [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2025)]
    [Senate]
    [Pages S1419-S1421]
    From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       Unanimous Consent Request--S. 770

      Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I speak with senior citizens all over
    Vermont and, in fact, in many parts of the country. Just last night, we
    held a telephone townhall in Vermont, and in our small State, 34,000
    people were on the line. I think the reason for that is there is a
    great deal of anxiety among people in general and seniors in particular
    regarding the Republican budget proposal that was passed the other day
    in the House. Seniors and Americans all over this country have reason
    to be concerned.
      At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the Republican
    budget would give over $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1 percent--
    that is billionaires and the wealthiest people in our country. In
    Vermont and all over this country, seniors are asking: Well, how are
    they going to pay for that trillion-dollar gift to the 1 percent? The
    answer is not complicated. They have made it clear. Republicans will be
    making massive cuts in healthcare, nutrition assistance, affordable
    housing, and education. These are precisely the programs that working
    families and kids and the elderly and the sick and the poor most depend
    upon. The Republican budget would cut Medicaid by $880 billion. The
    Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that if these cuts
    are implemented, up to 36 million Americans, including millions of
    children, would have their health insurance taken away from them.
      Let's be clear. When we have Republicans in the House passing a
    budget to make massive cuts to Medicaid, we are not just talking about
    throwing millions of kids off of the healthcare they need; we are also
    talking about massive cuts to community health centers, where some 32
    million Americans receive the primary healthcare they need and where
    community health centers receive 43 percent of their funding from
    Medicaid. So a massive cut to Medicaid is a cut to community health
    centers and is a cut to the services that 32 million Americans receive,
    including many, many seniors.
      At a time when we have a major crisis in nursing home availability in
    Vermont and all over this country, let us understand that Medicaid
    provides for two out of every three seniors who live in nursing homes.
    A massive cut to Medicaid is a massive cut to nursing homes and the
    people who utilize those homes. How many seniors would be thrown out of
    nursing homes if the Republicans cut Medicaid by $880 billion? Nobody
    knows, but it would be a disaster for working families and their
    parents. That is for sure.
      But it is not just Medicaid cuts that seniors are worried about.
    Today, nearly 22 percent of people over 65 years of age are trying to
    survive on an income of less than $15,000 a year. That is an
    unbelievable and horrific reality. Imagine anyone in America, in any
    part of this country--let alone a senior citizen--trying to survive on
    $15,000 a year or less. I don't know how anybody can possibly do that,
    especially seniors who have healthcare needs and need prescription
    drugs and who need to heat their homes more than the general public.
    And it is not just seniors trying to get by on $15,000; half of our
    Nation's seniors are trying to get by on less than $30,000 a year.
      The bottom line is that in the richest country in the history of the
    world, you have millions and millions of seniors today--people who
    helped build this country, people who raised us--who are barely getting
    by in the year 2025.
      According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
    Development, the OECD, the United States now has the dubious
    distinction of not only having one of the highest rates of childhood
    poverty in the industrialized

    [[Page S1420]]

    world, we also have one of the highest rates of senior poverty--senior
    poverty--compared to other wealthy nations.
      In America today, according to the latest OECD estimates, 23 percent
    of seniors are living in poverty compared to just 4.1 percent in
    Norway, 6.1 percent in France, 9.5 percent in Ireland, and 14.9 percent
    in the United Kingdom. That is a dubious distinction. That is something
    we should not be proud of. That is a crisis we should be addressing.
      In addition to the poverty that millions of seniors in America are
    experiencing today, about half of older workers--these are people in
    the workforce right now, people between the ages of 55 and 64--have no
    retirement savings at all. You are 60 years old. You have worked your
    entire life. Half of the people in that situation--from 55 to 64--have
    no retirement savings at all.

      As bad as all of that is, many of my Republican colleagues have
    proposed making a bad situation--a tragic situation--even worse by
    cutting Social Security. Some want to cut benefits. Others want to
    raise the retirement age. Then there are some who simply want to
    privatize Social Security and give it over to Wall Street.
      Well, I strongly disagree. At a time when millions of seniors are
    struggling to keep their heads above water, I don't believe that now is
    the time--in fact, never is the time--to cut Social Security benefits.
    Instead of cutting Social Security and giving tax breaks to
    billionaires, Congress must expand Social Security so that every senior
    in America can retire with the dignity and the respect that he or she
    deserves. Further and importantly to the younger generation, we must
    also make Social Security solvent for generations to come.
      So that is the goal. The goal is to say to seniors all over this
    country, in the richest country on Earth: We are going to address the
    fact that many of you can't quite figure out how to buy the food you
    need, heat your homes, get the prescription drugs you need. You are
    struggling. You helped build this country. You are our parents and our
    grandparents. We stand with you.
      That is why I have introduced legislation today with 10 of my
    colleagues--Senators Warren, Merkley, Welch, Padilla, Smith, Van
    Hollen, Markey, Booker, Gillibrand, and Whitehouse--to accomplish both
    of those goals. This legislation would make Social Security solvent for
    the next 75 years. It would lift millions of seniors out of poverty,
    and it would expand benefits for seniors and people with disabilities
    by $2,400 a year.
      Now, I know that in the world here in Washington where the government
    is now run by billionaires, $2,400 doesn't seem like a whole lot of
    money, but if you are trying to get by on $15,000 a year and can't
    afford to heat your house and can't afford to buy a prescription drug
    that you need, $2,400 is something that will help.
      How do we do this? What does this legislation do? Well, at a time of
    massive income and wealth inequality, when billionaires pay an
    effective tax rate lower than the average worker, this legislation
    demands that the wealthiest people in America, the billionaires and
    others, start paying their fair share of taxes.
      Today, absurdly and unfairly, a billionaire pays the same amount of
    money into Social Security as someone who makes $176,000 a year. A
    billionaire pays the same amount into Social Security as somebody who
    makes $176,000 a year. That is because there is a cap on the Social
    Security payroll tax.
      What does that mean? It means, if you make up to $176,000 a year, you
    pay 6.2 percent of your income in Social Security taxes, but if you
    make 10 times more--$1.7 million a year--you pay just 0.62 percent of
    your income in Social Security taxes. If you make $1 billion a year,
    you pay nothing more into the Social Security fund than someone making
    $176,000.
      Now, that may make sense to somebody--probably to the billionaire
    class--but it does not make sense to me. This legislation applies the
    Social Security payroll tax to all income--including capital gains and
    dividends--for those who make over $250,000 a year. Under this bill, 91
    percent of households in our country would not see their taxes go up by
    one single penny--not one penny for the bottom 91 percent.
      Not only is this legislation good public policy, it also happens to
    be precisely what the American people want. According to a Data for
    Progress poll, 81 percent of the American people, including 79 percent
    of Independents and 75 percent of Republicans, support expanding Social
    Security benefits. So in passing this legislation, it is not only good
    policy, it is precisely what Democrats, Republicans, and Independents
    want.
      Therefore, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that
    the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 770, which was
    introduced earlier today; that the bill be considered read three times
    and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and
    laid upon the table.
      The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
      The Senator from Idaho.
      Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I rise today
    to discuss Senator Sanders' request for unanimous consent for the
    Senate to pass his Social Security Expansion Act. Before I do so, I
    want to respond to a couple of points that were made.
      The accusation was once again made that Republicans are trying to cut
    taxes for billionaires. The reality is, Republicans are trying to stop
    a tax increase on all Americans. The TCJA, or 2017 tax bill, is going
    to expire at the end of this year, and if it is not stopped from
    expiring, every American will get a tax increase, and those in the
    lower income categories and middle-income categories will share $2.6
    trillion of that tax increase. That is what the tax fight is about.
      Then, continuing what I call the politics of fear in the face of the
    reforms that we are bringing, the attack was, well, we are going to cut
    Medicaid, we are going to stop financing for community health centers,
    and we are going to do all of these terrible things. I have not seen
    such a bill in this Congress, in the House or the Senate. We are
    debating how to get rid of fraud, waste, and abuse. We are not looking
    at how to cut benefits in Medicaid. I believe that is very clear. Today
    was the first time on the floor that I heard we were looking at
    community health centers. I wasn't aware of that either.
      The bottom line here is we are trying to pay attention to our $37
    trillion national debt by weeding out waste, fraud, and abuse. We will
    have disagreements about how to do that, but it is definitely not going
    to be all the things that are being brought up, that have been accused
    in order to stir people up and scare them and tell them that we should
    not pay attention to our national debt.
      With regard to Social Security, we can all agree on the importance of
    Social Security, which provides monthly benefits to millions of
    seniors, individuals with disabilities, and their families.
      I also agree with my colleagues on the other side that Congress must
    act to preserve and strengthen Social Security to ensure that it is
    there for current beneficiaries and future beneficiaries.
      According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, if no
    action is taken, the combined Social Security trust funds will be
    exhausted within the next 10 years, meaning the program will not be
    able to pay the full amount of benefits currently promised.
      However, I disagree with my colleagues' approach here today, and they
    have disagreed with our approaches. We have competing ideas about how
    we should address this issue.
      Addressing Social Security's solvency will require thoughtful
    discussion about a variety of policy options that culminates in a
    bipartisan solution, not a cramdown of a different solution that we
    haven't even had the opportunity to have a discussion in the Finance
    Committee about.
      Instead, my Democrat colleagues are pursuing a live UC of a bill that
    has not received consideration before the full committee and has never
    had a Republican cosponsor in the House or the Senate.
      This bill would also raise taxes on certain workers making less than
    $400,000--something my Democratic colleagues have previously promised
    not to do.
      For these reasons, I object.
      The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.

    [[Page S1421]]

      The Senator from Michigan.