[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.