Discussion · Senate
Bill Cassidy Republican
“I want the Senate to approve this plan to work on Social Security. A Democrat and I wrote it together. It does not cut benefits or force any specific fix. It just sets up a schedule for lawmakers to talk with the public and then write a bill through the normal process.”
“Mr. President, it grieves my soul that once again politics and political rhetoric trumps that which we need to do for the country. Let me address the nature of the objection. Actually, this is a Senate resolution, but it invites the House to participate; and the Constitution requires that anything raising taxes originates in Ways and Means in the House. And so, therefore, they would have to participate. That is the protection of our Constitution. It is a bipartisan--by the way, this is a bipartisan proposal to set up this process. There is nothing partisan about it. Dick Durbin set up the PROMISE Act. The House, unfortunately, left July 23 so we could not pass it. This is the best we could do with the House out of session in a bipartisan- initiated process. Dick Durbin who is a senior Member of the Democratic caucus is the one who is my collaborator. There is nothing in here to cut benefits. That is absurd. It sets up a process by which a solution can be considered. It does not dictate an outcome. And to suggest that what this does today is dictate an outcome is not telling the truth to the American people. There is no fast track here. There is 2 months of open dialogue with the American people, and then it goes to the Senate Finance Committee and to Ways and Means for it to then be considered in regular order. This is basically a time agreement, and time agreements are what we do all the time around here. I agree with updating Social Security, but we are not going to get there if we say every time one side offers it: Oh, we can’t do it because the other side is angling for advantage. Let’s be good Senators, not be good politicians.”
Mr. President, it grieves my soul that once again politics and political rhetoric trumps that which we need to do for the country. Let me address the nature of the objection. Actually, this is a Senate resolution, but it invites the House to participate; and the Constitution requires that anything raising taxes originates in Ways and Means in the House. And so, therefore, they would have to participate. That is the protection of our Constitution. It is a bipartisan--by the way, this is a bipartisan proposal to set up this process. There is nothing partisan about it. Dick Durbin set up the PROMISE Act. The House, unfortunately, left July 23 so we could not pass it. This is the best we could do with the House out of session in a bipartisan- initiated process. Dick Durbin who is a senior Member of the Democratic caucus is the one who is my collaborator. There is nothing in here to cut benefits. That is absurd. It sets up a process by which a solution can be considered. It does not dictate an outcome. And to suggest that what this does today is dictate an outcome is not telling the truth to the American people. There is no fast track here. There is 2 months of open dialogue with the American people, and then it goes to the Senate Finance Committee and to Ways and Means for it to then be considered in regular order. This is basically a time agreement, and time agreements are what we do all the time around here. I agree with updating Social Security, but we are not going to get there if we say every time one side offers it: Oh, we can’t do it because the other side is angling for advantage. Let’s be good Senators, not be good politicians.