Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 832 (Executive Session)

Senator Cassidy asked the Senate to pass his resolution (S. Res. 832) by unanimous consent. He said Social Security is running out of money and faces automatic benefit cuts of over 20 percent if nothing is done, and that the resolution would set up a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including House participation, to develop and report proposals; he said it would not mandate any specific fix or cuts. Senator Wyden objected, saying the resolution would create a fast track for cutting benefits for retirees and people with disabilities and that its rules would bar raising taxes on the wealthy to fund the program. Cassidy responded that the resolution sets only a schedule for public input and normal legislative action, and that members could include any ideas they wished.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

1 statement

Ron Wyden, OR

Democrat
“I object to this resolution. It creates a fast track to cut Social Security benefits for retirees and people with disabilities. Because of the rules for this plan, it cannot raise taxes on billionaires to help fund the program, so all the cuts would fall on everyday people.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first of all, let me say that, for years now, Bill Cassidy and I have worked together in the Finance Committee on healthcare, trying to find bipartisan common ground. And I just want him to know how much I have appreciated working with him. This is an issue we simply disagree on. And that happens. People have differences of opinion. The Social Security crisis is a freight train barreling toward our Nation. Social Security will be depleted before the end of the next Presidential administration. The resolution on offer now claims to be a quick solution to addressing the crisis. Instead, the resolution creates a fast track for Republicans to carry out a long-sought goal of slashing Social Security benefits for retirees and helping billionaires avoid paying their fair share. Each time Republicans get their hands on Social Security, it seems that cuts get made and life gets worse for seniors. Establishing this commission would be a fast track to cutting benefits. The proposal on offer is a Senate-only process. Under the Constitution, bills raising taxes must originate in the House of Representatives. Because of this constitutional requirement, any Senate-only process, like the Cassidy proposal, could not include a tax increase. This means, under the Cassidy proposal, billionaires could not be required to contribute. We couldn’t increase the payroll tax cap or include any other revenue increase. It would mean that the entire burden of Social Security solvency would fall on the backs of retirees and the disabled through benefit cuts. That is not a fair solution for the vast majority of Americans. Here is the bottom line. Since my days as codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers, I have a long record of working on a bipartisan basis to fix this problem and protect retired people from missing out on their hard-earned benefits. We can do that by updating Social Security to reflect the economy of America today, by ensuring that billionaires pay into Social Security with each paycheck, like teachers, nurses, and firefighters. Supporting a scheme like this--a fast track to rip away Americans’ hard-earned benefits while shutting them out of the debate--is just plain wrong in my judgment. If Republicans had any real interest in wanting to shore up Social Security, they would be putting forth their own ideas and working with Democrats to protect the program rather than to undermine it. Democrats have several concrete proposals to protect and strengthen Americans’ earned benefits without raising the retirement age, cost-of-living haircuts, or means-testing benefits. It all starts by finally requiring billionaires to pay what they owe, just like the rest of us. Billionaire wealth has skyrocketed to over $9 trillion this year while working people struggle to scrape enough money together to pay for rent, gas, and groceries. This proposal, in my view, is effectively a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It does nothing to protect Social Security and, instead, hands Republicans the key to the castle to start their work of ripping away Americans’ hard-earned benefits. For these reasons, I object. I yield the floor.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from issue 129

  1. Senate Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 832 (Executive Session) 4 statements
  2. Senate Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5345 (Executive Session) 3 statements
  3. Senate Unanimous Consent Requests (Executive Session) 5 statements
  4. Senate Deondra Dixon Include Project Act of 2026 5 statements
  5. Senate Recognizing the 1960 University of Missouri Tigers Football Team 8 statements
  6. Senate Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions 6 statements
  7. Senate Resolutions Submitted Today 2 statements