“Social Security will soon run out of money. If we do nothing, benefits will be cut by over 20 percent. I want the Senate to pass my resolution today. It creates a bipartisan group of lawmakers to work together and propose ways to save the program.”

“Mr. President, I have been told that I am a lousy politician but a good Senator. I consider that a compliment. What would happen if everyone in the Senate stopped being a good politician for a moment and strove to be a good Senator when it comes to addressing the issue associated with Social Security? Over 70 million Americans depend upon Social Security, and ultimately, all Americans will when they reach the age of retirement. Everyone in the Senate and most of the people in the country know that the Social Security System is going insolvent. When that occurs, by law, there will be a cut, if we wait for 6 years, of 22 to 28 percent-- a 22- to 28-percent cut in benefits for everyone on Social Security and everyone who will be. Members of Congress say they care about Social Security. They say they care about the seniors, they care about preserving promised benefits for current retirees and future generations. We have had a bill before us called the PROMISE Act by Senator Dick Durbin, my Democratic Senator colleague from Illinois. That would have been a bill that would have set up a Commission, if you will, of the Social Security Advisory Board to put forward a proposal. But the House is out of session. That could not pass. So now I put up a Senate resolution. And we take out the involvement of the Social Security actuaries, and we ask that a group of Senators and Representatives, Republicans and Democrats, come together over the next 2 months in a process to produce a potential idea. This, what I am about to propose, is not about a particular solution. This, what I am about to propose, is about a process by which a solution can be considered, given to the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means for regular-order consideration, and then with a time agreement so that there will be, after that consideration by the Senate Finance Committee in which any member can replace the bill that is brought to them with an amendment in the nature of a substitute-- that ``any member’’ could be Bernie Moreno; it could be Elizabeth Warren; it could be Ron Wyden; it could be Bernie Sanders; it could be Bill Cassidy--putting up their own proposal if they don’t like what this bipartisan, bicameral group of elected officials comes up with. Now, this is merely a process. It does not attempt to point in any direction toward a solution. All it asks is that we be good Senators-- putting politics aside and recognizing that if we don’t do something sooner than later to fix the problem with Social Security, future Social Security beneficiaries can get as much as a 28.5-percent cut in benefits under current law. So I am putting it to a test. Will the Senate take up the challenge? Will we put politics aside and step forward on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to actually work for the American people in a way which can ensure that Social Security exists? So I ask unanimous consent on a path forward that all colleagues should be able to support. It merely, once more, creates a process to do what the American people sent us here to do: Debate solutions, consider proposals, and vote. It does not predetermine the outcome. It just says that Congress must consider a solution--anyone’s solution, Democrat or Republican, left and right. It just asks us to do our job to consider the solution and to then go through regular order on the Senate Finance Committee, to be considered by all. So will we be good Senators, or will we be good politicians? Will we deny progress for the sake of political success? Let’s find out. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent to set up a process--only a process--for Congress to consider solutions. So my script is: As if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 832, which is at the desk. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“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.”

“I want the Senate to pass this resolution. It creates a way for us and the House to work together on fixing Social Security. It does not force any specific plan, and members can include whatever ideas they want, like taxing billionaires. Social Security is running out of money, and waiting will only lead to bigger benefit cuts.”

“Mr. President, one more time. The resolution invites the House to participate. The resolution says: Please Speaker, please, minority leader, appoint people to participate. We recognize that Ways and Means have to originate this bill. I wish we could have passed the PROMISE Act, but there were objections to passing the PROMISE Act which would have had to have been passed by the House as well. So in this, working as well as we can, knowing that Social Security is getting worse and worse by the day, we invite them to participate with the understanding that they could put in whatever they want. The argument of my colleague from Oregon is that we somehow have a solution baked in. That is not true. This is only a process bill. And if the House wants to advance a bill which taxes billionaires, by golly, they can do it. They can do it under this bill. Right now, they can’t, because there is no mechanism for that bill to advance. We are creating a mechanism by which it can advance. And so, if you want to tax the billionaires, we create the opportunity. If you want to do nothing, you vote against this bill. I have got limited time left, and I don’t feel like sitting back and being a good politician when I should be a good Senator, working to fix Social Security because every day it gets worse and every day the law- required cut-in benefits to beneficiaries increases. It doesn’t get better by waiting 2 years; it gets worse. And opposing this resolution is like basically turning a blind eye to that deterioration. I yield the floor.”