Cassidy, Durbin Deliver Joint Speech Urging Senate to TAKE Action Before Social Security Becomes Insolvent

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) delivered a joint speech on the U.S. Senate floor emphasizing the dire need for congressional action to address Social Security’s looming insolvency. The Social Security trust fund is expected to become insolvent in 2032, resulting in an automatic reduction in benefits for millions of Americans. The Senators have introduced the bipartisan Protecting Retirement Opportunities and Maintaining Income Security for Everyone (PROMISE) Act, legislation that would establish a bipartisan process to address Social Security’s looming insolvency. The legislation merely sets up a process for Congress to consider debating proposals. “Mr. President, people won’t even set up a process! We’re not talking about a solution. We’re talking about a process that would come to a solution!…It is important for our country that Congress tackle this issue. And when I say our country, I mean the people who live here, whether they are older or whether they are younger; they’re relying upon Congress to step up to its responsibility,” said Dr. Cassidy. “So, to my colleagues who oppose this approach, who say we need more time to do it, I want to back up Senator Cassidy. It costs money over time. It costs benefits over time. The solution becomes more expensive over time. The longer you wait, the more expensive it becomes to save Social Security. And we absolutely, positively have to save it,” said Senator Durbin. Remarks as delivered below: CASSIDY: Mr. President, We have been trying to set up a process, a process whereby Congress would consider a solution. Not prescribe a solution, consider a solution for Social Security. A process that would have members of the House and members of the Senate come together fully open for input from stakeholders, from citizens, to have something to present. Among all the proposals that are out there, two proposals, three proposals, and whatever we put up would not be the final solution, necessarily. It could be replaced by any other member of the Senate with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. And, Mr. President, people won’t even set up a process! We’re not talking about a solution. We’re talking about a process that would come to a solution, maybe, that still has to get 60 votes in the United States Senate. Folks say, “We need more time.” Dick Durbin just chuckled. He goes, “They’ve had 44 years. They’ve had 44 years, how much more time do they need?” I’ve got a couple cartoons just to make the case. I think that if we don’t set up this process, Congress will be kicking granny off the cliff. That was made famous long ago. There it is. She earned it. She deserves it. She counts on it. And Congress will not set up a process by which to address the issue. 75 million retirees, widows, widowers, others rely on Social. In 6 years, the program, the trust fund goes insolvent. And when that happens, according to the actuaries, there will be either an almost 29% benefit reduction or a 40% increase in payroll taxes on working Americans. If that trust fund goes insolvent, and that benefit is cut 28.5% as the actuaries say it will, the rate of poverty among Americans over age 65 will increase by 50%. By 50%. So here’s another cartoon. Congress made a promise, and some people want to ignore it. She paid in, she earned it, she relies on it. But…if you ask, “Should we do something about Social?” Apparently, for some people, the time to do something on Social is never. Don’t disturb Congress. They don’t want to take a tough vote, even if that vote only sets up a process. Doesn’t even propose a solution. A process whereby Congress is required to fix the issue. By the way, Social has always been important. It’s even more important now that Americans are living longer. And every year we delay to fixing it, fixing Social, the amount of cuts required to balance it increase. The amount of taxes required to fix it increase. The amount of money we have to borrow to fix it increases. There is no good thing about waiting, except that it allows Congress to dodge its responsibility. I want to compliment my colleague from Illinois. He came up to me and goes, “Bill, I’m leaving the Senate. We need to make a run.” But, by the way, we have a solution, but we’re not saying it has to be our solution. All we’re trying to do is set up a process by which solutions can be considered. And running out the clock, it may be politically convenient, but it is the wrong thing to do. Congress’s obligation to the American people, to the people that rely upon Social Security, is to act and is to act now. I have another cartoon here just to make the point. It’s not just older people affected; it is younger people. Sorry, young folks, you’re getting left behind. Because some say it’s not our problem. The Social Security system is going insolvent, and these folks can pay into it, they’ll never receive a benefit. These young Pages here, they don’t recognize it yet, but they’re contributing every month on the wages they’re getting to a system that will not be there for them unless we do something now. So, before I defer to my colleague, I’ll say once more: all we’re doing is setting up a process to propose solutions that may or may not pass, that any Senator can bring their own bill and have it as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. And it’s up to Congress to find a solution. Now, history will decide whether Congress took up the responsibility of addressing the issue or whether because it was politically advantageous, politically expedient, to kick the can down the road once more, even though the road’s about to end in a dead end. Or, in the case of one of our cartoons, with the cliff here, they built a bridge and decided not to finish it. Here, the folks who need to get across the bridge of Social Security will get to it someday. We’ve got to get to it now. That’s the point, Mr. President. Let’s set up a process to be considered. We’re talking about the PROMISE Act, which is a Dick Durbin, lead author, Bill Cassidy bill. Now, there may be another way, but let’s set up the process. With that, I defer to my colleague. DURBIN: Mr. President, What a treat it is to be on the floor of the Senate with a colleague on the Republican side of the aisle, working together, to try to solve a problem. It doesn’t happen much around here. You see these empty desks? They’re empty almost all the days, week in, week out, month in, month out. We do important things like nominations. There’s nothing that’s trivial about that. But we don’t tackle the issues that really affect the people at home with their families. Here’s one: Social Security. 75 million Americans rely on it. Half of them, it’s their only source of income. So, a Social Security check means a lot. So, the experts on Social Security tell Dr. Cassidy and myself that just in a few years, six years, Social Security will be unable to make full promise payments. It’ll be cut by 22% in terms of benefits. Let’s take one example. The average Social Security check now is around $2,400 a month. If you reduce that by 22%, it means that people receiving Social Security will receive about $450 to $500 less a month. If that is your only source of income, imagine for a moment that $2,400 just lopped off from the monthly payment. How does if affect you? Paying your rent, paying your mortgage, paying your utility bills, paying what it might take at a grocery store to get by. It’s going to be a real hardship, as Senator Cassidy said. For the citizens of America, it means that those under the poverty level will increase by 50%. We can’t let that happen. We have to do something about it. And the bill that I’ve introduced with Senator Cassidy basically doesn’t pick a solution, although we can come up with a couple. It doesn’t pick a solution. It just says, don’t waste any time. Start talking about it. Start debating it. Let the American people engage in this conversation with you and vote on some alternatives. Now, vote is a word that used to be part of being a senator. Not so much anymore. Except when it comes to nominations, there aren’t a lot of votes on substantive issues around this chamber. I know a little bit about this. I’ve given more than half of my life to Congress. 14 years in the House, 30 years in the Senate. I know what you’re saying. Sounds like a career politician. Well, maybe I am. And proud of it. And particularly proud of serving in this chamber. I’ve seen some glorious things happen in this chamber on a bipartisan basis. But it takes a couple senators, maybe more, to stand up and say, “We’ve got to do something that’s risky and controversial, but important.” This is not the first time I faced Social Security. When I was a member of the House, elected in ’82, came to serve in ’83, I was told that in a matter of months, Social Security would run out of money. Imagine that. You’re a brand-new member of Congress, scared to death you won’t be reelected, and they tell you you’ve got to make a big change in the biggest social program in America. Scares you to death. But you know what? We did it. Our goal was simple. 50 years of solvency in Social Security. Can we change Social Security and guarantee 50 years of solvency? We made a lot of changes. And you know what we got for it? 2032. 1983 to 2032, we kept our word. 50 years. It’s not too much to ask this Congress to fix Social Security and keep it solvent for 50 years. We can do it. The longer we wait to do it, the more difficult it becomes. I look back on voting for that, and I thought it was the end of my political career, which was only a few months old. But it turned out no member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, in 1983 and ’84 lost an election because they voted for Social Security changes. The American people expect us to make the best choices we can. And they accepted what we did, and we bout 50 years of solvency. That’s an amazing thing when you consider how important this program is. And so, what Senator Cassidy and I have suggested is a process which basically says we won’t go by the Senate rules. I might add, I was going to show it, but I think it violates the Senate rules. The Senate is a chamber of tradition. Down here, a few of you can see it, is a brass spittoon. A brass spittoon. It’s been held onto as part of the tradition of the Senate. Well, we have traditions in the rules that make things almost impossible to pass except after a long period of time. Weeks go by sometimes. Days certainly go by. Trying to get a measure on the floor to an actual vote. The Senate rules are not kindly. They’re tough. So, the bill that I introduced basically cuts through some of this red tape of delay and says we’ll move after several weeks to consider alternative Social Security. The bottom line is it isn’t enough to get a majority in the Senate under the current rules, and it isn’t changed at all under our proposal. You still need 60 votes to ultimately pass any change in Social Security. Well, Democrats don’t have 60 votes. Republicans don’t have 60 votes, but together we think we can reach that goal. Now, I’ve been a little disappointed but not surprised that some of my colleagues that I’ve talked to about this said they thought it was a good idea, but on reflection they’ve decided it’s too risky, that we’re moving things too fast. The Senate’s never been accused successfully of moving too fast on almost anything. We take our time. That’s why we’re here. The Senate is different than the House, and I served in both and respect both. So, to my colleagues who oppose this approach, who say we need more time to do it, I want to back up Senator Cassidy. It costs money over time. It costs benefits over time. The solution becomes more expensive over time. The longer you wait, the more expensive it becomes to save Social Security. And we absolutely, positively have to save it. Too many people are counting on it. I’ll bet you the folks who gather here today have many relatives of their own who count on Social Security, either because they’re disabled or elderly. I understand that in my own family. I think everybody does. So, it is a great day in the Senate when a Democrat and a Republican stand on the floor and don’t criticize one another, but actually talk about working together. It’s been a real pleasure for me, I’d say to Senator Cassidy, to be part of the Cassidy–Durbin Team. We’re both ending our Senate careers on January 3 rd of next year. We hoped that this would be one of the things we could achieve before we left. I’m still not giving up completely. Miracles do occur. But I had to step up and make a proposal with Senator Cassidy to get my colleagues in conversation. The conversation about Social Security has increased dramatically since we started this effort. And I think it should. The sooner, the better. The more expensive it becomes the longer we wait. And I yield back to Senator Cassidy. CASSIDY: Thank you, Senator Durbin. And Senator Durbin is referring to what is called the PROMISE Act. Again, it is a bill which sets up a process to come to a solution. It doesn’t dictate what the solution is. We have colleagues who are objecting to coming up with a process. And so, it is important for our country that Congress tackle this issue. And when I say our country, I mean the people who live here, whether they are older or whether they are younger, they’re relying upon Congress to step up to its responsibility. Thank you, Senator Durbin. We’ll continue to push on this. It is important for our Congress, important for our country, important for our people. With that, I yield. ###