[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 22, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4206-S4207]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            Social Security

  Mr. President, in 1983, I was elected to the House of 
Representatives. I was a freshman Congressman and as nervous as any 
politician could be. I had defeated a Republican incumbent to come to 
the House, and I was just sure, looking over my shoulder, there was an 
issue, a press release, a vote that was going to do me in in the next 
election. I was as nervous as could be.
  In the midst of that situation, I had a visit from the leaders of the 
U.S. House of Representatives, and they said: Congressman Durbin, there 
is news for you which may decide your fate in the years to come.
  I said: What is it?
  Social Security is about to go broke.
  In 1983, we faced the possibility that we would not be able to make 
the promised Social Security payments to beneficiaries across America.
  I couldn't imagine a tougher challenge. One of the most popular 
programs in America, one out of five Americans on Social Security--and 
in 1983, it faced the situation where they couldn't make their payments 
as promised.
  And so I proposed a Commission to take a look at it--a bipartisan 
Commission--and come up with changes in Social Security in 1983: raise 
the retirement age, raise the amount of money paid by employers and 
employees into Social Security, and tax income from Social Security for 
the first time.
  These changes were not easy. Some were controversial, but we knew we 
had to do it. Our goal was to buy 50 years of solvency for Social 
Security with the changes in 1983. You know, what? It worked.
  It worked to the point where we just had an announcement last week by 
the trustees in bankruptcy that the system will make every payment 
promised until the end of 2032--50 years after the 1983 changes were 
made.
  So the promise was kept, but then the problems arise. After that, the 
Social Security trust fund will not have enough money to pay the 
promised benefits.
  What does that mean? Well, go back to my notation that one out of 
five Americans receive Social Security--either elderly or disabled 
receive Social Security. Out of those, one out of five of the 
recipients of Social Security have no other source of income.
  The average Social Security check in America is about $2,400 a month. 
The announcement, according to the trustees, is each one of those 
recipients will see their monthly paycheck cut between $450 and $500. 
So if $2,400 is the average payment and there is a cut of $400 to $500, 
you can imagine the impact it will have on families. They will be 
making some very difficult decisions because one out of five, as I 
mentioned, Social Security recipients have no other source of income. 
They depend on Social Security.
  What happens when those people lose $450 to $500 a month? They have 
to make hard decisions on prescription drugs; on paying some utility 
bills and not others; on groceries--what they are able to buy, if 
anything. So it boils down to a very terrible situation, a terrible 
challenge.
  So the obvious question from the American people, just those 
receiving Social Security today as well as those that will in the 
future is, What is Congress going to do about it now? In 1983, you 
responded with 50 years of solvency by changing the policy. What is the 
plan in the current situation where we face another dramatic situation 
with Social Security?
  And the answer is, if you look at the agenda of the U.S. Senate and 
the U.S. House of Representatives, this year we are going to do little 
or nothing--little or nothing.
  Why is it important that we move now instead of waiting another year, 
2, 3 years before we do something? It becomes more expensive and more 
difficult the longer you wait to fix Social Security. The sooner you do 
it, the easier it is.
  And it won't be totally easy. There will be some changes people will 
like and some they won't like. But the bottom line is, the longer 
Congress waits to act on Social Security, the more expensive it will 
be, the more difficult the policy choices will be.
  I have reached out to several of my colleagues saying: Can we finally 
agree, as Democrats and Republicans, that the No. 1 social policy of 
the U.S. Government, Social Security, should be a bipartisan issue that 
we address?
  Well, it turns out that four Republicans joined me as well as three 
other Democrats, and we have eight members, Democrats and Republicans, 
who are supporting the bill that I call the PROMISE Act.

[[Page S4207]]

  What is the PROMISE Act? Is it the solution to the problem with 
Social Security? No, but it is a procedure so that we can reach that 
solution.
  Here is what it says: We are going to set up a system where the 
Social Security Advisory Board sends us a proposed change in Social 
Security. That is the starting point--just the starting point--for 
hearings and for a national discussion about where we want Social 
Security to go at the end of 2032.
  That does not presume any solution. There are many Senators who have 
come up with ideas on what to do with Social Security--some surprising. 
A Republican Senator from Ohio joined a Democratic Senator from 
Massachusetts just 2 weeks ago, and they came up with a bipartisan 
proposal to save Social Security beyond 2032. The same thing has been 
offered by the Senator from Vermont and other Senators. They have 
ideas. The junior Senator from Rhode Island has a proposal as well.
  What I am trying to do is not to pick the winners and losers, not to 
choose one plan over others but to create a process on the floor where 
we actually, physically, verbally debate the issue.
  Trust me, Congress is not overworked. The House of Representatives 
taking off this week for 4 or 5 weeks of being back home for the August 
recess is fine. We do it every year. But before they leave, I think 
they should take up some procedure that says we are going to return to 
fix Social Security after the August recess.
  The same thing should be true in the Senate. It is a bipartisan 
Senate in one respect, but the majority is on the Republican side. If 
they believe Social Security is important enough to make it a priority, 
let's put it on the legislative agenda when we return this year. Let's 
give peace of mind to the millions of Americans who currently live with 
Social Security benefits and those that work every week and every month 
paying into Social Security for their own retirement in the future.
  This is not easy, but it is doable. I was part of that process many 
years ago, and I want to be part of it again before I retire at the end 
of this year.
  So we have a bipartisan procedure. It does not assume any changes. It 
basically says we have to reach a point where we pass something that 
gives us another 50 years of solvency for Social Security.
  It is not too much to ask. I have seen it done. I voted for it 50 
years ago, and I am prepared to vote again if we have--not quite 50 
years ago. It was 44 years ago I did it, and I would do it again. It is 
a challenge, which I think we can meet. We have the bipartisan starting 
point: the PROMISE Act.
  I want to see, I hope, a bipartisan vote to set up that procedure 
that we will return to in September or October of this year so that we 
get something done and we give peace of mind to the people who are 
depending on Social Security for their future.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa.