[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 129 (Thursday, August 6, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4485-S4486]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 832

  Mr. CASSIDY. 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.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. 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

[[Page S4486]]

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.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. 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.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just to respond just for a brief minute. 
You can't originate taxes in the Senate. So what that means is this 
proposal gives the billionaires a free ride.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. 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.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.