-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. What a treat it is to be on the floor of the Senate with a colleague from the Republican side of the aisle working together-- together--to try to solve the problem. It doesn't happen much around here. You see these empty desks? They are empty almost all the days, week in, week out, month in, month out.

We do important things like nominations. There is nothing that is trivial about that. But we don't tackle the issues that really affect people at home with their families.

Here is one: Social Security. Mr. President, 75 million Americans rely on it. Half of them, it is 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--6 years--Social Security will be unable to make full promised payments. It will be cut by 22 percent in terms of benefits.

Let's take an example. The average Social Security check now is around $2,400 a month. If you reduce that by 22 percent, it means that people receiving Social Security will receive about $450 to $500 less a month.

If this is your only source of income, imagine for a moment that $2,400--just lopped off $400, $500 from your monthly payment. How does it affect you? Paying your rent; paying your mortgage; paying your utility bills; paying what it might take at the grocery store to get by. It is going to be a real hardship.

As Senator Cassidy said, for the senior citizens of America, it means that those under the poverty level will increase by 50 percent. We can't let that happen. We have to do something about it.

And the bill that I have 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 have given more than half of my life to Congress: 14 years in the House, 30 years in the Senate. I know what you are saying: It sounds like a career politician. Well, maybe I am--and proud of it and particularly proud of serving in this Chamber.

I have 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 have got to do something that is risky and controversial but important.

This is not the first time I have faced Social Security. When I was a Member of the House elected in 1982, came to serve in 1983, I was told that in a matter of months Social Security would run out of money.

Imagine that. You are a brandnew Member of Congress scared to death you won't be reelected, and they tell you, you have got to make a big change in the biggest social program in America. It 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 is not too much to ask this Congress to fix Social Security and keep it solvent for 50 years. We can do it. And 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 1984 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. We bought 50 years of solvency--that is 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 old 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 has 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 from a measure on the floor to an actual vote. The Senate rules are not kindly. They are tough.

So the bill that I introduced basically cuts through some of this redtape and delay and says we will move after several weeks to consider alternatives to 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. We still need 60 votes to ultimately pass any change to 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 have been a little disappointed, but not surprised, that some of my colleagues that I have talked to about this said they thought it was a good idea, but on reflection they have decided it is too risky, that we are moving things too fast.

The Senate has never been accused successfully of moving too fast on almost anything. We take our time. That is why we are here. The Senate is different than the House, and I served in both and respect both.

So to my colleagues who oppose this approach and 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 bet you the folks who gathered here today have many relatives of their own who count on Social Security--either because they are 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 has been a real pleasure for me, I would say to Senator Cassidy, to be part of the Cassidy-Durbin team.

We are both ending our Senate careers on January 3 of next year. We hoped that this would be one of the things we could achieve before we left. I am 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 into 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.

I yield back to Senator Cassidy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source