AARP to Congress: ‘We strongly object to fast-tracking Social Security changes’

Earlier this month, a bipartisan group of senators put forward a proposal that outlines a process to make a Social Security overhaul happen faster.

Now, AARP, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that advocates on senior issues, said it opposes the senators’ bill, called the Protecting Retirement Opportunities and Maintaining Income Security for Everyone, or PROMISE, Act.

“We strongly object to fast-tracking Social Security changes through Congress, as your bill would do,” AARP Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer Nancy LeaMond wrote in a July 21 letter addressed to Sens. Dick Durbin, the Democratic Whip from Illinois; and Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana. Durbin and Cassidy are among the lawmakers who introduced the PROMISE Act proposal.

AARP would prefer changes to happen through regular order, according to LeaMond’s letter, a process in Congress that includes committee oversight and open debate.

“If regular order is the gold standard for routine legislative matters, it certainly should be the standard for something as important as Social Security,” LeaMond wrote.

Social Security’s annual trustees report, released in June, projects that the program’s trust fund dedicated to paying benefits for retirees, their spouses and children, and survivors of deceased workers may run out in the fourth quarter of 2032 — three months earlier than previously projected. At that time, 78% of benefits would be payable.

If the retirement trust fund — known as Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, or OASI — is combined with the disability trust fund, that depletion date may move to the third quarter of 2034, according to the trustees report. At that time, 83% of scheduled benefits would be payable.

The PROMISE Act would create a “procedure to initiate Congressional action on Social Security,” according to the senators’ July 14 announcement of the plan.

It would task the Social Security Advisory Board, an independent, bipartisan advisory committee, with sending a base bill to Congress that would ensure the Social Security trust funds are funded for at least 50 years.

The bill also outlines the process through which lawmakers would pass the base bill through Congress:

• That would start with introduction of the bill by majority leaders of the Senate and the House, or any member of Congress if they do not do so;

• It would then be referred to the Senate finance committee and the House ways and means committee, which would hold hearings and possibly amend the proposal;

• The committees would report the base bill, or if they don’t, it would be automatically discharged and placed on Senate and House calendars;

• Senate and House majority leaders would move to proceed with the base bill, or other congressional members could do so if they do not;

• Members of Congress could propose substitute amendments;

• The Senate and House may vote on the base bill after 100 hours of consideration.

To pass, the base bill would need a three-fifths vote in the Senate and a majority vote in the House.

The AARP letter said the fast-track process could sacrifice openness, deliberation and accountability.

“Your legislation would require an unelected, four-member Advisory Board to put together a 50-year solvency plan in just over a month, with little time for deliberation and limited public input,” LeaMond wrote in her letter. “If they are unsuccessful, any two members of Congress could force votes on their plans in just a few weeks.”

“Members would not be able to amend other Members’ plans once they are filed,” LeaMond said of the lawmakers’ proposed process. “The bill would then set up fast-tracked floor debates in the lame-duck session of Congress, just after the November elections, when departing Members are completely unaccountable to voters.”

The PROMISE Act does not fast-track or short-circuit the normal legislative process to change Social Security, a spokesperson for Durbin said via email.

“In fact, it would ensure that the future of Social Security receives far more scrutiny, debate, and discussion than the vast majority of measures considered in Congress,” the Durbin spokesperson said.

The Fiscal Commission Act, proposed by Sens. John Curtis, R-Utah, and Angus King, I-Maine, and Reps. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., and Scott Peters, D-Calif., would create a bipartisan, bicameral fiscal commission tasked with stabilizing and decreasing the national debt, while addressing shortfalls for Social Security and Medicare.

The Bipartisan Social Security Commission Act, put forward by Reps. Tom Cole, R-Okla., and Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., would create a bipartisan, independent commission to address Social Security’s solvency.

The AARP also submitted letters on July 21 notifying leaders of both those proposals that it opposes those efforts for reasons similar to the reasons for its opposition to the PROMISE Act, including the use of special commissions and processes that would bypass regular order.

Ultimately, any Social Security overhaul proposal will need a House majority and a 60-vote Senate majority to be enacted. Consequently, those changes will need both parties’ approval.

“If you look at the agenda of the United States Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives this year, we’re going to do little or nothing,” Durbin said Wednesday during a speech on the Senate floor. “The bottom line is: the longer Congress waits to act on Social Security, the more expensive it will be [and] the more difficult the policy choices will be.”