[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 57 (Tuesday, May 6, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2183-H2188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 93) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the Bureau of Labor Statistics alone should make 
any adjustments, if any are needed, to the methodology used to 
determine the Consumer Price Index.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H. Res. 93

       Whereas the Consumer Price Index currently informs our 
     Nation's monetary policy, and determines both the level of 
     taxes paid and the amount of government benefits received by 
     millions of Americans, many of them on fixed incomes;
       Whereas the Consumer Price Index is assumed in these uses 
     to be an accurate and appropriate measurement;
       Whereas the Consumer Price Index is only useful if it is a 
     technical, not a political measurement;
       Whereas it is of the utmost importance to maintain the 
     integrity and objectivity of the determination process and of 
     the reliability of the Federal statistical system;
       Whereas it is the Bureau of Labor Statistics that has the 
     expertise, tools, resources, and experience to maintain this 
     integrity and objectivity; and
       Whereas it is vital to protect our senior citizens and 
     others on fixed incomes that we use the most appropriate and 
     accurate criteria: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That any adjustments to the methodology used to 
     determine the Consumer Price Index should be made by the 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics alone.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Souder] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder].
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 93 which expresses 
the sense of the House that any adjustments to the methodology to be 
used to determine the Consumer Price Index should be made by the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics. This resolution is consistent with the agreement 
for a balanced budget that was recently entered into between 
administration and congressional leaders and reaffirms our commitment 
that the Consumer Price Index should be based on sound and nonpartisan 
deliberation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 93. Mr. Speaker, I 
am pleased that we are considering this resolution to protect the 
integrity of the process for adjusting the CPI, the Consumer Price 
Index. House Resolution 93 clarifies that adjustments of the CPI should 
be made solely by technicians at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and it 
should not be left subject to the whims of politics.
  I want to commend my colleague from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Fox] and the 
gentlewoman from New York, [Mrs. Maloney], the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, [Mr. English], and the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. 
Kennedy] and others for their leadership on this important issue. I 
recognize that there has been extensive debate regarding the 
termination and accuracy of the CPI. However, as this resolution 
plainly acknowledges, the Bureau of Labor Statistics alone has the 
integrity, the objectivity and the experience to make this 
determination.
  Mr. Speaker, the CPI should accurately reflect the rate of inflation 
and should not be manipulated for purposes of balancing the Federal 
budget. CPI adjustment could have a profound effect on the tax burdens 
of the American people. In addition, indexing affects the income of 
over 70 million Americans. Some 43 million Social Security 
beneficiaries, 4 million military and Federal civil service retirees 
and survivors, and 23 million food stamp recipients have their lives 
directly impacted by the CPI and changes thereto. Even the cost of 
lunches for 24 million children who participate in the school lunch 
program is affected.
  So when we look at who is dependent on the accurate assessment of the

[[Page H2184]]

index, then we understand how vitally important it is that we send this 
message that we will not allow seniors and our children to be pawns in 
the budget chess games, now or in the future. This legislation is 
supported by such groups as AARP, the National Council on Senior 
Citizens, the Council on Aging, the National Committee to Preserve 
Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand, as I am sure many of my colleagues will today, 
in full support of House Resolution 93.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], my friend, and the creator of 
this bill, and distinguished battler on behalf of senior citizens and 
somebody who is tireless in his pursuits of defending his constituents 
and those around the country from this potential raid on their dollars.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
congressional leader, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] for 
yielding the time, and to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Fattah] who has been at the forefront of assistance in the area of 
protecting our seniors and making sure we have balanced budgets. I 
appreciate as well the leadership of the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Maloney], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English] in this battle to make sure 
we do in fact preserve during a budget season that the CPI, the cost of 
living index, be one that is accurate, one that is fair, and we have 
relied on for many years the Bureau of Labor Statistics for that 
purpose.
  My colleagues may recall historically that the Senate Finance 
Committee had considered a Boskin report which arbitrarily would have 
reduced by 1.1 percent the CPI. Those figures in our opinion did not 
reflect reality. The fact is, if we were to arbitrarily reduce by that 
percentage, we would see a $320 billion tax increase and we would 
unfairly disadvantage our seniors who, in fact, are looking to a cost 
of living allowance which is based on facts, that would take care of 
their needs and Social Security, the military retirement, and several 
other Federal programs.
  We believe the CPI is one that should not be budget-driven or 
deficit-driven or politically driven. It should be an accurate 
measurement of what the cost of living index is in the United States 
and not be an artificial figure. And so we are very appreciative of the 
congressional bipartisan support we have received to date.
  This is certainly a resolution which has support on both sides of the 
aisle, and as Nobel laureate Milton Friedman has said: I have very 
mixed feelings about introducing any kind of an arbitrary adjustment, 
an arbitrary adjustment to the CPI that would involve an increase in 
taxes.
  Certainly Republicans and Democrats can join hands in protecting our 
seniors and in making sure we do not have tax increases.
  So a yes vote for House Resolution 93 would certainly be a step in 
the right direction.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. McIntyre].
  (Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 93, 
that any adjustment in the Consumer Price Index should be determined 
only by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A reduction to the CPI would 
have a dramatic effect on everyone receiving cost of living 
adjustments, including military retirees and Social Security 
beneficiaries and would be a financial burden on our senior citizens.
  The cost of living for the elderly has increased by a whopping 69.2 
percent over the past 15 years. Increased medical costs have also 
played an important cost factor for older Americans that they face. It 
is absolutely critical that older Americans have a Social Security 
benefit that accurately represents their true cost of living. Any 
adjustment in the CPI has the potential to threaten their very 
livelihood, and therefore it is imperative that such a decision be made 
by those who are eminently qualified to handle it: the Bureau of Labor 
and Statistics.
  I am pleased to support House Resolution 93 as a way to guarantee the 
integrity of the steadfast commitment that we have to our senior 
citizens.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman also from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], my distinguished 
colleague and class member.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
distinguished Member from Indiana for yielding this time to me, and I 
would also like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] for 
authoring this resolution of which I am a cosponsor.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution puts Congress on record ratifying a key 
component of last week's historic budget accord. What we propose to do 
is put Congress on record in favor of leaving the annual cost of living 
adjustments and changes in CPI to the experts, not bringing those 
changes into the political arena. We are putting the House on record as 
opposing politicizing the technical process of measuring inflation, and 
we are opposing injecting arbitrary budget-driven changes into the 
process of calculating the Consumer Price Index.

                              {time}  1445

  This resolution puts Congress on record, maintaining the integrity of 
this key statistical measure. In our view, any change in CPI should be 
done only after extensive study because we recognize the effect of a 
statutory adjustment. As some have proposed in the past, a statutory 
adjustment in the CPI would cut retirees' incomes, raise taxes, but at 
the same time create a huge budget windfall, which would make it so 
much easier for us in this Chamber to avoid making difficult decisions.
  We have to recognize that getting to a balanced budget will be a 
difficult process. It will require tough decisions and real choices. 
There is no easy fix. There is no shortcut. Mr. Chairman, I strongly 
urge the House to join us in supporting this resolution.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, no one is proposing that Congress change 
the methodology of calculating CPI. Everyone agrees that only BLS 
should change the methodology for determining CPI, and anyone who 
suggests that the blue dog budget or any other budget proposal would 
change the methodology for determining CPI is distorting the issue for 
political purposes.
  What the blue dog budget proposes is that BLS be given the resources 
and the authority to make whatever changes necessary to improve the 
accuracy of the CPI, change how CPI is used to index Government 
programs to the cost of living while BLS improves CPI.
  I think it is important to remind all of us today that numerous 
experts, including BLS, have warned Congress about the limitations of 
using CPI to make cost-of-living adjustments. The Consumer Price Index 
was never intended to be used to make cost-of-living adjustments. 
Congress decided to use CPI as an approximation of increases in cost of 
living to index Government programs.
  In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, BLS Commissioner 
Katharine Abraham stated, ``Although I believe that we can make 
important improvements in the CPI, I do not believe it is possible to 
produce a perfect cost-of-living measure.''
  That means that those who use the data we are able to produce should 
recognize the limitations of those data and exercise judgment 
accordingly concerning whether and how the data should be used. 
Adjusting the use of CPI to index Government programs is not a 
political fix or a budgetary gimmick.
  Although there is no consensus on what changes should be made to the 
calculation of the CPI, there is broad agreement that continuing to 
adjust programs based on CPI provides increases greater than the cost 
of living. The blue dog budget proposes that we are adjusting the use 
of CPI or indexation to ensure that the cost-of-living adjustments for 
Government programs are accurate.

[[Page H2185]]

  We cannot justify continuing a mistake that numerous experts have 
told us results in incorrect cost-of-living adjustments. Continuing to 
use CPI to index Government programs to inflation is an unnecessary 
drain on the Federal budget and the Social Security trust fund.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

         Why a Legislated Change in the Use of CPI is Necessary

       Legislation reducing indexation based on CPI as an interim 
     step will allow BLS to make corrections in CPI without facing 
     the political pressure for a quick change in the calculations 
     CPI in order to achieve savings.
       It will take BLS several years to conduct the necessary 
     research and experimentation to address the complex issues 
     that result in the CPI overstating inflation. Congress should 
     not pressure BLS to make changes in the calculation of CPI 
     before the experts are able to do so properly. BLS 
     Commissioner Katharine Abraham underscored this point in 
     testimony before the Senate Budget Committee:
       ``If the BLS staff or other technical experts knew how to 
     produce a true cost of living index on a monthly production 
     schedule, that would be what we produce. . . . However, I 
     believe we would gain little, and possibly do much damage to 
     the credibility of our statistical system, if we were to move 
     hastily to adopt untested techniques for producing offsets to 
     the official CPI.''
       Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan concurred with the 
     assessment of BLS about the difficulty of correcting CPI, 
     stating in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee that 
     ``Even if BLS moves aggressively, some upward bias will 
     almost surely remain in the CPI, at least for the next 
     several years.''
       Simply directing BLS to correct the CPI quickly in order to 
     meet budgetary needs ignores the very real difficulties that 
     experts have identified that BLS must overcome in order to 
     correct the problem. A budget that assumes substantial 
     savings from a technical adjustment to CPI will fall short of 
     achieving balance if BLS is unable to act quickly enough to 
     meet budgetary timetables.
       The federal government cannot afford to add billions to the 
     national debt through higher spending and lost revenues 
     because of the bias in the CPI that has been identified in 
     over a dozen studies.
       The federal government loses billions of dollars every year 
     that government programs are overindexed for inflation. Since 
     the impact of indexation is cumulative over time, even a 
     short delay results in significant lost savings. Delaying the 
     implementation of a CPI adjustment by one year reduces the 
     savings by nearly one third. An adjustment of 0.4% 
     implemented in 1999 would save $15.5 billion less than the 
     same adjustment enacted in 1998.
       Although there is no consensus on what technical changes 
     should be made to the calculation of the CPI, there is broad 
     agreement that continuing to adjust programs based on CPI 
     provides increases greater than the cost of living. Alan 
     Greenspan advised Congress that ``If we cannot find a precise 
     estimate for a certain bias, we should not implicitly choose 
     zero as though that was a more scientifically supportable 
     estimate . . . assuming zero for the remaining bias is the 
     political fix.''
       A legislated change to indexation will compensate for the 
     overstatement in CPI that economists have identified in the 
     CPI that cannot be corrected through technical changes.
       Many economists have warned that BLS may never fully 
     eliminate the bias in the CPI. Some of the problems that 
     cause the bias have no obvious solution. Other sources of 
     bias are the result of ongoing problems resulting from 
     changes in the economy that can never be fully corrected. 
     After examining the ability of BLS to correct CPI, economist 
     at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland concluded that a 
     legislated adjustment is necessary for this reason. ``From a 
     statistical perspective, there is no obvious way to `fix' the 
     CPI. . . . Because the CPI is not likely to be fixed soon, 
     and because it probably contains an upward bias, the most 
     practical course may be merely to adjust the cost-of-living 
     estimate by some amount.''
       Even BLS has suggested that Congress consider adjusting how 
     CPI is used to index government programs. In testimony before 
     the Senate Finance Committee, BLS Commissioner Katherine 
     Abraham state that ``Although I believe that we can make 
     important improvements in the CPI, I do not believe it to be 
     possible to produce a perfect cost-of-living measure. This 
     means that those who use the data we are able to produce 
     should recognize the limitations of those data and exercise 
     judgement accordingly concerning whether and how the data 
     should be used.''

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Saxton], a tax and economic policy leader.
  (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, when I heard first about the Boskin Commission report, I 
said, ``Well, of course, if we are going to use the Consumer Price 
Index, the CPI, for a variety of things, it ought to be accurate. Of 
course, if we are going to use it to adjust entitlement benefits, it 
ought to be accurate. Of course, if we are going to use it to adjust 
from time on an annual basis the amount of taxes Americans pay, it 
ought to be accurate. Of course, if we are going to use CPI in the 
private sector to adjust leases and mortgages and things on a timely 
basis, it ought to be accurate.''
  Actually, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has done a reasonable job 
over the years in changing it from time to time. Every decade or so, 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics looks at the market basket that they 
measure and tries to make adjustments. But it was as far back as 1938, 
when renowned authors started to write that it was a difficult task, at 
best, and an impossible one perhaps to come up with an annual CPI year 
after year after year that was always accurate.
  So, as we began to look at this issue and the issues that it affects, 
like taxes, like Social Security, and like in the private sector 
mortgages and leases, we stepped back and said to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, let us know how you can fix this because it would be a bad 
idea for Congress to make an arbitrary adjustment.
  Let me show what happens in just one example as it relates to Federal 
income taxes. In the IRS Code, there are a number of features, 
including the personal exemption, that is right, the personal 
exemption, which is indexed, the standard deduction, which is indexed, 
and marginal tax brackets, which are also indexed for inflation. They 
go up each year depending on the increase in the cost of living as 
measured by the Consumer Price Index.
  This chart shows the practical effect of an arbitrary 1.1 adjustment, 
as the Boskin Commission reported. In the early years, in 1997, it 
would be a relatively small adjustment, about something in the 
neighborhood of $5 billion in annual income to our Treasury. But as the 
years go by, that compounds because you build CPI on top of a CPI on 
top of a CPI; and, so, we would collect significantly more taxes each 
year until in the year 2008. Just 10 years from the inception, we would 
collect an additional $56.3 billion a year if we followed the 
recommendation of the Boskin Commission.
  So those of us who are here who want to vote for increased taxes, it 
would be a really good idea to vote for a 1.1 reduction in the CPI. I 
know some of my colleagues are tired of me saying this because over the 
last couple of weeks we have had this budget proposal which we have 
been talking about; and, yes, part of it was an adjustment in CPI. So 
anybody who had voted for that, thankfully, has been taken out, anybody 
who had voted for that would have voted for a substantial increase in 
income taxes.
  This chart shows what it means on the individual level, again 
starting with a relatively small increase on an individual basis, but 
by the year 2008, a family with two taxpayers would be paying an extra 
$405 annually in taxes because of the adjustment in the CPI.
  This just gives an idea of how this compounds. So when you say to 
your Social Security beneficiaries back home we ought to have accurate 
numbers in the CPI because when we measure price stability we should be 
accurate, just understand how this compounds over the years, what it 
means in terms of additional taxes that Americans pay, and what it 
means in terms of fewer benefits Social Security beneficiaries will 
receive.
  I again thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] for yielding 
this time, and I commend him and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Fox] and others who have been involved in this effort for bringing this 
resolution to our attention and the floor.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney], who is a sponsor of this legislation.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support the resolution I submit with my Republican colleagues, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox]

[[Page H2186]]

and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English] and my Democratic 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  H.R. 93 expresses the sense of the House that the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics alone should make any adjustments, if any are needed, to the 
methodology used to determine the Consumer Price Index. We argue 
national CPI is only useful if it is a technical, not a political, 
measurement.
  The CPI is used to determine benefits for over 40 million Social 
Security recipients, as well as the benefits of millions of other 
pensioners. It is used to determine the cost-of-living adjustments in 
worker wage agreements, and the IRS uses it to determine deductions and 
tax brackets. That is why there is no room for political posturing with 
the CPI.
  Let us stick with the facts of the matter, and the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics is the agency that is most qualified to determine those 
facts. Policy, not politics, has driven monetary policy; and policy, 
not politics, should drive the CPI statistics.
  When Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan first explained that he 
thought the CPI exaggerates annual inflation, some saw the opportunity 
to cut the deficit without making the tough decisions. But millions 
would stand to lose critical income. This resolution maintains the 
integrity of the process and the independence of an agency which, like 
the Federal Reserve, ought to remain independent. I am asking for your 
support today for this resolution.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, could we have an understanding what time is 
available to each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Snowbarger]. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Strickland].
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to ensure that the 
proper agency, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, maintains its authority 
over adjustments to the Consumer Price Index. I oppose efforts to 
change the CPI by congressional fiat. Such a proposal is nothing more 
than a quick-fix gimmick, an attempt to balance the budget by 
indiscriminately reducing cost of living and retirement benefits and, 
in the process, harming the most vulnerable in our society.
  Some have argued that a lower CPI would only reduce Social Security 
checks by a few dollars. But in my district, a few dollars can often 
mean the difference between being able to pay for food, medicine and 
rent and not being able to pay for these essentials of daily living.
  I believe in a balanced budget and I intend to fight for one, but it 
must be done fairly. Let us not balance the budget with tricks and 
gimmicks on the backs of seniors and children, but let us balance the 
budget by asking everyone to contribute their fair share.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from the great State of Florida [Mr. Wexler].
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution to help make certain 
that America's senior citizens and America's veterans get treated 
fairly as this Congress attempts to balance our budget by the year 
2002.
  The Consumer Price Index should be an economical calculation, not a 
political one. The Consumer Price Index and the cost-of-living raises 
should reflect that supposed basket of goods that each and every 
American will purchase each and every month. When the Department of 
Labor goes into America's drugstores and they look at the kinds of drug 
prescriptions that America's senior citizens have to purchase each 
month that cost $150 and $200 at a clip, they will understand that the 
cost-of-living supposed increases that may overstate inflation in fact 
are needed by America's senior citizens.
  The cost-of-living inflation with respect to home health costs and 
the kinds of long-term health insurance that America's senior citizens 
need require us to make an economic calculation, not a political one, 
that truly reflects the true basket of goods that America's senior 
citizens and veterans are required to purchase each month.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Boswell] to speak on this very important piece 
of legislation.
  (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that we are kind of on the same frequency around 
here, but I am not too sure we understand. Today I voice my opposition 
to this resolution, House Resolution 93. It is merely a directive for 
change. Pressuring changes in the CPI does nothing more than politicize 
the entire CPI calculation in an attempt to avoid the hard choices 
required to balance our Nation's budget. This calculation should not be 
used as a political tool.
  If the CPI needs to be adjusted, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is 
already charged with that responsibility. There is no need to 
politicize this topic. I am committed to balancing the budget but not 
by forcing cutbacks on our seniors and our veterans, nor by placing 
hidden tax hikes on the middle class.

                              {time}  1500

  Our seniors have already been subjected to large cuts in an effort to 
balance the budget and should not be singled out again with this 
politically motivated ploy. Hidden in all of the debate to change the 
CPI is a tax hike for every American.
  The CPI is used to calculate the index for the standard deductions 
for income tax purposes. The end result of a politically motivated 
decrease in the CPI is especially damaging to our seniors and veterans, 
and that is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
misguided attempt to inject politics into the calculation of the CPI.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank 
my good friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] for the efforts that he 
has made to try to make certain that we have a reasonable and accurate 
portrayal of exactly what the CPI is. I want to particularly thank the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] as well as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] for their efforts.
  Every once in a while an issue comes before the House of 
Representatives that unites Democrats and Republicans in our combined 
abhorrence to the patent unfairness that can occur due to the 
politicalization of an issue. That is exactly what has occurred with 
the CPI.
  Make no mistake about it. This CPI issue went to the heart of what 
America stands for, whether or not we are going to go out and balance 
the budget of this country by simply increasing a hidden tax on the 
poor, the senior citizens, the veterans of this country, and the 
working families whose increases in their annual incomes are tied 
directly to the BLS stipulated numerical equation that determined what 
the level of those increases might be.
  I have been a prime supporter of a balanced budget. I believe we 
ought to have a balanced budget. But I believe we ought to have a 
balanced budget by virtue of proper accounting and not by going in and 
reaching into the pockets of the poor and the vulnerable senior 
citizens.
  People say let us have an accurate CPI; I say fine. But the truth of 
the matter is that, if we look at how much it costs to retire and what 
the cost of retirement really is for the average Social Security 
beneficiary in America, it is much higher than the cost of living for a 
lot of other people.
  If we really want an accurate CPI, there are many CPI's in America. 
There are CPI's that are going to vary differently. If one is an 
elderly person who is retired and has a high cost of prescription 
drugs, if one has to take care of lots of medical bills, in every other 
account of the government we take into account the rising cost of 
health care. But in CPI, it is all melded together into one single 
number. We do

[[Page H2187]]

not take into account the differences between what it costs to retire 
if one is elderly and what it costs to live if one happens to be much 
more wealthy.
  I believe that the efforts that we have made here in the Congress, 
when I was able to go out and attract 55 Members of the Congress on 
both sides of the aisle to get a letter sent to President Clinton 
saying, if they were going to include this unconscionable act of 
lowering the CPI in the budget agreement, that we would have a separate 
vote on that issue on the House floor.
  Second, we wrote letters to both the Chairman as well as the ranking 
member on the Committee on the Budget suggesting to them that this was 
an unfair and an unwarranted act by those individuals that were trying 
to balance the budget on the backs of our retirees.
  So I say, if we want to go after Social Security, be honest with 
folks. Take on the people that are wealthy that have gotten more out of 
the system than they paid into it, but do not reach into the back 
pockets of the poor and the vulnerable in order to balance the budget 
of America.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] for his leadership and really tapping 
into the heart of the issue. There is not a time that I am not visiting 
with constituents in my community, mainly seniors and veterans, who are 
concerned about what happens to them with a falsified political 
adjustment of the CPI.
  Now, those of us who rise on the floor to argue for that protection 
of that number may get accused on many occasions of not wanting to 
balance the budget and wanting to throw money away; and we say no, we 
simply want to give to those who have been veterans and senior 
citizens, who have worked all of their lives, a fair shake.
  How is it when we talk to seniors in our districts and they say to 
us, I cannot make ends meet. I do not know how I am going to eat at the 
end of the month. My prescription costs are enormous, and I cannot even 
pay for those.
  This bill is clearly a very positive statement that says that the BLS 
should be the only entity that offers to merit the kind of analysis we 
need to deal with the CPI. I do not know any other institution, the 
Federal Reserve, the debate on the floor of the House, that would have 
the accuracy and integrity that would cause us to be able to support 
those who need us most.
  I join my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], 
to say the most vulnerable are the ones that this House most needs to 
stand up on the side of. That is those who cannot come here and speak 
for themselves, do not walk the halls of Congress. But yet, every 
single day, we need to pay tribute to the years of work of our senior 
citizens and certainly the sacrifice that many of our veterans have 
given.
  It saddens me when every time I hold a town hall meeting I hear 
seniors say, are you going to save the CPI or are we going to suffer 
even more? For that reason, let me add my support to this legislation 
and add my support to supporting the most vulnerable, particularly, if 
I might say, our seniors and our veterans. Let us give them a fair 
shake.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge], our final speaker.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, Congress is ultimately responsible for 
determining the scope and extent of programs that have been established 
by Congress, and this includes retirement programs, it includes a tax 
system, it includes the Bureau of Labor Statistics operations.
  I think that all of us understand and recognize that the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics established the Consumer Price Index several decades 
ago. It was to be an index that essentially reflected certain retail 
prices that were paid by American consumers. It was not intended to be 
an inflation index. It was not intended to necessarily be a cost-of-
living index. Instead, it was simply an index that was established and 
continued based on traditions established at the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics.
  Over the years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics identified 
inaccuracies in its own index, and occasionally it would implement 
changes, corrections it felt necessary. Usually these changes would be 
made without undue controversy, and sometimes the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics found itself under severe attack from Congress itself for 
making corrections to implement changes for a more accurate Consumer 
Price Index.
  We face a parallel situation here in 1997. The Bureau of Labor 
Statistics is gun-shy. It knows that, if it makes the changes in CPI 
that are important for accuracy, it is treading on the toes of powerful 
interest groups in our political system.
  We had the opportunity last week to seriously address this question 
in Congress, but with the new-found sum of $225 billion from the 
Congressional Budget Office, the decision was made: This is too tough, 
let us put it off the table. What is the consequence? We in Congress 
are not providing any guidance to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as 
even the Bureau of Labor Statistics has indicated it needs some 
guidance from Congress. We are shirking our responsibility.
  One group here has proposed such a change. The Blue Dog coalition 
proposed a budget with a correction, and with a flat COLA, to try to be 
fair to low-income Americans. I think that we should reexamine our 
goals here in this institution.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me conclude by thanking my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Souder]. We came into the Congress together, and we served 
together on the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee and 
also on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for his 
deliberations here this afternoon and his willingness to share time 
with the minority. This is a very important issue.
  We heard my colleague just suggest that the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics was looking for guidance from the Congress. Well, that is 
the purpose of House Resolution 93. We are providing that guidance. We 
are saying that we have the confidence in their ability and their 
expertise to determine appropriately within the level of limitations 
that exist what is indeed appropriate consumer price fluctuations in 
the market, and we would like to not have this be driven by political 
decisions or budget decisions.
  I do understand the legitimate and authentic interests of Blue Dogs 
and others who have moved us along this continuum of a dialog to the 
day that Congress will, I think, indicate through this expression that 
we want to see BLS handle this matter and handle it without political 
interference.
  So I rise in support finally of House Resolution 93 and I thank my 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] for his leadership 
on this matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah] for his 
leadership. I enjoy working with him in our committee. It is the type 
of thing we need to do more often working in bipartisanship and common 
interests because, while we may have disagreements from time to time 
about the best way to achieve solutions, we are legitimately concerned 
and share the common concerns about what is going on in our country. 
While we may disagree, sometimes, and more often than not, we are going 
to agree on what the problems are and even on what many of the 
solutions are, and this is one of the examples.
  I also want to address some of the concerns raised by the 
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota, as well as from Texas 
concerning the Blue Dog budget and put this into kind of a summary of 
what we have heard here on the floor in debate. It is not likely that 
any Member is going to walk down to the floor and say, oh, I believe it 
ought to be calculated for political purposes.
  There is a small group of people who are definitely committed to 
balancing the budget who believe that the CPI is incorrectly 
calculated. They have expressed their concerns, but that is not the way 
Congress works. Every time we change the CPI, we do not cut the

[[Page H2188]]

deficit, we spend more money, and that is in fact what would happen.
  Many Members who did not come down to the floor who have been doing 
their work in the back rooms, they have been anxiously trying to divide 
up what they were going to spend had we adjusted the CPI. They were not 
going to do that in front of the television cameras, they are going to 
do it in the back rooms.
  I share some concerns that have been expressed that there has been 
some smoke and mirrors in the budget; we will see that as it unfolds in 
this agreement. But many of us believe that this should be a scientific 
process, not a political process, and it was coming to be a political 
process of how we could get more dollars away from senior citizens, 
away from families, away from veterans, so we could spend more for 
groups that were politically important to some Members or concerns 
about a TV ad here or a TV ad there. That is not the way we should 
adjust the CPI.
  To summarize, this is a sense of Congress regarding the Consumer 
Price Index to take politics out of the process. The CPI is intended to 
provide as accurate as possible measurement of inflation and enables 
the Government to limit the impact of inflation for those most 
vulnerable to its bite.
  The determination of the CPI also has significant long-term 
consequences on determining tax liabilities, as we heard from the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] today. Our purpose today is to 
recognize that because of the tremendous importance of the CPI for 
average Americans, any modification of the CPI should be made by those 
most capable of doing so in the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It should 
not be a political football, it should not be something to try to take 
from one group to give to another. Its determination should be left in 
the hands of those most qualified to accurately measure inflation.
  Senior citizens and taxpayers across this Nation owe thanks to my 
distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fox, and his cosponsors, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. English, the gentlewoman from New 
York, Mrs. Maloney, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. 
This decision should be based on the best policy, not on politics.
  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution to 
affirm that any changes made to the Consumer Price Index [CPI] only be 
made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS]. This is a matter of grave 
importance to millions of Americans; it is not just a matter of 
accounting.
  Recently, the Boskin Commission Report stated that CPI overstates 
inflation by as much as 1.1 percent. Since that time, commentators and 
some Members of Congress have urged that Congress take this 
recommendation and immediately lower the CPI. Lowering the CPI by 1.1 
percent would result in increasingly large annual savings, starting at 
$6 billion in fiscal year 1998 and rising to nearly $70 billion in 
fiscal year 2002. That is certainly an incentive to lower the CPI.
  But these savings would come in large part from reductions in the 
cost of living increases for Social Security recipients, veterans, and 
other Federal retirees. This is unfair and unjust. We should not 
balance the budget on the backs of seniors and others who have spent 
their lives in the service of their country.
  More importantly, making such an arbitrary change would be wrong. The 
CPI should reflect the rate of inflation, not the need for politicians 
to balance the budget. I have full confidence in the BLS to make any 
necessary adjustments in a timely manner to reflect changing conditions 
in our economy.
  I am one of nine cosponsors of this legislation. I have also written, 
along with several of my colleagues, to the President and Budget 
Committee Chairman Kasich urging them not to include an automatic CPI 
adjustment in the budget agreement and calling for separate vote on any 
adjustment should it be included in the budget resolution.
  To a degree those efforts have been successful, as the budget 
agreement now only assumes a very slight change in the CPI. I oppose 
even that provision and will work with my colleagues to strike any such 
language from the budget resolution when it comes to the House floor 
should that be necessary.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] that the 
House suspend the rules and agree to pass the resolution, House 
Resolution 93.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________