[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 176 (Thursday, November 17, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7637-S7638]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ELDERLY CONSUMERS ACT

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate Senator 
Reed's comments about the state of this economy and what the 
supercommittee is doing and the direction we need to go on all of these 
tax issues and all of these spending issues. He is so right.
  We know several things about Social Security. We know it has been 
around for 75 years. We know if we do things right here in Congress, it 
will be around for another 75 years. We know it makes a huge difference 
in the lives of our citizens and our constituents in Oregon, in Ohio, 
in Rhode Island, and all over this country. We know that more than half 
of seniors in my State who are on Social Security get more than half of 
their income from Social Security, and it plays such an important role 
in their lives. We also know that until recently, there was not a cost-
of-living adjustment for seniors. We know that over the last 2 years, 
even though the President and the majority in the Senate--the Democrats 
in the Senate and in the House--voted for a $250 one-time payment for 
seniors to help them deal with the increase in costs of their health 
care--except for that, we know that Social Security beneficiaries in 
this country didn't get a cost-of-living adjustment for 2 years.
  We also know--and the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Oregon, is 
working with Senator Mikulski from Maryland and me on legislation to 
fix this. We also know the cost-of-living adjustment is, pure and 
simple, understated because the cost-of-living adjustment seniors 
usually get--never quite enough to keep up with their expenses--is 
based on the cost of living for a working person, for someone in his 
fifties or forties or in her thirties or twenties.

  For someone who is working full time, their cost-of-living increase 
is different than a senior's cost-of-living increase because if a 
person is 70 years old, they are much more likely to have higher health 
care costs than if they are 30 years old.
  So, historically in this country, we do a Consumer Price Index-W, 
``wages''--CPI-W. It is based on a 30- or 40- or 50-year-old who is 
working full time, their cost of living. We are not basing it on the 
cost of living of a senior citizen who consumes, if you will, much 
higher health care, who has much higher health care costs.
  That is what the legislation Senator Merkley and Senator Mikulski and 
I are working on: CPI-E, Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, 
reflecting their real costs. Why should a senior's cost-of-living 
adjustment be based on a 30-year-old's cost of living instead of a 70-
year-old's cost of living? That is clearly why we need the change.
  We also know another thing about Social Security. We know some 
conservative politicians in this institution--mostly Republicans, not 
quite entirely--we know some conservative politicians in this 
institution want to change the Consumer Price Index the other way, to 
make it even smaller.
  For 2 years in a row, there was no increase, no COLA, no Consumer 
Price Index increase, no extra dollars to keep up with burgeoning 
health care costs for seniors. We know that did not happen for 2 years. 
There are people in this institution--many of whom have never supported 
Social Security to begin with all that much, frankly, to be honest--who 
want to see a smaller cost-of-living adjustment. It is something called 
chained CPI. I will not go into the details about how it works, but it

[[Page S7638]]

basically says to seniors: Whatever you are spending money on--if you 
are buying apples, for instance, then you could buy bananas. My staff 
says bananas are cheaper. We had an argument about that, whether 
bananas are cheaper per calorie and per weight and all that. But, 
nonetheless, they say to seniors, under this chained CPI thing--some 
conservative think tank, some corporate-funded, insurance company, drug 
company-funded think tank, I assume, came up with this bizarre idea of 
CPI chained--they say to seniors: You can pay less for things because 
you can do substitutions of food--from beef to chicken or from apples 
to bananas or from something to something--and save money.
  Most seniors have already made those substitutions in their buying 
habits because they are already squeezed because the cost-of-living 
adjustment has not kept up with their health care costs. That is the 
whole point. So instead of our moving to reduce the cost-of-living 
adjustment, going to this chained Consumer Price Index, chained CPI, we 
should move away from CPI-W, based on wages, to CPI-E, meaning what 
elderly people's costs are as their health care goes up.
  It will mean several hundred dollars in the monthly benefit a senior 
receives. Let me give those numbers, and then I will wrap up.
  For the average person who retired in 1985, that person would get 
about an $887 increase, if it was the way Senator Merkley and Senator 
Mikulski and I want to change Social Security. That CPI, that increase, 
would then go up a little bit over time, so seniors would, in fact, be 
able to keep up with their health care costs. That is the importance of 
this change. That is the importance of our legislation. We cannot go 
the other way, chained CPI.
  The last point I will make is, these conservatives who do not much 
like Social Security--some of them are Presidential candidates, I might 
add--they will say: We cannot afford this. The budget deficit is not 
because of Social Security. It is because of a bunch of other factors. 
Social Security is not part of this budget deficit. We know how to do 
minor changes to fix Social Security long term and take care of seniors 
and their health care needs and their increased costs.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise this morning to 
support the adoption of a consumer price index for Social Security that 
would accurately reflect the costs our senior citizens actually face.
  I am delighted to join the Presiding Officer, Senator Brown of Ohio, 
in this effort, along with Senator Mikulski of Maryland. Social 
Security is a promise, a bond between our government and our senior 
citizens.
  Our senior citizens have worked hard their whole life and paid into 
Social Security every step of the way. They expect Social Security will 
be there for them when they retire.
  Over the past few years, I have heard from many Oregon seniors who 
are making ends meet on a fixed income. They ask me: Why is it we are 
not getting a cost-of-living adjustment, a COLA? Because our costs are 
rising. They have been deeply disturbed to know, with these fixed 
incomes and these rising costs, they are being squeezed in the middle.
  I explain to them in these townhalls it is because the COLA is 
calculated not on what seniors face in their costs but upon what a 
broad cross-section of working people face. They tell me: Senator, that 
is different than the costs we face. We are at a different point in our 
lives. Health care becomes a huge component. They tell me: I can tell 
you, Senator, health care costs are not going down.
  Some in this Chamber are coming forward with a proposal that would 
make it even harder for our seniors. It would use a new calculation: 
not this standard ``cross-section of America COLA'' we are currently 
using but what is referred to as a chained CPI. That chained CPI says: 
If the price of this goes up, you can buy that. Actually, what it does 
is go in the wrong direction in terms of accurately reflecting the 
costs our seniors face in retirement.
  If we take someone who is 65 today and we look down the road, by the 
time they are 75, this chained CPI would cost them $560 per year--
roughly a month's rent. By the time the average 85-year-old has their 
payment calculated, the chained CPI would cost them $984 per year; the 
average 95-year-old: $1,392 per year.
  At a time when the best off Americans are paying less than ever 
before, it is simply wrong to shift costs on to our seniors and the 
most vulnerable in our society.
  There is an alternative. It is called the CPI-E. The Consumer Price 
Index for our seniors or elderly. I prefer to think of it as the CPI-E 
for ``experienced.'' Our most experienced citizens face different costs 
than the rest of us. The CPI-E would track inflation specifically based 
on the basket of goods those aged 62 and older are purchasing.
  It is simply a fairer and more accurate way to calculate the benefits 
for our seniors. If their costs are rising slower than the overall 
costs for society, it would reflect that. If their costs are rising 
higher than the overall pace of inflation, then that would be 
reflected. Either way, it is fair.
  We have to ensure we are keeping our promise to our senior citizens 
in a way that accurately reflects the reality of living in this 
country. This bill for the CPI-E or Consumer Price Index for the 
experienced is the best way to achieve that.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________