[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18601-18603]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  EMERGENCY SENIOR CITIZENS RELIEF ACT

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the Chair.
  At the end of my remarks, I will propound a unanimous consent request 
that the minority party is aware is coming.
  I travel around my State pretty often, and when I do, I hear a lot in 
Rhode Island about the sacrifices people have had to make during what 
are, for our State, still very difficult economic times. We are still 
over 11 percent unemployment. Many of my constituents have adjusted to 
this difficult economic climate by cutting back on extras and finding 
savings in their personal lives wherever they can. But for our 
seniors--Rhode Island has a very large population of seniors--who live 
on a limited budget, simply cutting back is a very harsh option for 
them.
  In 2008, Rhode Island seniors on Social Security received an average 
monthly payment of about $1,130. Madam Present, $1,130 a month is not a 
lot to live on, particularly in the Northeast. I have heard from 
seniors who worry about keeping the heat on in their homes because oil 
prices are so high. I have heard from seniors who have to split pills 
or skip doses because their prescription costs are so high. And I am 
hearing this from people who have worked hard all their lives, who paid 
into the system throughout their careers and who believed they would be 
able to grow old comfortably. Instead, many of them are really just 
scraping by on their Social Security benefits, and the benefits often 
no longer cover their daily living expenses. So for people in this 
situation, every penny counts.
  This past year, for the first time since 1975, Social Security 
recipients in Rhode Island, in New York, and elsewhere did not receive 
a cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, and it appears they will not 
receive a cost-of-living adjustment in 2011 either. These yearly 
adjustments are dictated by a specific formula that is tied to 
inflation. I know that because of the slow economy, inflation has been 
stagnant over the past 2 years. So the rigid mathematical formula that 
drives the cost-of-living adjustment does not presently provide for the 
cost-of-living adjustment seniors need.
  This is a misfire in the cost-of-living calculation because it is 
based on a market basket that includes things seniors don't buy a lot 
of and it doesn't put adequate weight on heat and oil and energy, 
prescriptions and medical devices, and things on which seniors do spend 
a lot of money. It also overlooks people such as Chuck, who is a 67-
year-old retiree from North Providence, RI, who wrote to me recently to 
express his concern that his monthly Social Security income will be 
frozen at its current level for yet another year. He wrote that 
regardless of what the COLA formula concludes, his cost of living 
continues to rise. Chuck says:

       Prices have risen at the supermarkets. Medications have 
     also increased in copayments. Today, I am paying more and 
     getting less for the dollar.

  I believe Chuck speaks for many American seniors when he expresses 
concern about the lack of an increase in Social Security payments. So 
today I rise in support of the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act, 
introduced by my colleague, Senator Sanders of Vermont. This bill would 
help ease the strain on the budgets of our seniors by providing a 
special one-time payment in 2011 of $250 to all Social Security 
recipients. In effect, it would be a COLA replacement. Although a $250 
COLA replacement may not sound like much money, for those on a limited 
budget, the extra financial assistance provides a little extra peace of 
mind amid skyrocketing health care and prescription drug costs. And for 
seniors in New England, the payment could help keep the heat on through 
the approaching winter.
  This assistance would not be unprecedented. While this was the first 
year in decades that seniors did not receive a COLA, we have taken 
steps in recent years to provide special help to seniors and to 
disabled Americans struggling through this recession. In 2008, I worked 
very hard with my colleagues to secure a $300 rebate for seniors and 
SSDI recipients in that year's economic stimulus act. In 2009, we again 
worked to make sure the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included 
a one-time $250 payment to seniors and SSDI recipients. We now have a 
chance to once again lend that helping hand to our seniors.
  Passing this bill would be the right thing to do for seniors, 
obviously, but it is also a good thing to do for our struggling 
economy. In Rhode Island, for example, the payments would inject more 
than $51 million into our economy--money that would quickly be spent on 
essential items such as food and medicine.
  As I said at the beginning, Rhode Island is hurting. Unemployment 
stands at 11.4 percent, gas is now more than $3 per gallon, and our 
seniors face yet another year of frozen Social Security payments. By 
passing this Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act, we can show our 
seniors that they are not forgotten and in turn provide a valuable 
boost to the local grocery stores, pharmacies, and shopping centers 
that remain such an integral part of our local economy.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in standing by our Nation's seniors 
and to support the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act.
  In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be 
discharged of S. 3976, which is the Emergency Senior Citizens Relief 
Act of 2010 that I have been discussing; that the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration; that there be 4 hours of debate with respect 
to the bill divided and controlled by Senator Sanders and the 
Republican leader or his designee, and that no amendments or motions be 
in order during the pendency of this agreement; that upon use or 
yielding back of time the bill be read a third time, and the Senate 
proceed to vote on passage of the bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Senator 
from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, reserving the right to object, would 
the Senator agree to include an amendment that would offset the cost of 
the bill with unspent Federal funds, the text of which I have at the 
desk?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I am happy to discuss with colleagues on the other 
side how this can be paid for, but I cannot help but note that 
colleagues on the other side do not share their concern for the payment 
and pay-go side of the equation when it comes to the tax cuts for 
people making many millions of dollars a year whom we are trying to get 
exempted as we try to get tax relief for the middle class.
  It would be hard for me to hold seniors getting a $250 one-time 
benefit in a year in which the COLA formula has misfired and they are 
getting no COLA benefit despite their other costs going up, and at the 
same time be asked to agree to hundreds of thousands of dollars per 
millionaire, in some cases, in tax relief that is not paid for. I 
think, if anything, the seniors should be held to a lower standard than 
multimillionaires for whom the tax benefit would amount to potentially 
hundreds of thousands of dollars.
  I appreciate my colleague's very legitimate concern about the cost 
this would incur. I submit we are still, at least in my State, in a 
stage in the recovery where we continue to need to revive the economy. 
This will be very beneficial to the country in terms of its economic 
recovery, and it would be unfair to hold seniors to a different 
standard for this $250 COLA, a harsher standard than we would hold our 
millionaires to, for hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax relief. So 
I stand by the request as propounded in the unanimous consent.

[[Page 18602]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I note 
on the front page of USA Today ``Jobless Data could Break '80s 
Record.''

       Not since the early 1980s has the nation's unemployment 
     rate been so grim for so long, a government report due Friday 
     is likely to show.

  It goes on to say:

       The chronic level of high unemployment shows that many 
     Americans are still suffering, even though [the government], 
     the National Bureau of Economic Research, has said the 
     recession officially ended in June 2009.

  The people in this country know what is happening in their own 
communities and their own States and do not need to be told different 
things by the government when they know the reality in which they are 
living.
  I heard from my distinguished colleague some concerns we all share 
about the economy and what best way to stimulate economic growth. I 
believe, with Members on my side of the aisle, that one of the things 
you do is you don't raise taxes on anyone in this country during these 
economic times. We are unanimous on this side of the aisle in that 
position.
  But listening to my colleague, there are now actually a growing 
chorus of Members from his side of the aisle who are agreeing with me, 
including the two newest Members of the Senate from the other side of 
the aisle who have come here, the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia and the one from Delaware. The one from West Virginia, while 
running for the Senate, said, ``I wouldn't raise any taxes,'' referring 
to the tax cuts that are scheduled to expire come the end of this year. 
The Senator-elect and newly sworn in Senator from Delaware, in terms of 
tax cuts, said, ``I would extend them for everyone.''
  So there is a growing chorus on the ways to give this economy and the 
job-creating segment of this economy some certainty so they can then 
make the investments, make the decisions, hire the people to try to do 
that.
  We are unanimous in our support for not raising taxes on anyone 
during economic times like this and, with that growing chorus, then, as 
a result, I object.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate the objections of the Senator.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I would respond by saying that even if we assume that 
the right answer at this point is to continue a massive tax cut for 
people who make--I think it was most recently reported that the 400 
biggest income earners in the country earned an average, each, of $344 
million, a third of $1 billion each. So the tax cuts for people like 
that create a very significant cost to the country.
  I understand it is the theory of the Senator that this is to our 
economic benefit. But, clearly, there is a very high cost in our 
deficit to going down that path.
  My motivation in offering this unanimous consent is that our seniors, 
who will spend the $250 one-time payment virtually immediately--which 
every economist I have ever seen who discusses the economic stimulus 
effect of these different types of expenditure agrees would be far more 
beneficial if it were the $250 payment on behalf of seniors than it 
would be when these highest end people get these massive tax refunds 
and benefits--that it would be fair to treat seniors the same way.
  I regret that we face this objection. I think the objection is 
inconsistent in the sense that the Senator is holding, with this 
objection, seniors to a higher standard, a harsher standard, than he is 
holding millionaires and billionaires to. Everybody knows about the 
marginal utility of money. For a senior on a fixed income, $250 extra 
at the end of the year, Christmas time, whether it means keeping the 
house warm, affording their prescription drug payments, being able to 
set a little money aside for presents for their grandchildren--that is 
very important funding, and not just from a humanitarian point of view. 
From an economic point of view it means it gets plowed right back into 
the local economy--the local toy store, the local grocery store, the 
local pharmacy. It gets put right back to work. I don't know what 
happens when somebody making $334 million a year gets a $1 million tax 
break.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed his time.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. In that case, I yield the floor and thank the 
Presiding Officer for her courtesy.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, in response to my colleague from Rhode 
Island, despite over a $13 trillion existing debt that we cannot pay 
back, the Democrats are back with another proposal to add another $13 
billion to the deficit, add it to the growing deficit. This one is not 
even a new proposal, it is a proposal that was already rejected by 50 
Senators, including 11 Members from across the aisle a number of months 
ago.
  If we are going to attempt to help those seniors, as has been 
mentioned by my colleague, we need to do it in a fiscally responsible 
way.
  I absolutely support helping the seniors who are having a hard time. 
I just propose we pay for it. That is why I offered the amendment to 
the proposal from the Senator from Rhode Island that would, in fact, 
just pay for it. It is as simple as that. I propose that instead of 
piling money, debt on top of our massive debt, what I have offered is 
an amendment that would authorize the Office of Management and Budget 
to cut an appropriate amount from other programs to help them find 
money to pay for this one.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Yes, Madam President.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. A question, through the Chair: Would the Senator 
explain why it is that when it comes to the deficit it is more 
important to protect our national debt than it is to help our seniors, 
but it is less important to help our deficit and our debt than it is to 
give tax breaks to multi-multimillionaires?
  As I said, the 400 highest income earners the IRS has reported 
earning more than a third of $1 billion each on average, it would 
strike me that the deficit and the debt is a matter of national concern 
that should apply equally to millionaires--I mean multi-super-ultra-
hyper-millionaires--than it is to seniors struggling to get by on 
Social Security. I don't understand why the deficit matters so much 
when it comes to depriving our seniors of a COLA adjustment, but it 
doesn't appear to matter at all when it comes to providing the very 
wealthiest Americans--people who have their own jets, have their own 
yachts, people who have, you know, seven homes--additional tax relief 
that most billionaires who have come forward in this matter say they 
don't want or need; that it is unpatriotic, frankly, from their 
perspective not to be asked to contribute more.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, the way that I propose to pay for this 
to help those seniors, to help those who have those needs, is a 
proposal that is very familiar to this body. It is because 21 of my 
Democratic colleagues voted in favor of this way to pay for something 
earlier this week when the same pay-for was attached to an amendment 
from my colleague, Senator Johanns from Nebraska, that would have 
repealed an unfortunate paperwork mandate in the health care law.
  I would be happy to list all of the Senators who voted for this. I am 
sorry my friend across the aisle is not joining me in supporting this 
fiscally responsible support for our seniors. But, as I say, on the 
issue of stimulating the economy and giving some certainty in this 
Nation to those job creators, the Republicans are united: 42 of us say 
you should not raise taxes on anyone during economic times like these, 
and the chorus of Democrats who support that continues to grow. It grew 
this past week from five members of the Democratic conference to seven 
with the swearing in of Senator Coons of Delaware and Senator Manchin 
of West Virginia.
  Senator Kent Conrad from North Dakota has said:

       The general rule of thumb is that you do not raise taxes or 
     cut spending during an

[[Page 18603]]

     economic downturn. That would be counterproductive.

  So he says do not raise taxes during an economic downturn.
  Senator Evan Bayh said:

       The economy is very weak right now. Raising taxes will 
     lower consumer demand at a time when we want people putting 
     more money into the economy.

  Senator Jim Webb, Democrat from Virginia, said: ``I don't think they 
ought to be drawing a distinction . . . '' at a certain dollar number.
  Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska said:

       I support extending all of the expiring tax cuts until 
     Nebraska's and the nation's economy is in better shape, and 
     perhaps longer, because raising taxes in a weak economy could 
     impair recovery.

  Senator Joe Lieberman, Connecticut, said:

       I don't think it makes sense to raise any Federal taxes 
     during the uncertain economy we are struggling through.

  Then, of course, Senator Coons: ``I would extend them to tax cuts for 
everyone.''
  And Senator Manchin, then-Governor of West Virginia, said, ``I 
wouldn't raise any taxes.''
  At a time with 9.6 percent unemployment, at a time when our Nation 
continues to struggle economically, at a time people are looking for 
work, wanting to work, looking for jobs, the job-creating sector of 
this country needs some certainty. With the mandates of the health care 
law, which are expensive, environmental mandates coming from the 
Environmental Protection Agency with their rules and regulations 
impacting on the cost of energy, and then the uncertainty, the 
significant uncertainty that exists in this country as to what tax 
rates will be and how that is going to impact all taxpayers with their 
take-home pay come January 1, it is no surprise that people are 
concerned and reluctant to make long-term commitments and investments 
in businesses and in the future.
  That is why I stand here to object to my colleague from Rhode Island 
when he makes a proposal, which there is support for, but it is unpaid 
for. We need to pay for it. I bring to the Senate floor a responsible 
way in which to pay for it, and which he has rejected.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, are we in a period of morning business?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We are still in morning business. 
However, the time remaining, 10 minutes remaining, is controlled by the 
minority.
  Mr. DORGAN. In that case I would yield to the minority to use the 10 
minutes, and I will be seeking recognition following them.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________