[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 19190-19196]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     SENIORS PROTECTION ACT OF 2010

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 5987) to ensure that seniors, veterans, and people with 
disabilities who receive Social Security and certain other Federal 
benefits receive a one-time $250 payment in the event that no cost-of-
living adjustment is payable in 2011, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5987

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Seniors Protection Act of 
     2010''.

     SEC. 2. PAYMENT IN LIEU OF A COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT TO 
                   RECIPIENTS OF SOCIAL SECURITY, SUPPLEMENTAL 
                   SECURITY INCOME, RAILROAD RETIREMENT BENEFITS, 
                   AND VETERANS DISABILITY COMPENSATION OR PENSION 
                   BENEFITS.

       (a) Authority To Make Payments.--
       (1) Eligibility.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (5)(B), the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall disburse a $250 payment to each 
     individual who, for any month during the 3-month period 
     ending with the month which ends prior to the month that 
     includes the date of the enactment of this Act, is entitled 
     to a benefit payment described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) 
     of subparagraph (B) or is eligible for a SSI cash benefit 
     described in subparagraph (C). In the case of an individual 
     who is eligible for a payment under this subparagraph by 
     reason of entitlement to a benefit described in subparagraph 
     (B)(i), no such payment shall be made to such individual 
     unless such individual was paid a benefit described in such 
     subparagraph (B)(i) for any month in the 12-month period 
     ending with the month which ends prior to the month that 
     includes the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (B) Benefit payment described.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A):
       (i) Title ii benefit.--A benefit payment described in this 
     clause is a monthly insurance benefit payable (without regard 
     to sections 202(j)(1) and 223(b) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 402(j)(1), 423(b)) under--

       (I) section 202(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(a));
       (II) section 202(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b));
       (III) section 202(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c));
       (IV) section 202(d)(1)(B)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402(d)(1)(B)(ii));
       (V) section 202(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e));
       (VI) section 202(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f));
       (VII) section 202(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(g));
       (VIII) section 202(h) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(h));
       (IX) section 223(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 423(a));
       (X) section 227 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 427); or
       (XI) section 228 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 428).

       (ii) Railroad retirement benefit.--A benefit payment 
     described in this clause is a monthly annuity or pension 
     payment payable (without regard to section 5(a)(ii) of the 
     Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231d(a)(ii))) 
     under--

       (I) section 2(a)(1) of such Act (45 U.S.C. 231a(a)(1));
       (II) section 2(c) of such Act (45 U.S.C. 231a(c));

[[Page 19191]]

       (III) section 2(d)(1)(i) of such Act (45 U.S.C. 
     231a(d)(1)(i));
       (IV) section 2(d)(1)(ii) of such Act (45 U.S.C. 
     231a(d)(1)(ii));
       (V) section 2(d)(1)(iii)(C) of such Act to an adult 
     disabled child (45 U.S.C. 231a(d)(1)(iii)(C));
       (VI) section 2(d)(1)(iv) of such Act (45 U.S.C. 
     231a(d)(1)(iv));
       (VII) section 2(d)(1)(v) of such Act (45 U.S.C. 
     231a(d)(1)(v)); or
       (VIII) section 7(b)(2) of such Act (45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(2)) 
     with respect to any of the benefit payments described in 
     clause (i) of this subparagraph.

       (iii) Veterans benefit.--A benefit payment described in 
     this clause is a compensation or pension payment payable 
     under--

       (I) section 1110, 1117, 1121, 1131, 1141, or 1151 of title 
     38, United States Code;
       (II) section 1310, 1312, 1313, 1315, 1316, or 1318 of title 
     38, United States Code;
       (III) section 1513, 1521, 1533, 1536, 1537, 1541, 1542, or 
     1562 of title 38, United States Code; or
       (IV) section 1805, 1815, or 1821 of title 38, United States 
     Code,

     to a veteran, surviving spouse, child, or parent as described 
     in paragraph (2), (3), (4)(A)(ii), or (5) of section 101, 
     title 38, United States Code, who received that benefit 
     during any month within the 3-month period ending with the 
     month which ends prior to the month that includes the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (C) SSI cash benefit described.--A SSI cash benefit 
     described in this subparagraph is a cash benefit payable 
     under section 1611 (other than under subsection (e)(1)(B) of 
     such section) or 1619(a) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1382, 1382h).
       (2) Requirement.--A payment shall be made under paragraph 
     (1) only to individuals who reside in 1 of the 50 States, the 
     District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the United States 
     Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, or who are utilizing a foreign or domestic Army Post 
     Office, Fleet Post Office, or Diplomatic Post Office address. 
     For purposes of the preceding sentence, the determination of 
     the individual's residence shall be based on the address of 
     record, as of the date of certification under subsection (b) 
     for a payment under this section.
       (3) No double payments.--An individual shall be paid only 1 
     payment under this section, regardless of whether the 
     individual is entitled to, or eligible for, more than 1 
     benefit or cash payment described in paragraph (1).
       (4) Limitation.--A payment under this section shall not be 
     made (or, in the case of subparagraph (D), shall not be 
     due)--
       (A) in the case of an individual entitled to a benefit 
     specified in paragraph (1)(B)(i) or paragraph 
     (1)(B)(ii)(VIII) if--
       (i) for the most recent month of such individual's 
     entitlement in the 3-month period described in paragraph (1), 
     or
       (ii) for the month (as determined by the Commissioner of 
     Social Security) in which such individual would, but for this 
     paragraph, have been certified under subsection (b) to 
     receive a payment under this section,
     such individual's benefit under such paragraph was not 
     payable by reason of subsection (x) or (y) of section 202 of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402) or section 1129A of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-8a);
       (B) in the case of an individual entitled to a benefit 
     specified in paragraph (1)(B)(iii) if, for the most recent 
     month of such individual's entitlement in the 3-month period 
     described in paragraph (1), such individual's benefit under 
     such paragraph was not payable, or was reduced, by reason of 
     section 1505, 5313, or 5313B of title 38, United States Code;
       (C) in the case of an individual entitled to a benefit 
     specified in paragraph (1)(C) if--
       (i) for such most recent month of such individual's 
     eligibility in the 3-month period described in paragraph (1), 
     or
       (ii) for the month (as determined by the Commissioner of 
     Social Security) in which such individual would, but for this 
     paragraph, have been certified under subsection (b) to 
     receive a payment under this section,
     such individual's benefit under such paragraph was not 
     payable by reason of subsection (e)(1)(A) or (e)(4) of 
     section 1611 (42 U.S.C. 1382) or section 1129A of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1320a-8a); or
       (D) in the case of any individual whose date of death 
     occurs--
       (i) before the date of negotiation of a check payment to an 
     individual certified under subsection (b) to receive a 
     payment under this section; or
       (ii) in the case of a direct deposit, before the date on 
     which such payment is deposited into such individual's 
     account.

     In the case of any individual whose date of death occurs 
     before a payment under this section is negotiated (in the 
     case of a check) or deposited (in the case of a direct 
     deposit), such payment shall not be due and shall not be 
     reissued to the estate of such individual or to any other 
     person. In no case shall payment be made to, or on behalf of, 
     an individual who is not alive at the time of issuance or 
     reissuance.
       (5) Timing and manner of payments.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     commence disbursing payments under this section at the 
     earliest practicable date in 2011 prior to June 1, 2011. The 
     Secretary of the Treasury may disburse any payment 
     electronically to an individual in such manner as if such 
     payment was a benefit payment or cash benefit to such 
     individual under the applicable program described in 
     subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1).
       (B) Deadline.--No payments shall be disbursed under this 
     section after December 31, 2011, regardless of any 
     determinations of entitlement to, or eligibility for, such 
     payments made after such date.
       (b) Identification of Recipients.--The Commissioner of 
     Social Security, the Railroad Retirement Board, and the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall certify the individuals 
     entitled to receive payments under this section and provide 
     the Secretary of the Treasury with the information needed to 
     disburse such payments. A certification of an individual 
     shall be unaffected by any subsequent determination or 
     redetermination of the individual's entitlement to, or 
     eligibility for, a benefit specified in subparagraph (B) or 
     (C) of subsection (a)(1) (except that such certification 
     shall be affected by a determination that an individual is an 
     individual described in subparagraph (D) of subsection (a)(4) 
     during a period described in such subparagraph), and no 
     individual shall be certified to receive a payment under this 
     section if such individual has at any time been denied 
     certification for such a payment by reason of subparagraph 
     (A)(ii) or (C)(ii) of subsection (a)(4) (unless such 
     individual is subsequently determined not to have been an 
     individual described in either such subparagraph at the time 
     of such denial).
       (c) Treatment of Payments.--
       (1) Payment to be disregarded for purposes of all federal 
     and federally assisted programs.--A payment under subsection 
     (a) shall not be regarded as income and shall not be regarded 
     as a resource for the month of receipt and the following 9 
     months, for purposes of determining the eligibility of the 
     recipient (or the recipient's spouse or family) for benefits 
     or assistance, or the amount or extent of benefits or 
     assistance, under any Federal program or under any State or 
     local program financed in whole or in part with Federal 
     funds.
       (2) Payment not considered income for purposes of 
     taxation.--A payment under subsection (a) shall not be 
     considered as gross income for purposes of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       (3) Payments protected from assignment.--The provisions of 
     sections 207 and 1631(d)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 407, 1383(d)(1)), section 14(a) of the Railroad 
     Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231m(a)), and section 5301 
     of title 38, United States Code, shall apply to any payment 
     made under subsection (a) as if such payment was a benefit 
     payment or cash benefit to such individual under the 
     applicable program described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of 
     subsection (a)(1).
       (4) Payments subject to offset and reclamation.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (3)--
       (A) any payment made under this section shall, in the case 
     of a payment of a direct deposit, be subject to the 
     reclamation provisions under subpart B of part 210 of title 
     31, Code of Federal Regulations (relating to reclamation of 
     benefit payments); and
       (B) any payment made under this section shall not, for 
     purposes of section 3716 of title 31, United States Code, be 
     considered a benefit payment or cash benefit made under the 
     applicable program described in subparagraph (B) or (C) of 
     subsection (a)(1), and all amounts paid shall be subject to 
     offset to collect delinquent debts.
       (d) Payment to Representative Payees and Fiduciaries.--
       (1) In general.--In any case in which an individual who is 
     entitled to a payment under subsection (a) and whose benefit 
     payment or cash benefit described in paragraph (1) of that 
     subsection is paid to a representative payee or fiduciary, 
     the payment under subsection (a) shall be made to the 
     individual's representative payee or fiduciary and the entire 
     payment shall be used only for the benefit of the individual 
     who is entitled to the payment.
       (2) Applicability.--
       (A) Payment on the basis of a title ii or ssi benefit.--
     Section 1129(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1320a-8(a)(3)) shall apply to any payment made on the basis 
     of an entitlement to a benefit specified in paragraph 
     (1)(B)(i) or (1)(C) of subsection (a) in the same manner as 
     such section applies to a payment under title II or XVI of 
     such Act.
       (B) Payment on the basis of a railroad retirement 
     benefit.--Section 13 of the Railroad Retirement Act (45 
     U.S.C. 231l) shall apply to any payment made on the basis of 
     an entitlement to a benefit specified in paragraph (1)(B)(ii) 
     of subsection (a) in the same manner as such section applies 
     to a payment under such Act.
       (C) Payment on the basis of a veterans benefit.--Sections 
     5502, 6106, and 6108 of title 38, United States Code, shall 
     apply to any payment made on the basis of an entitlement to a 
     benefit specified in paragraph (1)(B)(iii) of subsection (a) 
     in the same manner as those sections apply to a payment under 
     that title.
       (e) Appropriations.--
       (1) Carryover of earlier appropriation.--Any sums 
     appropriated under section

[[Page 19192]]

     2201(e) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
     for the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Social 
     Security, the Railroad Retirement Board, or the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs and which have not been expended as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act shall also be available for 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Social 
     Security, the Railroad Retirement Board, or the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs, respectively, for the period of fiscal 
     years 2010 through 2012, and shall remain available until 
     expended, to carry out this section.
       (2) Additional appropriation.--Out of any sums in the 
     Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, the 
     following sums are appropriated, in addition to sums referred 
     to in paragraph (1), for the period of fiscal years 2010 
     through 2012, to remain available until expended, to carry 
     out this section:
       (A) For the Secretary of the Treasury, $7,000,000 for 
     administrative costs incurred in carrying out this section.
       (B) For the Commissioner of Social Security--
       (i) such sums as may be necessary for payments to 
     individuals certified by the Commissioner of Social Security 
     as entitled to receive a payment under this section; and
       (ii) $52,000,000 for the Social Security Administration's 
     Limitation on Administrative Expenses for costs incurred in 
     carrying out this section.
       (C) For the Railroad Retirement Board--
       (i) such sums as may be necessary for payments to 
     individuals certified by the Railroad Retirement Board as 
     entitled to receive a payment under this section; and
       (ii) $670,000 for the Railroad Retirement Board's 
     Limitation on Administration for administrative costs 
     incurred in carrying out this section.
       (D)(i) For the Secretary of Veterans Affairs--

       (I) such sums as may be necessary for the Compensation and 
     Pensions account, for payments to individuals certified by 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as entitled to receive a 
     payment under this section; and
       (II) $981,000 for the Information Systems Technology 
     account and $447,000 for the General Operating Expenses 
     account, for administrative costs incurred in carrying out 
     this section.

       (ii) The Department of Veterans Affairs Compensation and 
     Pensions account shall hereinafter be available for payments 
     authorized under subsection (a)(1)(A) to individuals entitled 
     to a benefit payment described in subsection (a)(1)(B)(iii).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam 
Johnson) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota.

                              {time}  1030


                             General Leave

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 5987, the bill now under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Dakota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In October, the Social Security Commissioner announced there would be 
no cost-of-living adjustment--or COLA--for Social Security benefits in 
2011. This is the result of economic conditions. It is not due to 
action or inaction on the part of Congress. Congress enacted 
legislation in 1975 to provide for an automatic cost-of-living 
adjustment so seniors would not face year after year of rising prices 
for daily expenses with no increase in benefits. Unfortunately, due to 
the formula, next month will mark the first time since 1975 when the 
automatic COLA will not increase for the second year in a row. Because 
the recovering economy is slowly turning around, prices tracked by 
those bureaucrats measuring these items find that it has not reached 
the peak of inflation in 2008 caused by the spike of energy prices. So 
it is an anomaly within the formula providing no cost-of-living 
adjustment.
  Any of us visiting with our senior citizens across this great land 
understand something quite different has occurred within the life of 
our seniors: they are experiencing higher prices. In fact, this is 
causing a hardship for so many, given the fact that Social Security 
benefit levels are really very modest. They are $14,000 for the average 
retiree. It is $13,000 on average in North Dakota. We estimate that 
some more than 30 million Americans get most of their income from 
Social Security, and many millions of Americans get all of their income 
from Social Security.
  So, basically, they have their benefit levels flatlined at a time 
when they are encountering higher costs, reducing their quality of life 
experience, and disappointing them greatly about Social Security.
  The bill before us would provide 54 million Americans with a $250 
payment in lieu of COLA. Now, for those at the very bottom, this means 
a lot--about a $20 a month cost-of-living adjustment to help them with 
those higher costs.
  I want us to think for just a moment, Mr. Speaker, about this very 
modest $250 payment, $20 a month, in contrast to some of the relief 
measures being tossed around as negotiations proceed to conclude this 
session. We heard about a deal the White House has been discussing with 
the Senate that would provide, for example, an estate tax provision 
representing a windfall to the wealthiest few families in this country. 
At a time when Congress is considering measures that would provide vast 
amounts of relief to the wealthiest who need it the least, you would 
think that we might be able to measure support for $250 to seniors 
living on Social Security checks unable to meet their expenses in light 
of higher costs but no COLA.
  The bill before us should pass under any sense of fairness, 
particularly at this time of the holidays. The bill is supported by 
AARP, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the National Committee to 
Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Strengthen Social Security 
Campaign, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Wider Opportunities 
for Women organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 5897, the 
Seniors Protection Act of 2010.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, you know, I hate references to 
what we are doing today to this. Bipartisan congressional efforts 
established the cost-of-living adjustment or COLA formula beginning in 
1975 to make sure that Social Security benefits retain their purchasing 
power for our Nation's seniors. The COLA formula is designed to achieve 
a simple goal. Increases in consumer prices trigger an increase in 
Social Security benefits.
  In 2009, seniors received the largest COLA since 1982, 5.8 percent, 
because of a temporary spike in energy prices. Since then, energy 
prices fell, and even though the inflation rate used to determine the 
COLA was negative between 2008 and 2009, benefits were not reduced in 
2010. Instead, they remained constant. That is because the law prevents 
benefits from being reduced when prices decline, and that helps seniors 
in these tough economic times.
  Since prices have remained short of the peak they reached back in 
2008, the Social Security Administration announced there will not be a 
COLA in 2011 either. Though seniors are understandably disappointed, 
the COLA formula is working as intended. The good news is that most 
seniors do not face an increase in their Medicare part B premium when 
there is no COLA due to hold harmless protections in current law. Also, 
last year seniors received a $250 economic recovery payment through the 
stimulus. While many seniors are hurting, so too are American working 
families.
  Doing an end-run around a current bipartisan COLA formula without 
even one hearing to examine whether it is working or the many options 
for change our colleagues have offered is wrong. Sending out $250 
checks to people like Ross Perot or Warren Buffett, or to the Members 
of this House who may be eligible for them, as this bill does, is 
wrong. Sending $250 checks to prisoners or dead people, as Social 
Security has done in the past, is wrong.
  Increasing our Nation's crushing deficit on the backs of our children 
by an additional $14 billion is wrong. Unfortunately, our side is 
unable to right these wrongs as we are prohibited from offering any 
amendments to this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Higgins).

[[Page 19193]]


  Mr. HIGGINS. I thank my colleague for the time and for his leadership 
on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Seniors Protection Act. 
Since 1975, seniors have depended on a cost-of-living adjustment to 
meet their rising expenses. Through an automatic formula, they have 
received a cost-of-living adjustment every year, without fail, until 
last year.
  Now, for a second year in a row, at a time when seniors have seen 
their savings and home values drop and prices for their prescriptions 
and other bills rise, they will also see their benefits frozen yet 
again. I believe we must examine the COLA formula to ensure that it 
meets the needs of seniors; but, in the meantime, we must provide an 
increase to their benefits today so they can pay their expenses.
  I strongly support this legislation, which will provide a one-time 
payment of $250 to Social Security recipients in the upcoming year. I 
urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Pomeroy, and for your great 
leadership on this issue as well.
  Mr. Speaker, what I hear time and again from Iowa seniors is that 
their expenses are rising. They pay too much for prescriptions and 
other health-related costs, transportation, and heating for their 
homes. To make matters worse, seniors' other retirement income has lost 
value in this recession.
  Despite this fact, as was mentioned, there will be no COLA again for 
our seniors and veterans in 2011. This is simply unfair. No senior 
should retire into poverty after a lifetime of hard work. That is why I 
strongly support the Seniors Protection Act, which will provide our 
seniors with $250 to help defray the cost increases they are 
experiencing that aren't recognized by the COLA formula. I am an 
original cosponsor of this bill, and I have strongly advocated for its 
passage. I plan to vote for it today because I believe it is the right 
thing to do for our seniors.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor).

                              {time}  1040

  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I rise in strong support of the Seniors 
Protection Act, and I thank my colleague, Mr. Pomeroy from North 
Dakota, for his tremendous leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, my older neighbors throughout the Tampa Bay Area in 
Florida have shared with me that, since the recession hit in 2007, they 
have really struggled with property value declines, with swings in the 
values of their retirement savings, and with the rising cost of 
Medicare. So it was particularly troubling that the Social Security 
Administration announced that, for the second year in a row, there 
would be no cost-of-living increase. They just couldn't believe it. It 
appears that the COLA is not adequately taking account of the economic 
situation that our older neighbors are facing today.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Seniors Protection 
Act. Let's keep the fundamental promise of Social Security, which is: 
no matter what happens in a person's life, our older neighbors will 
continue to live in dignity.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Dr. Kagen.
  Mr. KAGEN. Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to join my colleagues in support of 
this necessary action.
  What is it that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't 
like about senior citizens? What is it that you do not understand about 
people being in need?
  It is $250 that is needed now to help our people, our constituents. 
For me, it is for my patients so they can get their necessary 
prescription drugs. People need help now, not next year.
  I endorse this bill very strongly.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. I want to thank Mr. Pomeroy for his leadership on this 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, here is the reality today of rising prices for America's 
seniors and retired veterans.
  From October 2009 to October 2010, the following commodities, which 
consume the lion's share of a senior's household budget, saw 
significant increases: home heating fuel went up 13 percent, gas prices 
3.8 percent, prescription drug prices 3.9 percent, medical care 3.6 
percent.
  Despite these relentless increases, the Labor Department's CPI 
formula spit out a 0 percent COLA because the cost of items which the 
formula counts, like flat screen TVs, personal computers, and 
recreation activities, went down. For seniors and veterans who are 
dependent on Social Security and VA pensions, the latest flat screen 
televisions and personal computers are not high on their shopping 
lists.
  Congress needs to intervene for the benefit of seniors and retired 
veterans by passing this measure, which will provide emergency help 
with the real-world budgets of elderly Americans.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are getting calls from our 
constituents telling us that they don't want the COLA to continue just 
giving money away. What they are interested in are tax decreases. I 
would say that this is ill-advised at this time, and we should not just 
throw more money at a problem that we can solve and have solved 
already, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 11\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. WEINER. Thank you very much. I appreciate the sponsor of the 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, what it comes down to is that it is not as my good 
friend characterized it: throwing money away or giving money away. This 
is whether you consider people who have helped build this country to 
what it is, who have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund, and who 
very often rely entirely on Social Security for their support. These 
are people who, frankly, on average, are making in the magnitude of 
$16,000, $17,000, $20,000 for the entire year.
  The Social Security COLA was passed in the 1970s with a very logical 
rationale, which was to allow seniors to keep up with the high cost of 
living. The mistake that we continually make--and perhaps it's because 
the law is written incorrectly or perhaps it's a misinterpretation--is 
that we assume for a moment that, when inflation is at a very low level 
like it is today, it means costs haven't risen for seniors; but if you 
look at the things that seniors are actually buying and if you look at 
the things that they need in order to survive--housing, health care, 
their very basics for food--all of these things are actually 
experiencing rising costs.
  You know, it is somewhat ironic that, when I hear my good friends on 
the other side talk about the need for austerity, it always seems to be 
that it is the people who are in the middle class and struggling to 
make it who are the ones who are supposed to take the hit. Social 
Security beneficiaries are the broad cross section of this country, and 
we have made a contract with them.
  I have to tell you that I know the new Republican Congress was 
elected on a platform of eviscerating Social Security as we know it. 
That is not a rhetorical talking point. If you look at the book quite 
literally, the book written by the person who is going to be the 
chairman of the Budget Committee on the Republican side, he suggests 
turning large portions of the Social Security Trust Fund to the stock 
market.

[[Page 19194]]

  Yes, that is their belief. That is what they think the lesson is that 
was learned.
  So there really is a question here about who we are fighting for. Mr. 
Pomeroy and the people who are going to vote ``yes'' on this bill say 
we want to fight for senior citizens who are struggling to make it each 
and every day. They are the ones who believe that Social Security isn't 
some kind of bizarre Socialist plot but is a way that we have created a 
safety net. That's all it is.
  Nobody, I say to my colleagues, collects their Social Security checks 
and says, ``Woo-hoo, I'm rich.'' They collect them and say, ``Oh, what 
a relief. I can get through to the next month. I can continue with the 
standard of living that I have without its being chipped away.''
  Well, now, after 2 consecutive years, we will see the Social Security 
cost-of-living increase, which is going to inch up to keep track of 
costs that they have elsewhere in life, be restored. We are doing the 
best we can. I believe, frankly, the COLA law needs to be rewritten. I 
believe it did not contemplate the type of scenario we have today in 
which overall inflation rates are going down and the costs for seniors 
are staying high.
  As other speakers have pointed out, there are two fundamental 
mistakes that get made when the Social Security Trust Fund is 
calculated:
  One, the basket of things that a senior actually buys is entirely 
different from what a teenager buys or from what a businessperson buys. 
They have very discrete costs, and those costs are going up.
  It is also important to know that there are sometimes regional 
differences. In the part of the country that Mr. Pomeroy comes from, 
energy costs are sometimes exceedingly high because of cold winters. In 
the parts of the country that I represent and that Congressman Pascrell 
represents, the cost of housing is extraordinarily high. It is 
definitely going up more than 0 percent a year.
  I would also remind my Republican colleagues of one other thing. A 
lot of them did not like the Social Security program from the word 
``go.'' They didn't like it even then. There is a schizophrenia 
inherent in the Republican position about Social Security. They really 
nailed, or actually got it in their bones, that having a safety net 
program for senior citizens was really something government should not 
be doing. They didn't like it. Go take a look at the debate back in 
1933 when it began. Yet, from 1935, which is when the checks started 
coming, until today, one thing has been consistently true: month after 
month, year after year, this program has worked exactly how it was 
designed. It was designed to allow one generation to help provide a 
safety net for the next--year after year, generation after generation.
  I want to say one other thing.
  This whole idea that the apocalypse is arriving and Social Security 
is coming undone at the seams is wildly, wildly overblown. Today, the 
Social Security program will add to the deficit exactly zero dollars 
and zero cents. That's more than I can say about the tax cuts for 
billionaires, which is going to add $700 billion to the deficit over 10 
years.
  So what we are saying is that we Democrats, we who will vote ``yes'' 
on this bill, are standing up and fighting for senior citizens. We are 
standing up and fighting for every Social Security beneficiary, even 
the ones who are Republicans and Independents from all parts of the 
country, because we fundamentally believe the program works. If you 
believe that the Social Security program is a good and virtuous 
program, this is your chance to show it, by voting ``yes,'' because 
this is a chance to improve it.

                              {time}  1050

  If you believe that the Social Security program is some kind of hoax 
or a fraud or you believe what many of my Republican friends believe, 
that it should be privatized, dismantled, eliminated, tossed in the 
trash can, then you should probably vote ``no'' on this because this 
bill only strengthens Social Security.
  Now let me make one final remark--and I thank very much Mr. Pomeroy 
for being the sponsor of this legislation. He has never lost sight of 
the fact that the senior citizens that we help with Social Security are 
exactly the ones who helped put us in a position to build this country 
to what it is today.
  Let me make one final point. You know, in all of the political back 
and forth that very often happens during campaign season, I think that 
we really did just see a campaign where one side operated almost 
entirely from a position of what they were against--they're against 
strengthening Social Security, they're against health care reform, 
they're against financial reform, they're against a reduction of taxes 
on the middle class.
  We know precious little about what the new incoming Republican 
Congress is in favor of. This is an interesting test, where they are on 
Social Security. The chairman of their incoming Budget Committee 
believes in privatizing it. Many of their candidates kind of hemmed and 
hawed when asked. This is it, this is a good early test. And I would 
want to remind the American people that if you believe Social Security 
is one of those programs you really think should be protected and 
strengthened, this is the team that's fighting for you, the one that's 
offering this piece of legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I urge my Republican 
colleagues to finally realize that supporting senior citizens and 
Social Security is a virtuous and good thing to do, even from their 
perspective.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Seniors 
Protection Act. This bill will provide a $250 one-time payment to over 
250,000 Rhode Islanders who will see no cost of living adjustment in 
their Social Security payment for a second consecutive year.
  The slow economic recovery has been particularly hard on Rhode Island 
seniors, veterans and individuals with disabilities. Social Security 
pays $14,000 a year for the average retiree, a modest but crucial 
benefit that provides over half of all income for the majority of our 
elderly. People with disabilities and veterans with service-connected 
injuries also rely on this assistance to meet their day to day needs 
because they are not able to work, though it is not for lack of trying. 
Since this assistance will be used to make mortgage payments, pay rent, 
buy food or access medical care, it will be injected right back into 
the economy providing additional economic stimulus to our communities.
  While Congress is considering extending tax breaks for millionaires 
and billionaires who don't really need them, I ask them to strongly 
consider extending a break to those that do. This $250 payment will 
help seniors, veterans, railroad retirees and people with disabilities 
who receive Social Security make ends meet during this difficult time, 
when housing values are down, other retirement income is volatile, and 
many are facing rising costs.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Seniors Protection Act, and 
support its immediate passage.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5897 was not the way to help Social 
Security beneficiaries deal with the financial difficulties facing so 
many.
  There is no doubt that millions of Americans have been hurt by this 
recession. I am sympathetic to those who are struggling and this bill 
wasn't the way to address the problem. A political gesture that would 
never become law is not fair to anyone.
  Sending a $250 check to seniors, the disabled, and other 
beneficiaries of Social Security, irrespective of their needs or their 
income, sends the wrong message to people who are concerned about 
federal spending.
  As part of our assessment of Social Security, we need to assure the 
cost of living adjustments are determined in a way that reflects the 
costs that seniors and others are bearing today and in the future. It 
also needs to be done in a fiscally responsible way that does not add 
to the federal deficit or threaten the future strength of the Social 
Security trust fund.
  H.R. 5987 failed these counts and I will vote ``no.''
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5987, the 
Seniors Protection Act. When the Social Security Administration 
announced there would not be an automatic cost-of-living-adjustment 
(COLA) for the second consecutive year, I urged the House leadership to 
bring H.R. 5987 to the floor. The bill provides a onetime payment of 
$250 which equals roughly a 1.8 percent increase in retirement benefits 
to seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities and railroad retirees.

[[Page 19195]]

  Social Security has been a reliable source of income for 58 million 
Americans living on fixed incomes. Today, six in ten seniors rely on 
Social Security for more than half of their income; about a third of 
retirees have little other than Social Security to live on. In the 12th 
Congressional District of Illinois I am privileged to represent, 
125,810 people receive Social Security and 19,365 receive Supplemental 
Security Income (SSI) benefits.
  While there was no inflation from the third quarter of 2008 to the 
third quarter of 2010, health care and prescription drug costs continue 
to significantly outpace inflation; yet seniors have not received a 
COLA adjustment to make up for these burdens. Swiftly enacting H.R. 
5987 is necessary to ensure my constituents and Americans across the 
country are able to make ends meet.
  Not only is this payment critical to beneficiaries during this 
economic recovery, the Economic Policy Institute 2010 report concluded 
the $250 Social Security and SSI payment provided through the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act increased GDP by roughly 0.5 percent in 
the second quarter of 2009, which translates to approximately 125,000 
jobs created or saved because of these payments.
  Mr. Speaker, for 75 years, Social Security has served our seniors 
well. They have worked hard and earned their retirement benefits. 
Congress must act quickly to enact H.R. 5987 to demonstrate our 
steadfast support for our seniors. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support the bill.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the issue we come here to address today is 
not a Democratic or a Republican problem, but one facing each and every 
one of our nation's seniors in the Social Security program. Despite any 
political rhetoric, the lack of a Cost-of-Living Adjustment this year 
was not a result of Congressional action, but a result of a formula in 
place since the 1970s. I have long supported a change to this formula 
to take into account the rising costs for seniors, but in the interim, 
I am here as a cosponsor of this important legislation.
  Right now, in my district, seniors are struggling with their gas and 
electric bills. This 250 dollar payment could help seniors not only 
with these rising costs, but also with their food, rent, medications, 
and more. So many of our seniors rely heavily on their Social Security 
checks and as costs continue to rise each year, their Social Security 
checks are not going as far as they used to. Today, in offering this 
small adjustment, we can give our seniors that extra cushion they need 
to meet the unexpected costs of 2011. In this time of great uncertainty 
and economic hardship, how can we possibly deny our seniors the extra 
support they need?
  I rise today and ask that my colleagues support this measure for our 
seniors, who have given so much to our country and who deserve this 
much-needed relief.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5987, 
the Seniors Protection Act of 2010.
  Social Security is a pillar of our society based on the premise that 
if you work hard and play by the rules you will in turn receive the 
stability and security of a minimum level of guaranteed income as you 
get older. While sometimes it gets pushed aside as nothing more than an 
entitlement program, the reality is that Social Security provides all 
of the retirement income for six out of ten seniors in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, for 75 years, Social Security has never been a day late 
or a dollar short. But this year the Social Security Administration has 
recommended that there be no Cost of Living Adjustment--or COLA--for 
the second year in a row. That means that the very seniors who are 
struggling to make ends meet will receive a significant amount less 
than they were expecting for 2011.
  While the lack of COLA is not a result of Congressional or 
Presidential action, today we have the chance to vote to make things 
right. The Seniors Protection Act of 2010 would simply provide a $250 
check to Social Security recipients in lieu of a Cost of Living 
Adjustment for 2011.
  For some, a few hundred dollars may not seem like a large amount of 
money. But for the millions of American seniors who are making hard 
choices, choosing between filling their prescriptions, paying their 
rent, or feeding their families, a modest increase in their Social 
Security income could make all of the difference in the world.
  Furthermore, ensuring America's seniors can make ends meet would have 
a broader, positive, effect on the economy as a whole. A recent study 
by the Economic Policy Institute shows that similar payments to Social 
Security recipients have proven to be an effective economic stimulus.
  Mr. Speaker, we must commit ourselves to continuing to provide the 
foundation for Americans' retirement security. I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of H.R. 5987.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Seniors 
Protection Act. I am an original cosponsor of this crucial legislation 
to provide Social Security recipients with a one-time $250 payment in 
2011 to help seniors make ends meet. This bill is in response to the 
Social Security Administration's October announcement that there will 
be no automatic Cost-Of-Living-Adjustment next year for Social Security 
recipients because the trigger did not come into play because of the 
recession.
  More than 160,000 seniors in Hawaii receive Social Security benefits. 
Over 1,000 of them took the time to write, e-mail, or call me to share 
their need for a COLA this year. In Hawaii and nationwide, seniors have 
seen their cost of living go up, whether in medical costs, uncovered 
prescription drug costs, or utility bills. Meanwhile, the recession 
that began under President George W. Bush has hit seniors' savings in 
pensions, IRAs, and 401(k)s especially hard. The Seniors Protection Act 
will provide our seniors with a modest financial boost to help get by.
  Nationwide, three out of every five seniors rely on Social Security 
for more than half of their income. The average retiree receives 
$14,000 in Social Security benefits. This bill's $250 payment will help 
seniors, veterans, railroad retirees and people with disabilities who 
receive Social Security.
  In 1975, a majority Democratic Congress passed a law to automatically 
provide a cost-of-living increase for Social Security each year, using 
a formula based on inflation within the overall economy. For the first 
time in 30 years, as a result of the Bush Recession, the Consumer Price 
Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) was not high 
enough to trigger an automatic increase for 2010. Although our economy 
continues to recover, the formula will once again not provide an 
increase in 2011.
  I support efforts to improve the Social Security COLA formula using 
the Consumer Price Index for Elderly Workers (CPI-E). In the meantime, 
the Seniors Protection Act before us today will provide a one-time 
payment of $250 in lieu of the 2011 increase.
  The Seniors Protection Act currently has 158 Democratic cosponsors, 
but not one SINGLE Republican cosponsor. Instead, in recent months, 
leading House Republicans have called again for President George W. 
Bush's plan to privatize Social Security and leave seniors' hard-earned 
benefits up to the whims of the stock market.
  I recently celebrated Social Security's 75th Birthday at an event at 
the Kapolei Branch of the Social Security Administration. As I said 
there and have said many times before, I will continue to fight to 
preserve Social Security benefits so seniors can help make ends meet.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a strong supporter of ``The 
Seniors Protection Act.'' As we enter the second consecutive year 
without a cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security retirees and 
other beneficiaries, this legislation would have helped to provide 54 
million Social Security recipients with a one-time payment of $250 to 
help them make ends meet during this tough time. America has a moral 
and civic duty to always support our Nation's seniors, veterans, and 
the disabled, they may live a productive and secure life.
  The Seniors Protection Act is an investment in the economic stability 
of our seniors, veterans, people with idisabilities, and all who depend 
on Social Security to make ends meet. The bill also offers support to 
the millions of seniors who are struggling trying to pay their bills, 
mortgages, and other daily expenses. The Seniors Protection Act is 
critical to our seniors, and is fiscally responsible. Unfortunately, 
Congressional Republicans oppose the bill, something that is truly 
regrettable and a moral outrage.
  While Democrats maintain a strong record protecting, upholding, and 
strengthening Social Security, Republicans continue to advocate risky 
schemes to privatize it and cut benefits. America's seniors deserve 
better.
  I commend all of my colleagues who support this bill, and I thank 
Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Earl Pomeroy for his outstanding 
leadership on this issue. Democrats will always stand with our Nation's 
seniors, because it is the humane, just, and right thing to do.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5987, the 
Seniors Protection Act of 2010.
  Earlier this year, the Social Security Administration announced that 
for the second year in a row, Social Security beneficiaries would not 
be receiving a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) increase for the second 
year in a row. This legislation provides seniors with an additional 
$250 payment, equivalent to about a 2%

[[Page 19196]]

COLA, to Social Security beneficiaries next year.
  A COLA increase is imperative for seniors who rely on their benefits 
to support themselves and their families. According to the Economic 
Policy Institute, 3.5 million seniors are below the poverty level. The 
Department of Labor estimates that almost half of the 2 million workers 
over the age of 55 have been unemployed for six months or longer. Yet 
as more seniors experience poverty as a result of the economic 
downturn, the calls for privatizing and cutting Social Security in the 
name of fiscal responsibility have grown louder. Privatizing Social 
Security will hurt the most vulnerable Americans such as women, 
minority communities and children--those Americans that are currently 
experiencing disproportionately the effects of the recession. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the program is fiscally 
sound for another 40 plus years.
  It is our responsibility to guarantee seniors an adequate income 
after a lifetime of paying into Social Security. We must shift the 
focus from cutting vital programs such as Social Security to reviving 
our domestic manufacturing sector as a means to put Americans back to 
work.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 5987, ``Supporting the Seniors Protection Act of 2010.'' Let me 
begin by thanking my colleague Representative Earl Pomeroy for 
introducing this very important legislation into the House of 
Representatives as it is important that we recognize the struggle that 
a certain segment of our Nation endures and support them by ensuring 
that we give attention to this matter.
  As you may know, H.R. 5987, directs the Secretary of the Treasury to 
disburse a $250 payment to recipients of Social Security, SSI 
(Supplemental Security Income under title XVI of the Social Security 
Act), railroad retirement benefits, and veterans disability 
compensation or pension benefits if no cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) 
is payable in 2011.
  I support the Seniors Protection Act of 2010. This Act will provide 
immediate relief to seniors struggling on fixed income with increasing 
expenses. The legislation will provide 54 million Social Security 
beneficiaries and others with a one-time $250 payment, in lieu of a 
COLA. Now more than ever this emergency spending of $14.5 billion would 
provide targeted economic relief to our most vulnerable citizens living 
on fixed incomes, and struggling with rising health care, food and 
utility costs.
  For many, social security checks are the primary source of income and 
for others, social security checks are the only source of income. It is 
both fair and appropriate to now provide a second payment to help 
stimulate our Nation's economy and at the same time assist seniors, 
people with disabilities, children and other Social Security 
beneficiaries who did not receive a cost of living adjustment in 2010 
and will not get one again in 2011. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has 
determined that the cost of medical care services has risen by nearly 
seven percent in just the last two years. This $250 payment would 
represent a small step toward reversing the erosion in benefits caused 
by the skyrocketing cost of health care.
  Therefore, I am requesting that we, the Congress urge President Obama 
to include a $500 payment for seniors in his Budget Request for next 
year. This $500 payment represents an inclusion for the lack of COLA in 
2010 and 2011 years. While I understand that this will not totally 
eradicate the financial strain, I believe this allotment will serve to 
ameliorate some financial hardships. It is important that Congress 
guarantees resources to our seniors that will assist them in not only 
surviving, but also thriving.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 5987 and ask for its immediate 
adoption.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the Seniors Protection Act 
of 2010, I rise to express support for this important bill.
  Last week, the House had the opportunity to provide relief for 
millions of seniors, veterans, and disabled individuals.
  For 75 years, and through numerous recessions, Social Security has 
been a steady source of income. Since 1975, Congress has implemented 
automatic cost-of-living-adjustments for Social Security to guarantee 
that Social Security benefits are protected against the effects of 
inflation.
  The cost-of-living-adjustment for Social Security is calculated 
automatically using data on inflation published by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics and is not a deliberate decision by Congress. I support a 
fairer cost-of-living calculation for Social Security in order to keep 
pace with the actual increases in the true costs of living for seniors. 
That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2365, the Consumer Price Index for 
Elderly Consumers Act of 2009, which would change the calculation of 
the cost-of-living-adjustment for Social Security to reflect 
consumption patterns which are typical for seniors.
  For the first time ever, there will be no automatic cost-of-living-
adjustment for Social Security for the second consecutive year. Since 
there was no cost-of-living-adjustment increase for 2010, the formula 
used to calculate the adjustment required a comparison with 2008 costs, 
a year when prices were historically high. Even through the average 
costs of health care, food, and other essentials did increase this year 
compared to 2009 that was not considered by the formula. Unfortunately, 
this resulted in no increase in monthly benefits for millions of 
Americans who depend on Social Security, SSI, VA Pension and 
Compensation, and Railroad Retirement for the second year in a row 
while their real costs of living have gone up.
  American seniors, disabled workers, and survivors or spouses and 
children of retired or disabled workers rely on Social Security 
benefits. For example, 60 percent of American seniors rely on Social 
Security for a majority of their income and 30 percent of seniors rely 
on Social Security for more than 90 percent of their income. With 
Social Security benefits being modest, only $14,000 for the average 
retiree, the lack of a cost-of-living-adjustment is troubling.
  The Seniors Protection Act of 2010 would provide Social Security 
beneficiaries with a one-time payment of $250 to offset the lack of a 
cost-of-living-adjustment. This bill would provide relief for 54 
million seniors, veterans, and disabled individuals. In my state of New 
Jersey, this bill will provide assistance to over 1.5 million 
individuals.
  Since its inception in 1935, Social Security has provided a 
guaranteed benefit to hundreds of millions of retired and disabled 
workers and their families. For seniors, Social Security has provided 
financial security, independence, and dignity in their retirement 
years. I believe that Congress has a duty to ensure that their benefits 
are protected.
  Congress had a chance to provide relief to millions of Social 
Security beneficiaries with a one-time $250 payment. Unfortunately, 
Republicans blocked this measure that would have provided much needed 
relief to our seniors, veterans, and disabled Americans.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5987, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________