Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I just hope that perhaps somewhere into the national debate will come pages 78 and 79 of this year's 1996 annual report, which is so clear that there is no Social Security trust fund. There is nothing in the way of a pool other than the IOU's. These are IOU's, and the entire cash, when we sell them, goes to the general fund. Is that what the Senator means when he describes ``looting or raiding?'' Please tell me, because these are two terms that have been used by the Senator from North Dakota day after day after day, that we are ``looting and raiding.'' I want to know what the Senator means when he says ``looting or raiding.'' Does ``looting or raiding'' mean that we should not be putting it into T bills? Does ``looting or raiding'' mean that we should not see the money go into the general fund, as is the law of the United States? What is, for this Senator ``looting or raiding''?

Mr. SIMPSON. I am trying to inform the national citizens as to what is happening here.

Mr. SIMPSON. Could you use the term ``looting or raiding'' and define what that is?

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I want to be sure that the American people know that this is not a partisan issue. So, when we say, ``My friends on this side of the aisle,'' the friends on this side of the aisle joined with a remarkable number of friends on the other side of the aisle, a total of 64 of us who really think we ought to do something with the balanced budget amendment and do not feel we are going to do anything to the Social Security trust fund, because we know we cannot do anything to the Social Security trust fund because it is all invested and the money comes out of the general revenue. I guess the debate has to end there. Unless--and I am going to come back to this question. I would like, honestly, an answer. I want to know what--if we are going to use the term ``looting and raiding,'' the American people, I think, are being overly excited by that term. There is no need to use a term like ``looting and raiding,'' because we do not loot or raid. We are putting it where the law requires it to go, and nothing more. So to say that it is looted or cut, there was never any suggestion that these dollars would not have to be raised by general revenue in the year 2012, or 2005. They come from payroll taxes and revenue. So we are only arguing about how the deficit is measured, not about the disposition of Social Security trust funds.

Mr. SIMPSON. I think there is no reason to portray the balanced budget amendment as a place to talk about Social Security trust funds. They do not fit.

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, there was another one, so we get away from the partisan aspect if we can.

Mr. SIMPSON. I heard it that way. You know that. But let us look at the Chafee-Breaux proposal.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, 46 of us, 24 Democrats and 22 Republicans, voted for that. I thought that was a very responsible thing. And whatever you are talking about in the national budget, all has to do with balancing or not balancing the national budget-- everything in the stack.

Mr. SIMPSON. Whether we call it balanced or unbalanced in the year 2002, whether under the Republican plan or President Clinton's plan or Chafee-Breaux, Social Security moneys will be in exactly the same place. That is what I am saying. It will be in the form of Treasury bills or notes backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. So if you want me to say it will be balanced, fine. If you want me to say it will be unbalanced, fine. But the issue is, this will go on like ``Old Man River,'' and all America ought to know that.

Mr. SIMPSON. If we want to use the phrase of ``deliberately saved'' and so on, I have no problem with those terms. What I have a lot of problem with is the continual reference to ``looting and raiding,'' because that is not true. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might speak for 7 minutes.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, now maybe we can get to where the rubber hits the road. I have been given the grisly task of chairing the Subcommittee on Social Security and Medicare and Family Policy. I have heard the debate going on about the looting of the Social Security trust fund. Mr. President--and I know they will rush onto the floor. The doors will clatter open in a moment. Let me tell you that there is no Social Security trust fund. It is a huge stack of IOU's. The trustees know that, all thoughtful Americans know that. It is listed in the trustees' report. It is a huge stack of IOU's. There is no place in there with your name on it or my name on it. When a young person pays in today, it goes out next month to the beneficiary. In the year 2011, there will not be enough payroll tax to cover it. There will be a huge accumulated surplus then. And then you go and take the IOU and say, ``I am cashing this in.'' That is the double hit that is coming. I related this last week. We are all aware that the Social Security program and its relation to any balanced budget constitutional amendment will always be an issue of fervent controversy. In fact, many individuals, and the well-organized interests and, oh my, the citizens and, oh, my, the AARP--do not miss their work here--have cited the need to ``protect'' Social Security as a moral justification for opposing any such constitutional amendment. We have heard more of that on the Senate floor this week, and we will hear it forever. I trust that my colleagues will pardon me to say that I find this completely baffling--bizarre and baffling. I see no possible sensible justification for using Social Security as an excuse for opposition to the balanced budget amendment--none. It is but an excuse which excites the interest groups, which may be sold as a way to cover a vote against a balanced budget amendment. ``CYA'' here does not mean corporate youth activity. It is without substantive merit, in my view. Let me explain fully that this is my duty as chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee to try to determine the facts. At least everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts. How is the Social Security trust fund managed? This is how it is required under the law to be managed. It is a rather unfortunate that one would even have to do this, but too many in Congress, and out in the land, do not seem to ``get it,'' I believe is the phrase they use on us around here. This is an enlargement of an excerpt from section 201(d) of the Social Security Act. Allow me to read from it to you: It shall be the duty of the managing trustee to invest such portion of the trust funds as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investments may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States, or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States. This section continues later: Each obligation issued for purchase by the trust funds under this subsection shall be evidenced by a paper instrument in the form of a bond, note, or certificate of indebtedness issued by the Secretary of the Treasury. We can and we still do call these things T-bills, savings bonds, whatever. But it refers to any such Treasury bond or certificate. Before I continue, allow me to translate this bit of mumbo jumbo. What this means is what the law requires. It is what the law demands-- that when the Social Security payroll taxes come rolling in, most of them are immediately used to pay the benefits to today's recipients. The leftovers are not put in some vault or box, where we keep them, save them, and hold them for tomorrow's retirees. They are used to buy Government notes now. That is the law, that has always been the structure of Social Security. It is what is required of us. It is not ``raiding'' anything. It is not ``breaking a promise'' to anyone. That is how Social Security currently works, and it is how it was intended to work. That is what I mean when I say that the fund holds ``floating IOU's.'' It is holding those notes from the U.S. Government, and those notes are promises to pay up at a future date. Let me take you to section (f) the Social Security Act. Do not miss this one. This is the section that explains how the future benefits are going to be paid: The interest on and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of any obligations held in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund respectively. Listen closely to this part: Payment from the general fund of the Treasury-- Are you listening? to either of the trust funds of any such interest or proceeds shall be in the form of paper checks drawn on such general fund to the order of such trust fund. Here we see the obvious. The payment back to Social Security at a future date will come from general revenue--taxpayers' money. Only from the general fund will it come. The general Government, until the appropriate time, thus holds this big bag of IOU's to Social Security, and then it has to make good on those from the general revenues, not from some separate trust fund. It comes out of general revenue when the IOU's are due. That is how it works, and that is how it was intended to work. There is no way around it, no tricks, no gimmicks, no big lump of money in a trunk sitting there that we can emotionally plead to save from raiding if we exclude Social Security from a balanced budget amendment. Those benefits are to be paid with moneys raised from the general revenues--period. Another way of putting it, if I may, is today's workers will support today's retirees and tomorrow's workers will support tomorrow's retirees, period. That is the law. This is how Social Security works. All of this posturing and fear mongering about how somehow a contract is being broken and that looting and pillaging, and God knows what else, and other sins are taking place, is so much guff and nonsense. It is so much like the old professor of mine. He said, ``Simpson, this is opium smoke.'' That old professor was right. The benefits of future beneficiaries were never available to be looted. They are IOU's, and all of the cash will be raised from general revenue when those bonds became due. Let me just show you one final chart. I want you to pay, please, strict attention to this one. These are the annual operating balances projected for Social Security as of last year. You can see that, indeed, there is a sizable surplus today, and some are using this as an excuse to oppose the balanced budget amendment. This $60 billion figure appears small because--I ask unanimous consent for an additional 4 minutes.

Mr. SIMPSON. They are using it as an excuse to oppose the balanced budget amendment. This $60 billion figure appears small because it is an annual figure, a consolidated figure which also includes the disability payments and does not represent the total size of the accumulated Social Security reserves which are supposed to add up to another $2 trillion. They will get to $2 trillion--everybody needs to know that; we all know that--before the big drawdown, the big meltdown, comes. But you know what we always hear about this surplus. ``We don't want this surplus to be counted toward balancing the budget.'' It is said plainly, passionately, and persuasively. I ask you to look at the much larger picture. By the year 2020 we are also facing huge annual operating deficits, meaning that we would have to dip into the principal and the interest in this trust fund, the IOU stack, which I have already shown you is not there and eventually will only come from general revenues at that time. Look at the size, look at the enormity of these promised obligations, all of which we have no possible way of paying unless we raise payroll taxes, and the seniors are telling you to do that to correct the program because they ``ain't paying'' them. Payroll taxes--that is how you get here, and other taxes, to raise them dramatically when the time comes. There is $7 trillion in unfunded liability in the Social Security system alone. Does anyone seriously believe that the way to ``protect'' Social Security is to save it from a balanced budget amendment? Can anyone seriously maintain that the fate of Social Security hangs on the budgetary treatment of funds in 1996 when these are the balances projected in the outyears? We all know this. That is no secret to anyone. To use Social Security as a pallid excuse to defeat a balanced budget amendment is absurd, hypocritical budget blather of the most odious kind. We all know what the real threat to Social Security is. It is the situation you see on this chart. It is the threat that we will do nothing. That is the threat. That is the threat--the threat that we will let it go bankrupt on its own. But that is a debate for another day. I will not be around when the big bill comes due. But I hope in the year 2030, they will tap on my box and tell me how it all went because I can tell you where it is going to go. My purpose today is to, hopefully, dispense with the idea that there is some promise that has been made to save the Social Security surplus in some way that we are currently violating. No. We are doing with Social Security precisely what the law demands and commands us to do-- to buy T bills. If we can be charged with failing to do anything, it is failing to balance the budget. That is what will make it harder to make good on those IOU's when they come due. It will be very hard to raise the general revenue to do that. So as long as we keep blithely adding trillions to the debt--I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, let me close by saying I agree with my friend and colleague, Senator Paul Simon of Illinois, that the assured best way to protect Social Security is to pass the balanced budget amendment, or if you do not like the balanced budget amendment, to force ourselves to balance the budget. That is the one thing and the only thing that will make it possible to pay off those sacred promises to future retirees. I do not see people who like to cast those tough votes. They do not show up. But in any event, let me say again that I find it very unseemly that anyone who refuses to help in that effort will use the looting of Social Security as an excuse not to impose a balanced budget requirement. I hope that all of you will read the Social Security Act for yourself and the sections of it--section 201--and think it over closely, and then read the trustees' report. If we have a more accurate public understanding of exactly how Social Security does, indeed, work, it is my earnest, and yet possibly most naive, belief that the argument over the balanced budget amendment can take place on a more honest and informed basis. I thank the Chair. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, on behalf of my good friend and colleague, Craig Thomas, I introduce today a bill that will establish a very narrowly focused study of the effects of cattle grazing on certain lands in and near Teton National Park in Teton County, WY. Mr. President, this study is necessary as a means of avoiding the one thing that all sides of this issue are determined to avoid: the further development of lands associated with that spectacular national wonder. The language of this bill should be noncontroversial and little--if any--expense would be entailed. I also wish to commend the efforts of our House colleague, Barbara Cubin, on this bill and I urge its unanimous support.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Massachusetts to mourn the loss of Charles F. Meissner, the Assistant Secretary for International Economic Policy at the Commerce Department. He was a man who devoted his life to furthering America's economic strength; our Nation is the better for his service. His close friends--leaders from the public and private sector--have eulogized Chuck Meissner more ably than I could ever hope to do. I want to share their moving statements with my colleagues and with others of our Nation, so all Americans may know and understand how deeply America misses his service and his leadership. I ask unanimous consent that these tributes to the life and accomplishments of Chuck Meissner be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, this amendment simply notes that there are a number of indices that the Government uses to measure inflation and that we should strive to use the most accurate one that is possible. We have heard discussion of the CPI. There is another one called the chain-weighted GDP index. There are all sorts of ways to go. This just says, let us pick the most accurate one and get on with the business of then protecting the budget of the United States to get a handle on the correct and most accurate method of indices of measuring inflation or deflation or deflators or whatever we are using in this great complex formulae world. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I was hoping to follow that precedent, but I see that others have failed to do so. And I thought if I could take 10 more minutes, we could get a vote which would show that indeed we must be about our business. If we were to use the chain-weighted GDP index, that would get you a .4 reduction in things. That is what both CBO and OMB use. I just want to get that vote, if I could.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to introduce, and comment briefly on, legislation to grant to recipients of compensation, and dependency and indemnity compensation [DIC] benefits, from the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] a cost of living adjustment [COLA] increase to take effect at the beginning of next year. This legislation is appropriate and warranted--even as we proceed this very week to debate budget reconciliation. Mr. President, let me assure this body that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will meet the reconciliation targets that the Congress ultimately adopts. Indeed, I expect that I will offer amendments to this bill--with the bipartisan support of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs--once we receive reconciliation instructions from the Congress as an whole. No one need fear that I have lost my zeal for gaining control over entitlement spending; I surely have not. Nonetheless, I believe that the recipients of veteran's benefits ought to receive a COLA--and they can receive such a COLA even as we progress on a path to a balanced budget. We can balance the budget, and simultaneously treat our veterans, and their survivors, with fairness and compassion. This bill is simple and straightforward. It would grant to recipients of certain VA benefits--most notably, veterans with service-connected disabilities who receive VA compensation, and the surviving spouses and children of veterans who have died as a result of service-connected injuries or illnesses, who receive dependency and indemnity compensation--the same COLA that Social Security recipients will receive. So, for example, if Social Security recipients receive a 2.6- percent adjustment at the beginning of next year, then so too would the beneficiaries of VA compensation and DIC. Last year, the committee's COLA bill put into effect certain modifications, as approved by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, on how COLA's are computed. For example, our 1996 COLA contained a ``round down'' feature. To summarize, Mr. President, VA benefits are paid in round dollar amounts. As a result, when a round dollar benefit amount-- say, as an example, the current benefit of $266 per month going to a 30 percent disabled veteran--is multiplied by a consumer price index percentage of, say, 2.6-percent, it almost invariably yields a mathematical product that is not a round dollar amount. In the case of a $266 benefit check, for example, a 2.6-percent increase would yield a nonrounded number of $272.92. VA practice, in the past, has been to ``round up'' fractional dollar amounts of $0.50 or more, and ``round down'' fractional dollar amounts of $0.49 or less. So, in the above case, a 30-percent disabled veteran would get a monthly check next year of $273 under past practice. Last year's COLA bill directed VA to ``round down'' in all cases, so, in the above example, a 30-percent disabled veteran would get a monthly check of $272. It may happen, Mr. President, that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will again elect to direct that VA ``round down'' as part of a package of measures approved to reach whatever reconciliation targets Congress ultimately adopts. Indeed, it is, perhaps, likely that we will approve such a measure since rounding down is a relatively painless way to achieve some fairly significant savings over the long term. Such a measure--which would cost no VA beneficiary more than $1 per month--would save, according to the Congressional Budget Office, almost $500 million over a 6-year period. Be that as it may, Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will ``cross the bridge'' of identifying how it will meet its reconciliation targets once it has received those targets. In the meantime, I want to assure all by the introduction of this COLA bill that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs fully anticipated approving a COLA bill this year--just as it did last year when I was honored to assume the chairmanship of the committee. The rounding down provision that the committee approved last year serves as an excellent example of the sort of measures that are available to assist in balancing the budget. I do not suggest that it will be easy to reach that goal. But the availability of real savings from measures like a simple rounding down of a COLA ought to strengthen the resolve of each of us to get that vital job done. In the Veterans' Committee, we expect that we will be directed to find ways to reduce the growth in VA's mandatory budget accounts by over $5 billion in 6 years. We will find ways to meet that goal. And no veteran, or veterans' survivor, will suffer inordinate harm as a result. Despite the inaccurate, unfair, unfounded, and, yes, partisan pronouncements of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and despite what veterans, and Senators, have heard from service organizations, ``crying wolf,'' we will not cut veterans benefits. We never have. We do not need to cut veterans benefits in order to balance the budget. Nor do we need to endure the cuts--real cuts, not just reductions in the growth rate--in veterans health care spending proposed by the President in order to achieve a balanced budget. We can keep faith with our veterans and balance the budget. As Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, that is what I intend to do. Mr. President, I appreciate the time that has been afforded me to address this subject. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to introduce, and comment briefly on, legislation to grant to recipients of compensation, and dependency and indemnity compensation [DIC] benefits, from the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] a cost of living adjustment [COLA] increase to take effect at the beginning of next year. This legislation is appropriate and warranted--even as we proceed this very week to debate budget reconciliation. Mr. President, let me assure this body that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will meet the reconciliation targets that the Congress ultimately adopts. Indeed, I expect that I will offer amendments to this bill--with the bipartisan support of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs--once we receive reconciliation instructions from the Congress as an whole. No one need fear that I have lost my zeal for gaining control over entitlement spending; I surely have not. Nonetheless, I believe that the recipients of veteran's benefits ought to receive a COLA--and they can receive such a COLA even as we progress on a path to a balanced budget. We can balance the budget, and simultaneously treat our veterans, and their survivors, with fairness and compassion. This bill is simple and straightforward. It would grant to recipients of certain VA benefits--most notably, veterans with service-connected disabilities who receive VA compensation, and the surviving spouses and children of veterans who have died as a result of service-connected injuries or illnesses, who receive dependency and indemnity compensation--the same COLA that Social Security recipients will receive. So, for example, if Social Security recipients receive a 2.6- percent adjustment at the beginning of next year, then so too would the beneficiaries of VA compensation and DIC. Last year, the committee's COLA bill put into effect certain modifications, as approved by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, on how COLA's are computed. For example, our 1996 COLA contained a ``round down'' feature. To summarize, Mr. President, VA benefits are paid in round dollar amounts. As a result, when a round dollar benefit amount-- say, as an example, the current benefit of $266 per month going to a 30 percent disabled veteran--is multiplied by a consumer price index percentage of, say, 2.6-percent, it almost invariably yields a mathematical product that is not a round dollar amount. In the case of a $266 benefit check, for example, a 2.6-percent increase would yield a nonrounded number of $272.92. VA practice, in the past, has been to ``round up'' fractional dollar amounts of $0.50 or more, and ``round down'' fractional dollar amounts of $0.49 or less. So, in the above case, a 30-percent disabled veteran would get a monthly check next year of $273 under past practice. Last year's COLA bill directed VA to ``round down'' in all cases, so, in the above example, a 30-percent disabled veteran would get a monthly check of $272. It may happen, Mr. President, that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will again elect to direct that VA ``round down'' as part of a package of measures approved to reach whatever reconciliation targets Congress ultimately adopts. Indeed, it is, perhaps, likely that we will approve such a measure since rounding down is a relatively painless way to achieve some fairly significant savings over the long term. Such a measure--which would cost no VA beneficiary more than $1 per month--would save, according to the Congressional Budget Office, almost $500 million over a 6-year period. Be that as it may, Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will ``cross the bridge'' of identifying how it will meet its reconciliation targets once it has received those targets. In the meantime, I want to assure all by the introduction of this COLA bill that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs fully anticipated approving a COLA bill this year--just as it did last year when I was honored to assume the chairmanship of the committee. The rounding down provision that the committee approved last year serves as an excellent example of the sort of measures that are available to assist in balancing the budget. I do not suggest that it will be easy to reach that goal. But the availability of real savings from measures like a simple rounding down of a COLA ought to strengthen the resolve of each of us to get that vital job done. In the Veterans' Committee, we expect that we will be directed to find ways to reduce the growth in VA's mandatory budget accounts by over $5 billion in 6 years. We will find ways to meet that goal. And no veteran, or veterans' survivor, will suffer inordinate harm as a result. Despite the inaccurate, unfair, unfounded, and, yes, partisan pronouncements of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and despite what veterans, and Senators, have heard from service organizations, ``crying wolf,'' we will not cut veterans benefits. We never have. We do not need to cut veterans benefits in order to balance the budget. Nor do we need to endure the cuts--real cuts, not just reductions in the growth rate--in veterans health care spending proposed by the President in order to achieve a balanced budget. We can keep faith with our veterans and balance the budget. As Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, that is what I intend to do. Mr. President, I appreciate the time that has been afforded me to address this subject. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am so very proud to join my colleagues in the centrist coalition in declaring my support for this bipartisan budget resolution. Everyone in this Chamber should take a close look at our amendment. Reading this plan will be a frustrating and vexing experience for the critics who are always anxious to label legislation as ``extreme'' or ``timid'' or ``too conservative'' or ``too liberal.'' None of those tired old labels apply to this budget resolution. This is truly a blueprint for a mainstream budget. It is the product of many weeks and months of compromise and negotiation and good old- fashioned ``give and take.'' On issue after issue, Republicans and Democrats in the centrist coalition have resolved areas of disagreement by ``splitting the difference'' or ``meeting each other halfway.'' That is what legislating is all about. For every element of this plan that Republicans don't like, there is another provision that is equally troubling to Democrats. Under this budget resolution, neither party would score a clear ``political win''--but the Congress as a whole and, more importantly, the American people would benefit tremendously if we adopt this mainstream approach to balancing the budget. The most striking feature of our plan is that we do not shy away from correcting the inaccuracies in the Consumer Price Index [CPI]. We now have almost universal agreement that the procedures currently used for calculating the CPI are flawed, thereby resulting in a CPI that overstates inflation, according to the ``experts,'' by at least seven- tenths of a percentage point and perhaps as much as 2 percentage points. Yet neither Republicans nor Democrats want to be the first to include a CPI correction in its budget. By advancing such a correction in a bipartisan budget, neither party will receive the full blame or the full credit, depending on how the public responds, for addressing this issue. It is no secret that the American Association of Retired Persons [AARP] and other seniors groups are almost violently opposed to a correction of the CPI. But we haven't heard yet from the masses of working people who will continue to ``pick up the tab'' for as long as we continue to use an overstated CPI. We may well be pleasantly surprised by the public's reaction when they find out that we can save $126 billion--as this centrist coalition plan proposes--by adopting a modest five-tenths of a percent reduction in the CPI over the next 7 years. This reduction is well below the official range, which extends from 0.7 to 2.0, by which the experts tell us the CPI is overstated. We adopt this modest figure precisely because we want to make clear that our motivation is to have an accurate CPI--and that our actions are not driven solely by budgetary pressures. Nonetheless, it is impossible to ignore the fact that this step would save $126 billion over 7 years and, furthermore, that this represents $126 billion we would not have to cut from education, child care, health care, transportation, infrastructure, and other important priorities as we work to balance the budget. It seems to me that all 100 Members of the Senate would leap in unison at the chance to embrace this provision, as well as the broader package we are proposing. Being a realistic creature, however, I would be satisfied if only 51 of us do so on this particular vote. I urge my colleagues to join us in this bipartisan effort.