Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000

SENIOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 2000

H.R.5

PUBLIC LW106-182 106TH CONGRESS

REPORTS, BILLS, DEBATES, AND ACT

Social Security Administration SENIOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 2000

HR. 5

PUBLIClAW 106-182 106TH CONGRESS

REPORTS, BILLS, DEBATES, AND ACT

SocialSecurityAdministration

Officeof the Deputy Commissioner for Legislation and Congressional Affairs PREFACE

This 1-volume compilation contains historical documents pertaining to P.L. 106-182, the "Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000." The book contains congressional debates, a chronological compilation of documents pertinent to the legislative history of the public law and listings of relevant reference materials.

Pertinent documents include:

o Differing versions of key bills o Committee reports o Excerpts from the Congressional Record o The Public Law

This history is prepared by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Legislation and Congressional Affairs and is designed to serve as a helpful resource tool for those charged with interpreting laws administered by the Social Security Administration. TABLE OF CONTENTS

SENIOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 2000

House Action on H.R. 5

A. H.R. 5, "Senior Citizens' Freedom To Work Act of 1999," as introduced—March 1, 1999

B. Committee on Ways and Means Report

House Report No. 106-5 07 (to accompany H.R. 5)—March 1, 2000

C. Committee on Ways and Means reported bill -March 1, 2000

D. House Debate on H.R. 5--Congressional Record--March_1, 2000

E. House-Passed Bill—March 1, 2000

II. Senate Action on H.R. 5

A. H.R. 5 as received in the Senate—March 2, 2000

B. Senate Debate on H.R. 5—Congressional Record—March 21- 22, 2000

C. H.R. 5 as passed by Senate (Engrossed)—March 22, 2000

III.House Action on Senate passed bill

A. House Debate --CongressionalRecord—March 28, 2000

B. House agreed to H.R. 5—Congressional Record—March 28, 2000 IV H.R. 5asFinally Approved by the House and Senate (Enrolled)

V. Public Law

A. Public Law 106-182,106thCongress—April7, 2000

B. President Signing Statement

APPENDIX

A. Administrative Views letter—March 29, 2000

B. Legislative Bulletins

1. Legislative Bulletin No. 106-16 (SSAIODCLCA), House Committee on Ways and Means Marks Up H.R. 5— February 29, 2000

2. Legislative Bulletin No. 106-17 (SSAIODCLCA), House Passes H.R. 5—March 1, 2000

3. Legislative Bulletin No. 106-18 (SSAIODCLCA), Senate Passes H.R. 5—March 23, 2000

4. Legislative Bulletin No. 106-19 (SSAIODCLCA), House Passed H.R. 5, the "Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000"—March 29, 2000

5. Legislative Bulletin No. 106-20 (SSAIODCLCA), The President Signs H.R. 5—April 7, 2000

C. 5. 279, "Senior Citizens' Freedom To Work Act of 1999," as introduced—-January 21, 1999--(similar to H.R. 5)

106TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S •

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the earnings test for individuals who have attained retirement age.

IN TIlE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATWES

M.ARCH 1, 1999 Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. SEssIONs,Mr. ROIABACHER, Mr.Goss,Mr.McCOLLUM,Mr. CUNNINGHAM,Mr.ENGLISH,Mr.PAUL,Mr. UNDERWOOD, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. HoRN, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. MCCRERY, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. NEY, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. L0BIONDO,Ms.RiVERS,Mr. GREEN ofTexas,Mr.KING,Mr. MCINTOSH,Mrs.MYRJCK,Mr.TAYLOR ofNorthCarolina,Mr. KUYINDALL, Mr. WELLER, Mr. ROGERS, Mr. BTON of Texas, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr.TERRY, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania,Mr. SOUDER, Ms. DUNN, Mr. Batu)Y of Texas, Mr. TLAI-IRT, Mr. STUMP, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mrs. B0N0, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. PAcIcD, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. METCALF, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. BLILEY, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. SWEENEY, Mr. DREIER, and Mr. HASTINGS of Washington) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the earnings test for individuals who have attained retirement age.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 2

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the "Senior Citizens' Free- 3 dom to Work Act of 1999".

4 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EARNINGS TEST FOR rNDIvm-

5 UALSWHO HAVE ATTAINED RETIREMENT

6 AGE.

7 Section203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

8403) is amended—

9 (1) in subsection (c)(1), by strikiig "the age of 10 seventy" and inserting "retirement age (as defined

11 in section 216(1))"; 12 (2) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2) of subsection

13 (d), by strildng "the age of seventy" each place it 14 appears and inserting "retirement age (as defined in

15 section 216(1))"; 16 (3) in subsection (f)(1)(B), by striking "was 17 age seventy or over" and inserting "was at or above

18 retirement age (as defined in seetion 216(1))";

19 (4) in subsection (f)(3)— 20 (A) by striking "33½ percent" and all 21 that follows through "any other individual," 22 and inserting "50 percent of such individual's 23 earnings for such year in excess of the product 24 of the exempt amount as determined under 25 paragraph (8),"; and

.HR5 m 3 inserting 1 (B) by striking "age 70" and

2 "retirement age (as defined in section216(1))";

3 (5) in subsection (h)(1)(A), bystriking "age

4 70" each place it appears andinserting "retirement

5 age (as defined insection 216(1))"; and

6 (6) in subsection W—

7 (A) in the heading, by striking"Age Sev-

8 enty" and inserting "RetirementAge"; and

9 (B) by striking "seventy years ofage" and

10 insertIng "having attained retirement age(as

11 defined in section 216(1))".

12 SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTSELIMINATING TilE

13 SPECIAL EXEMPT AMOUNT FORINDIVIDUALS

14 WHO HAVE ArrAINED RETIREMENTAGE.

15 (a) UNIFORM ExEMPT AMOUNT.—Section 16 203(f)(8)(A)of theSocialSecurity Act(42 U.S.C. 17 403(f)(8)(A)) is amended bystriking "the new exempt 18 amounts (separately stated forindividuals described in 19 subparagraph (D) and for otherindividuals) which are to 20 be applicable" and inserting "a newexempt amount which

21shall be applicable".

22 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 23 203(f)(8)(B)of theSocialSecurity Act (42U.S.C. 24 403(f)(8)(B)) is amended—

.ER5 lB 4

1 (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by strik- 2 ing "Except" and all that follows through "which-

3 ever" and inserting "The exempt amount which is 4 applicable for each month of a particular taxable

5 yearshall be whichever";

6 (2)in clauses(i) and(ii), by striking "cor- 7 responding" each place it appears; and

8 (3) in the last sentence, by striking "an exempt 9 amount" and inserting "the exempt amount".

10 (c) REPEAL OF BASIS FOR COMPUTATION OF SPE- 11 ciiEXEMPTAMOUNT.—Section 203(f)(8)(D) of the So- 12cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(D)) is repealed.

13SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

14 (a) ELIMINATION OF REDUNDANT REFERENCES TO 15 RETIREMENT AGE.—Section 203 of the Social Security 16 Act (42 U.S.C. 403) is amended— 17 (1) in subsection (c),in the last sentence, by 18 striking "nor shall any deduction" and all that fol- 19 lows and inserting "nor shall any deduction be made 20 under this subsection from any widow's or widower's 21 insurance benefit if the widow, surviving divorced 22 wife, widower, or surviving divorced husband in- 23 volved became entitled to such benefit prior to at- 24 taming age 60."; and

.H:R5m 5

1 (2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking clause (D)

2 and inserting the following: "(D) for which such in-

3 dividual is entitled to widow's or widower's insurance

4 benefits if such individual became so entitled prior

5 toattaining age 60,".

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO PROVISIONS FOR 7 DETERMINING AMOUNT OF INCREASE ONACCOUNT OF

8 DELAYED RETIREMENT .—Section 202(w)(2) (B) (ii) of the

9SocialSecurity Act(42 U.S.C.402(w)(2)(B)(ii))is 10 amended—

11 (1) by striking "either"; and

12 (2) by striking "or suffered deductions under

13 section 203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal to the

14 amount of such benefit".

15 (c)PROVISIONS RELATING TO ENINGSTAiciN

16 INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING SUBSTANTIALGAiNFUL

17 ACTIVITY OF BLIND INDrvIDUALS.—Thesecond sentence

18of section 223(d)(4) of such Act (42U.S.C. 423(d)(4))

19is amended by striking "if section 102 of theSenior Citi- 20 zens' Right to Work Act of 1996 had notbeen enacted" 21 and inserting the following: "if theamendments to section 22 203 made by section 102 of theSenior Citizens' Right

23to Work Act of 1996 and by theSenior Citizens' Freedom 24 to Work Act of 1999 had not beenenacted".

.HR5 LU 6

1 SEC. 5.EFFECTIVEDATE. 2 The amendments and repeals made by this Act shall

3apply with respect to taxable years ending after December 4 31, 1998. 0

.HR5 lB

106TH CONGRESS I REPORT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SENIOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 2000

MARCH 1, 2000.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. ARCHER, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the following REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 51

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 5) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the earnings test for individuals who have attained retirement age, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. CONTENTS Page I. Introduction 3 A. Purpose and Summary 3 B. Background and Need for Legislation 3 C. Legislative History 4 II. Explanation of Provisions 5 Section 1. Short Title 5 Section 2. Elimination of the earnings test for individuals who have attained retirement age 5 III. Votes of the Committee 7 IV. Budget Effects of the Bill 7 A. Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects 7 B. Statement Regarding New Budget Authority and Tax Expendi- tures 7 C. Cost Estimate Prepared by the Congressional Budget Office 8 V. Other Matters Required to be Discussed Under the Rules of the House 10 A. •CommitteeOversight Findings and Recommendations 10 B. Summary of Findings and Recommendations of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee 11 C. Inflationary Impact Statement 11 VI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported 11 The amendment is as follows:

79—006 2 Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieuthereof the following: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Senior Citizens' Freedomto Work Act of 2000". SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EABNLNGS TEST FOR INDIVIDUALSWHO RAVE ATrAJNED RETIRE- MENT AGE. Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) is amended— (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking "the age of seventy" and inserting"retirement age (as defined in section 216(1))"; (2) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2) of subsection (d), by striking "theage of seventy" each place it appears and inserting "retirementage (as defined in section 216(1))"; (3) in subsection (fXl)(B), by striking "wasage seventy or over" and inserting "was at or above retirement age (as defined in section 216(1))"; (4) in subsection (f)(3)._. (A)by striking "33½ percent" and all that follows through "any otherindividual," and inserting "50 percent of such individual's earningsfor such year in excess of the product of the exempt amount as determined under paragraph (8),"; and (B) by striking "age 70" and inserting "retirementage (as defined in section 216(1))"; (5) in subsection (h)(1)(A), by striking "age 70" each place itappears and inserting "retirement agc (as defined in section 216(1))"; and (6) in subsection (j)_ (A) in the heading, by striking "Age Seventy" and inserting "Retirement Age"; and (B) by striking "seventy years of age" and inserting "having attainedretirement age (as defined in section 216(1))". SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS ELIMINATING TE EXEMPTAMOUNT FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE AVAINED RETIRrdSIENT AGE. (a) UNIFORM EXEMPT AMOUNT.—Section 203(f)(8)(A) of the Social SecurityAct (42 U.S.C. 403(fX8)(A)) is amended by striking "thenew exempt amounts (separately stated for individuals described in subparagraph (D) and forother individuals) which are to be applicable" and inserting "anew exempt amount which shall be applicable". (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 203(f)(8)(B) of the Social SecurityAct (42 U.S.C. 403(fX8)(B)) is amended— (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking "Except" and all thatfollows through "whichever" and inserting "The exemptamount which is applicable for each month of a particular taxable year shall be whichever"; (2) in clause (i), by striking "corresponding"; (3) in clause (ii), in the matter preceding subclause (I), by striking"corresponding" and all that follows through "individuals)"and inserting "exempt amount which is in effect with respect to months in the taxableyear ending after 1993 and before 1995 with respect to individuals who havenot attarned retirement age (as defined in section 216(1))"; (4) in subclause (II) of clause (ii), by striking "2000" and allthat follows and inserting "1992,"; and (5) in the last sentence, by striking "an exempt amount" andinserting "the exempt amount". (c) REPEAL OF BASIS FOR COMPUTATION OF EXEMPT AIOUNTAFFECTING INDIVID- UALS WHO HAVE ArFAIND RETIREMENT AGE.—Section 203(fX8)(D) of theSocial Se- curity Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(D)) is repealed. SEC. 4.ADDITIONALCONFORMING AMENDMENTS. (a)ELIMINATION OF REDUNDANT REFERENCES TO RETIREMENTAGE—Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) is amended— (1) in subsection (c), in the last sentence, by striking "nor shallany deduction" and all that follows and inserting "nor shallany deduction be made under this subsection from any widow's or widower's insurance benefitif the widow, surviving divorced wife, widower, or surviving divorced husbandinvolved became entitled to such benefit prior to attainingage 60."; and (2) rn subsection (0(1), by striking clause (D) and inserting thefollowing: "(D) for which such individual is entitled to widow'sor widower's insurance benefits if such indwidual became so entitled prior to attainingage 60,". 3

AMENDMENT TO PROVISIONS FOR DETERMININGAMOUNT OF IN- (b)CONFORMING RErIREMENT.Section 202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of theSo- CREASE ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYED cial Security Act (42 U.S.C.402(w)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended— (1) by striking "either"; axd (2) by striking "or suffered deductionsunder section 203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal to the amount of suchbenefit". TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING (c) PROVISIONS RELATING TO EARNINGS of SUBSTANTIAL GAINFUL ACTIVITY OFBLIND INDIVIDUALS.—The second sentence section 223(d)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C.423(d)(4)) is amended by striking "if section Work Act of 1996 had not beenenacted" and 102 of the Senior Citizens' Right to to section 203 made by section102 of inserting the following: "if the amendments Freedom the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Actof 1996 and by the Senior Citizens' to Work Act of 2000 had not beenenacted". SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. with (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendmentsaxd repeals made by this Act shall apply December 31, 1999. respect to taxable years ending after RETIREMENT (b) SPECIAL RULE APPLICABLE TOINDIVIDUALS WHO ATTAIN NORMAL ENDING AFFER DECEMBER 31,1999.—Sec- AGE DURING THE FIRST TAXABLE YE prior to the tions 202 and 203 of the SocialSecurity Act, as in effect immediately amendments and repeals made by this Act,shall apply to any individual who at- section 216(1) of such Act) during thefirst tax- tains retirement age (as defined in benefits able year ending after December 31, 1999(and to any person receiving under title II of the Social Security Act onthe basis of the wages and self-employ- but only with respect to earningsfor so much of ment income of such individual), retire- such taxable year as precedes themonth in which such individual attains ment age (as so defined). I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY The "Senior Citizens FreedomTo Work Act of 2000"would eliminate the Social Securityretirement earnings test forseniors who attain the full retirement age(currently age 65, rising to 67 in 2027). The purpose of thelegislation is to remove workdisincen- full retirement and to improvethe fair- tives for seniors who reach would have a ness of the SocialSecurity program. The legislation negligible effect on the long-termfinancial status of the Social Se- curity Trust Funds. B. BACKGROUND AND NEED FORLEGISLATION The Social Security program hasincluded a "retirement earnings test" since its inception in 1935.The earnings test reducesSocial Security benefits for beneficiarieswho continue to work iftheir earnings exceed a specificthreshold, known as the "earningslimit." The earnings limit appliesonly to earnings from wagesand self- employment income; it does notapply to "unearned" income,such as pensions, savingsand investments. The earningstest has been relaxed over time to reflect changesin the workforce but has not been eliminated. Working seniors who lose benefitsbecause of the earnings test receive a delayed retirementcredit (DRC), which increasestheir monthly benefits in the future tohelp compensate them for the loss. On average, seniorsshould receive the same amountof lifetime benefits regardless of whenthey retire. According to the CongressionalBudget Office, 631,000 seniors between the ages of 65 and 69will have some or all oftheir benefits reduced in 2000 because of theearnings test. Thousands morewill deliberately reduce the amount theywork to avoid a benefit reduc- 4 tion. The benefit reduction in 2000 will average approximately $8,000 per retiree affected by the earnings test. After a lifetime of payroll tax contributions, workers havean earned right to their benefits, regardless of economic need. With- holding benefits from seniors simply because they choose to work beyond the full retirement age is unfair, and it discriminates against seniors who need to work to supplement their income. Moreover, the earnings test imposes a risk because many seniors will not live long enough to recover all their lost benefits through the DRC. Lower-income workers and some minorities face the highest risk of losing benefits to which they are entitled because of their shorter life expectancies. Not only is the earnings test unfair, but it adversely affects the economy by discouraging seniors from remaining in the workforce. After accounting for Federal income and payroll taxes, working seniors between the ages of 65 and 69 can face high marginal tax rates as a result of the earnings test. Discouraging work among seniors may have made sense during the Great Depression when unemployment was high, but it makes little sense in today'seco- nomic environment. The retirement of the baby boomers and the aging of the workforce have serious implications for productivity, economic growth and future living standards. As seniors become an increasing share of the population, they should be given the appropriate opportunities and incentives to remain in the workforce, to share their skills and experience with younger workers and to contribute to growth in the economy. Finally, repealing the earnings test will improve the personal and financial well-being of America's senior citizens. As seniors continue to enjoy increased longevity and better health, they should be allowed to work as long as they are willing to doso. Studies have shown that allowing seniors to remain productive in retirement has a positive impact on their health and self-esteem. Moreover, repealing the earnings test would allow seniors the freedom to work without penalty so they can supplement their Social Security benefits. This is particularly important to many lower- and moderate-income retirees who rely more heavilyon earnings from work rather than savings and pensions. C. LEGISLATWE HISTORY On February 15, 2000, the Subcommittee on Social Security held a public hearing on improving Social Security work incentives, which focused on the effects of repealing the Social Securityearn- ings test for working seniors who reach the full retirementage as provided in H.R. 5, which was introduced by Mr. Sam Johnson and Mr. Collin Peterson on March 1, 1999. The Subcommittee received testimony in support of repealing the earnings test from the Com- missioner of Social Security as well as senior advocates,economists, academics, business representatives, and senior citizens. In addition, during the first session of the 106th Congress, the Sub- committee and the Full Committee on Ways and Means held numerous hearings on Social Security reform proposals that included provisions to eliminate the earnings test. 5 On February 16, 2000, the Subcommittee onSocial Security ordered favorably reported to the full CommitteeH.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000, as amended,by a unanimous voice vote, with a quorumpresent. On February 29, 2000, the Full Committee on Waysand Means ordered favorably reported to the House H.R. 5, theSenior Citi- zens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000, as amended,by a unanimous voice vote, with a quorum present. II. EXPLANATION OF PROVISIONS SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE The short title of the bill is the SeniorCitizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000. SECTION 2. ELIMINATION OF THE EARNINGS TEST FORrNDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ATI'ArNED RETIREMENT AGE Present law Working seniors who reach the full retirement age(currently 65 in 2000, rising to 67 by 2027) receive abenefit reduction if their earnings from wages and self-employment incomeexceed a specific threshold, or "earnings limit." In 2000, the earningslimit for working seniors age 65 and older is $17,000.Social Security benefits are reduced by $1 for every $3 of earnings in excessof the limit. Legis- lation passed in 1996 will increase the earningslimit to $25,000 in 2001 and to $30,000 in 2002. Thereafter, thelimit will increase with average wage growth in the economy.Seniors are exempt from the earnings test once they reach age 70.A separate earnings test applies to working seniors who retirebefore the full retirement age.' The earnings test only applies to theOld-Age and Survivors Insurance Program. Explanation of provision The proposal would exempt workingseniors from the earnings test once they reach the full retirement age. Reason for change According to the Congressional Budget Office,631,000 non-disabled beneficiaries age 65 through 69 lose some orall of their So- cial Security benefits as a result of the earnings test.Many more are negatively impactedbecause they deliberately hold their earnings below the limit to avoid the penalty.Withholding benefits from working seniors is inconsistent with thefact that workers are entitled to their Social Security benefitsregardless of economic need. Moreover, the earnings test penalizesseniors who want or need to work during retirement to supplementtheir Social Security benefits. The penalty discourages many seniorsfrom working as much as they otherwise would, thus reducingtheir personal and financial well-being. Discouraging work among seniorsalso has serious implications for productivity,economic growth and future living

'Working seniors who retire before the full retirement age lose $1 ofSocial Security benefits for every $2 of earnings in excess of the earnings limit. The limit is$10,080in2000. It increases annually with average wage growth. 6 standards. Given the impending retirement of the Baby Boom generation and the implications for economic growth, we need to take steps now to encourage older workers to remain in the work force. Eliminating the earnings test for seniors who reach the full retirement age would also reduce Social Security Administration administrative costs and reduce the number of inaccurate benefit payments each year. The Social Security Administration estimates that the cost of administering the earnings test for those age 65 through 69 is approximately $70 million annually. [Section 3 of the legislation makes several technical and conforming amendments required by the repeal of the earnings limit.] SECTION 4. ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS Presentlaw Seniors who reach the full retirement age and do not receive benefits (either because they don't file for benefits or because benefits are withheld under the earnings test) receive a delayed retirement credit (DRC) to partially compensate them for the loss. The DRC increases the worker's Social Security benefit for each month that benefits are fully withheld. The DRC is 6 percent per year for workers age 65 in 2000. It will increase by 0.5 percentage points every two years until reaching 8 percent for seniors reaching the full retirement age (then age 66) in 2009, at which point, the DRC will be "actuarially fair." In other words, on average, the DRC should fully compensate workers for benefits withheld under the earnings test. The earnings test and the delayed retirement credit only apply to the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance program. The Social Secu- rity Act contains a separate earnings threshold, called the substantial gainful activity (SGA) level, which applies only to the Dis- ability Insurance program. Workers with earnings above the SGA level are ineligible for disability benefits. In 2000, the SGA level for non-blind individuals with disabilities is $700 per month. This level is set by regulation. In 2000, the SGA level for individuals who are blind is $1,170 per month. This level increases annually with average wage growth in the economy as established in statute. Explanation of the provision The provision makes conforming changes to eliminate the DRC for working seniors who would have had benefits withheld under the earnings test if the legislation were not enacted. The DRC is retained for seniors who choose to delay benefit application beyond the full retirement age. The provision makes several other conforming amendments relating to the SGA level for the blind and provisions made redundant by the repeal of the earnings test. Reason for change The DRC is repealed for seniors who have reached the full retirement age because t;hey will receive their full Social Security benefits regardless of their earnings from work. As a result, there is no need to compensate seniors for lost benefits because they will no longer be penalized for working. Because of the interaction between 7 the earnings test and the DRC, the cost ofrepealing the earnings test is fully recovered over time. Consequently,repealing the earnings test has a negligible long-term impact onSocial Security's financial solvency. In addition, there is no impact on theestimated date of the Trust Funds' depletion or the date whenbenefit outlays exceed income. This provision ensures that the current lawsubstantial gainful activity level for the blind is maintained and willcontinue to be wage-indexed in the future. SECTION 5. EFFECTiVE DATE Sections2 through 4 (which lower the earnings test exempt age from 70 to the full retirement age and makeconforming amendments) are effective for taxable years after December31, 1999. A special rule is provided for seniors who reach thefull retirement age in 2000. The special rule retainsthe $17,000 earnings limit and the 33½ percent withholding rate for seniorswho reach the full retirement age in 2000, ensuring thatthey will not be affected by the more stringent earnings test whichapplies to early retirees. Once the worker attains the full retirement age,the earnings test will no longer apply. ifi. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of theRules of the House of Representatives, the following statements aremade concerning the votes of the Committee on Ways and Meansin its consideration of the bill, H.R. 5, as amended. MOTION TO REPORT THE BILL The bill, H.R. 5, as amended, was orderedfavorably reported by a unanimous voice vote, with a quorumpresent. IV. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL A. COMMITIEE ESTIMATE OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS In compliance with clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of theRules of the House of Representatives, the following statementis made concerning the effects on the budget of the revenueprovisions of the bill, H.R. 5, as reported. The Committee agrees with the estimateprepared by the Con- gressional Budget Office (CBO) which is included below. B. STATEMENT REGABDrNG NEW BUDGET AUmORIrI ANDTAX EXPENDITUTES In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII ofthe Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee states theCommittee bill results in no net increase or decrease in budgetauthority for direct spending programs relative to current law, and no new orincreased tax expenditures. 8

C. COST ESTIMATE PREPARED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, requiring a cost estimate prepared by the Congressiona' Budget Office ("CBO"), the following statement by CBO is provided. U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, March 1, 2000. Hon. BILL ARCHER, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. DEu MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathy Ruffing. Sincerely, B. ANDERSON (For Dan L. Crippen, Director). Enclosure. H.R. 5—Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000 Summary: H.R. 5 would repeat the earnings test that reduces the Social Security benefits of some people between the program's normal retirement age (currently 65) and 69. Under H.R. 5, those individuals could draw their full Socia' Security benefits, regardless of their earnings. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5 would increase direct spending by $3.9 billion in fiscal year 2000, by $19.8 billion over the 2000—2005 period, and by $22.8 billion over the 2000—2010 period. Administrative costs would rise by $35 million in 2000, but fall by $0.7 billion over the 2001—2010 period. Both the benefit payments and administrative expenses for Socia' Security are off-budget. The bill would have no pay-as-you-go impact because legislation affecting the Social Security trust funds is exempt from pay-as-you-go procedures. H.R. 5 would impose no mandates on state, local, or tribal governments or on the private-sector. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 5 is shown in Table 1. The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 650 (Social Security). Basis of estimate: Under current law, for beneficiaries between Social Security's normal retirement age (NRA), now 65, and 69, a dollar of benefits is withheld for every three dollars of earnings above a threshold. Under the Contract With America Advancement Act, that threshold is $17,000 in 2000; it will rise to $25,000 in 2001 and $30,000 in 2002, and climb with average wages thereafter. A stricter test applies to beneficiaries between age 62 (the so- called early retirement age, or ERA) and the NRA; recipients are exempt from the earnings test when they reach age 70. 9

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED BUDGET EFFECTS OF H.R. 5

IByfiscalyear, in billions of dollarsi

2007 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

DIRECT SPENDING

Estimated Outlays Ben- 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 efit Payments 3.9 4.3 3.1 2.7 2.1 1.6

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION ACTION

Estimated Outlays: Ad- —0.1 —0.1 —0.1 —0.1 —0.1 ministrative Costs.... 1') —0.1 —0.1 —0.1 —0.1 Memorandum: Exempt amount under current law (by cal-

endar year, in - 35,880 37,200 38,52039,840 dollars)° 17,00025.000 30,000 31,20032,400 34,560

'less than $50 million. 104—1211. After 2002, th are in- ZThrough 2002, these am the amounts set in the Contract ñth America Advancement Act lPublic Law dexed tn overall wage increases. Note—Outlays represent extra benefits that would be paid loom the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance TrustFund, which is oft-budget. Directspending CBOestimatesthat repealing the earnings test forbeneficiaries over the NRA, effectiveJanuary 1, 2000, would lead to outlays of about $5 billion in that calendar year foradditional Social Security benefits. Only three-quarters of that cost, $3.9billion, would occur in fiscal year 2000 because the bill wouldaffect payments for only nine months of that fiscal year. CBO bases its estimate on data obtained fromthe Social Security Administration's (SSA's) Continuous Work HistorySample. That source has consistently shown thatapproximately 2.4 million beneficiaries between the ages of 65 and 69 haveearnings, although only a minority of them make enough to beaffected by the earnings test. In calendar year 2000, CBO estimatesthat approximately 625,000 people would receive, on average, an extrabenefit of $8,200 under H.R. 5. By 2002, that number wouldshrink to about 400,000 people, collecting on average an extrabenefit of about $10,000. After 2002, an estimated 350,000 to 400,000workers each year would have at least somebenefits withheld under current law and therefore would be affected by the bill. The cost of repeal would decline over timefor several reasons. First, the amount of exempt earnings isscheduled to rise steeply in 2001 and 2002, and thus fewer peoplewould be subject to the test under current law. Second, theNRAwillclimb gradually from 65 to 66 in the next decade, further shrinkingthe number of people affected. Third, the costs will gradually be offsetby savings in the delayed retirement credit (DRC), which boostssubsequent benefits for anyone who defers receiving paymentsfor any months after reaching the NRAbutbefore age 70. Under current law, the DRC will eventually climb to 8 percent of benefitsfor each full year deferred. CBO assumes that most peopleaffected by repeal of the earnings test will apply for benefits at theNRA, thus forfeiting their eventual entitlement to the DRC.Although CBO estimates that H.R. 5 would add to government outlaysin each of the first 10 years, actuaries at the SocialSecurity Administration (SSA) judge that repeal would have only a negligibleeffect on benefits 10 over a 75-year period, because the extra payments will be almost exactly offset by savings in the DRC. In its estimates, CBO does not assume that repeal of the earnings test would substantially affect the labor force participation or earnings of people between the NRA and age 69. In theory, the effect could operate in either direction. Older people who now hold their earnings just below the threshold might work more. But on the other hand, people with high earnings might work less, because they could enjoy the same standard of living by combining a Social Security benefit with reduced earnings. Empirical evidence suggests that, in the past, the earnings test has slightly dampened work by people aged 65 through 69. (A recent study suggests the effect on work hours could be about a 5 percent reduction.) Even the modest effect suggested by that research would fade under current law, because—as the threshold climbs to $30,000—it will affect fewer people's decisions. For purposes of its estimate, CBO assumes enactment in the spring of 2000. Because the bill would be retroactive to January 1, 2000, SSA would have to compute and refund benefits withheld since that date. If enactment occurs later in the year, the proc- essing time could push the fiscal year 2000 costs of $3.9 billion into 2001. That results would have no effect, however, on the aggregate costs of the bill. Spending subject to appropriation H.R. 5 would also affect SSA's administrative costs, which are funded by an annual appropriation. Computing and refunding retroactive benefits for calendar year 2000 would cost approximately $35 million. In later years, however, SSA would save about $65 million annually because it would no longer have to administer the complex earnings test for people over the NRA. Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and Emer- gency Deficit Control Acts sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation that affecth direct spending or receipts. However, provisions that affect the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Dis- ability Insurance trust funds are specifically exempt from these procedures. Therefore, H.R. 5 would have no pay-as-you-go impact. Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 5 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Un- funded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathy Ruffing; Costs to State and Local Governments: Leo Lex; Costs to the Private Sector: Ralph Smith. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. V. OTHER MAFERS REQUIRED TO BE DISCUSSED UNDER THE RULES OF THE HOUSE A. COMMIrrEE ()vERsIGIrr FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the rules of the House of Representatives (relating to oversight findings), the Com- mittee advises that it was a result of the Committee's oversight re- 11 view. On February 15, 2000, theSubcommittee on Social Security held a public hearing on "Improving SocialSecurity Work Incen- tives" which discussed repealing the SocialSecurity earnings test for working seniors who reach the fullretirement age as provided in H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom toWork Act of 2000. B. SuMrvLAitY OF FrNDrNGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSOF THE COMMrITEE ON GOvERNMENT REFORM With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of ruleXII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committeeadvises that no oversight findings or recommendations have beensubmitted to this Com- mittee by the Committee on GovernmentReform with respect to the provisions contained in the bill. C. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT With respect to clause 3(d)(1) of ruleXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives (relating toConstitutional Authority), the Committee states that the Committee's actionin reporting this bill is derived from Article I of the Constitution,Section 8 ("The Con- gress shall have Power To layand collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises ** *"), andfrom the 16th Amendment to the Con- stitution. VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAWMADE BY THE BILL AS REPORTED In compliance with clause 3(e) of ruleXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existinglaw made by the bill, as reported, are shown asfollows (existing law proposed to be omit- ted is enclosed in black brackets, newmatter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change isproposed is shown in roman): SOCIAL SECURITY ACT * * * * * * *

TITLEIl—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, ANDDISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS * * * * * * *

OLD-AGEAND StJRVWORS tNSURANCE BENEFITPAYMENTS Old Age Insurance Benefits SEC. 202. (a) ** * * * * * * * *

Increasein Old-Age Insurance Benefit Amounts onAccount of Delayed Retirement (w)(1) ** * (2)For purposes of this subsection, thenumber of increment months for any individual shall be anumber equal to the total number of the months— 12 (A) which have elapsed after the month before the month in which such individual attained retirementage (as defined in section 2 16(1)) or (if later) December 1970 and prior to the month in which such individual attained age 70, and (B) with respect to which— (i) such individual was a fully insured individual (as defined in section 214(a)), (ii) such individual [either] was not entitled toan old- age insurance benefit [or suffered deductions under section 203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal to the amount of such benefit], and (iii) such individual was not subject to a penalty imposed under section 1129A. * * * * * * *

REDUCTIONOF INSURANCE BENEFITS SEC. 203. (a) ** * * * * * * * * Deductionson Account of Noncovered Work Outside the United States or Failure to Have Child in Care (c) Deductions, in such amounts and at such timeor times as the Commissioner of Social Security shall determine, shall be made from any payment or payments under this title to whichan individual is entitled, until the total of such deductions equals such individual's benefits or benefit under section 202 forany month— (1) in which such individual is under [theage of seventy] retirement age (as defined in section 216(l)) and formore than forty-five hours of which such individual engaged innon- covered remunerative activity outside the United States; * * * * * * * Forpurposes of paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection, a child shall not be considered to be entitled toa child's insurance benefit for any month in which paragraph (1) of section 202(s)applies or an event specified in section 222(b)occurs with respect to such child. Subject to paragraph (3) of such section 202(s),no deduction shall be made under this subsection fromany child's insurance benefit for the month in which the child entitled to such benefit attained the age of eighteen orany subsequent month; [nor shall any deduction be made under this subsection fromany widow's insurance benefit for any month in which the widowor surviving divorced wife is entitled and has not attained retirementage (as defined in section 216(1)) (but only if she becameso entitled prior to attaining age 60), or fromany widower's insurance benefit for any month in which the widower or surviving divorced husband is entitled and has not attained retirementage (as defined in section 216(1)) (but only if he became so entitled prior to attainingage 60).] nor shall any deduction be made under this subsection from any widow's or widower's insurance benefit if the widow, surviving 13 divorced wife, widower, or surviving divorcedhusband involved became entitled to such benefitprior to attaining age 60. * * * * * * *

DeductionsFrom Dependents' Benefits on Accountof Noncovered Work Outside the United States by Old AgeInsurance Beneficiary (d)(1)(A) Deductions shall be made from anywife's, husband's, or child's insurance benefit, based on the wagesand self employment income of an individual entitled toold age insurance benefits, to which a wife, divorced wife, husband,divorced husband, or child is entitled, until the total of such deductionsequals such wife's, husband's, or child's insurance benefit orbenefits under section 202 for any month in which suchindividual is under (the age of seventy] retirement age (as defined in section216(l)) and for more than forty five hours of which such individualengaged in noncovered remunerative activity outside the United States. * * * * * * * (2)Deductions shall be made from any child'sinsurance benefit to which a child who hasattained the age of eighteen is entitled, or from any mother's orfather's insurance benefit to which a person is entitled, until thetota' of such deductions equals suchchild's insurance benefit or benefits ormother's or father's insurance benefit or benefits under section 202 for anymonth in which such child or person entitled tomother's or father's insurance benefitsis married to an individua' under (the ageof seventy] retirement age (as defined in section 216(l)) who is entitled toold-age insurance benefits and for more than forty-five hoursof which such individual engaged in noncovered remunerativeactivity outside the United States. * * * * * * *

Monthsto Which Earnings AreCharged (f) For purposes of subsection (b)— (:1)The amount of an individuaI's excessearnings (as defined in paragraph (3)) shaIl be charged tomonths as follows: There shall be charged to the first monthof such taxable year an amount of his excess earningsequal to the sum of the payments to which he and all other persons(excluding divorced spouses referred to in subsection(b)(2)) are entitled for such month under section 202 on the basisof his wages and self-employment income (or the total of his excessearnings if such excess earnings are lessthan such sum), and the balance,if any, of such excess earnings shaIl becharged to each succeeding month in such year to the extent,in the case of each such month, of the sum of the payments towhich such individual an& all such other persons areentitled for such month under section 202 on the basis of his wagesand self-employment income, until the total ofsuch excess has been so charged.Where an individual isentitled to benefits under section202(a) and other persons (excluding divorced spousesreferred to in subsection (b)(2)) are entitled to benefitsunder section 202(b), (c), or (d) on the basis of the wagesand self-employment income 14 of such individual, the excess earnings of such individual for any taxable year shall be charged in accordance with the provisions of this subsection before the excess earnings of suchper- sons for a taxable year are charged to months in such individual's taxable year. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this paragraph but subject to section 202(s), no part of theex- cess earnings of an individual shall be charged to any month (A) for which such individual was not entitled to a benefit under this title, (B) in which such individual [wasage seventy or over] was at or above retirement age (as defined in section 216(l)), (C) in which such individual, if a child entitled to child's insurance benefits, has attained the age of 18, [(D) for which such individual is entitled to widow's insurance benefits and has not attained retirement age (as defined in section 2 16(1)) (but only if she became so entitled prior to attainingage 60), or widower's insurance benefits and has not attainedretirement age (as defined in section 216(1)) (but only if he became so entitled prior to attaining age 60),] (D) for which such individual is entitled to widow's or widower's insurance benefits if such individual became so entitled prior to attainingage 60, (E)in which such individual did not engage in self-employment and did not render services for wages (determinedas provided in paragraph (5)ofthis subsection) of more than the applicable exempt amount as determined under paragraph (8), if such month is in the taxable year in which occurs the first month after December 1977 that is both (i) a month for which the individual is entitled to benefits under subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), or (h) of section 202 (without having been entitled for the preceding month to a benefit under any other of such subsections), and (ii) a month in which the individual didnot engage in self •employment and did not render services for wages (determined as provided in paragraph (5)) of more than the applicable exempt amount as determined under paraaph (8), or (F) in which such individual did not engage in self-employment and did not render services for wages (determinedas provided in paragraph (5) of this subsection) ofmore than the applicable exempt amount as determined under paragraph (8), in the case of an individual entitled to benefits under section 202(b) or (c) (but only by reason of having a child in hisor her care within the meaning of paragraph (1)(B) of subsection (b) or (c), as may be applicable) or under section 202(d) or (g), if such month is in a year in which such entitlement ends fora reason other than the death of such individual, and such individual is not entitled to any benefits under this title for the month following the month during which such entitlement under section 202(b), (d), or (g) ended. * * * * * * * (3)For purposes of paragraph (1) and subsection (h),an individual's excess earnings for a taxable year shall be [33½percent of his earnings for such year in excess of the product of the applicable exempt amount as determined under paragraph (8) in the case of an individual who has attained (or, but for the individual's death, would have attained) retirementage (as defined in section 216(1)) before the close of such taxableyear, 15 or 50 percent of hisearnings for such year in excess of such product in the case of any other individual,] 50 percentof such individual's earnings for such year in excess of theproduct of the exempt amount as determined underparagraph (8), multi- plied by the number of months in such year, exceptthat, in determining an individual's excess earnings for thetaxable year in which he attains [age 70] retirement age(as defined in section 216(l)), there shall be excluded anyearnings of such individual for the month in which he attains such ageand any subsequent month (with any net earnings or netloss from self- employment in such year being prorated in anequitable manner under regulations of theCommissioner of Social Security). For purposes of the preceding sentence,notwithstanding section 211(e), the number of months in thetaxable year in which an individual dies shall be12. The excess earnings as derived under the first sentence of this paragraph,if not a multiple of $1, shall be reduced to the next lower multipleof $1. * * * * * * * (8)(A)Whenever the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to section 2 15(i) increases benefitseffective with the month of December following a cost-of-livingcomputation quarter he shall also determine and publish in the FederalRegister on or before November 1 of the calendar year in whichsuch quarter occurs [the new exempt amounts(separately stated for individuals described in subparagraph (D) andfor other individuals) which are to be applicable] a new exempt amountwhich shall be applicable (unless prevented frombecoming effective by subparagraph (C)) with respect to taxable years endingin (or with the close of) the calendar year after thecalendar year in which such benefit increase is effective (or, inthe case of an individual who dies during the calendar yearafter the calendar year in which the benefitincrease is effective, with respect to such individual's taxable year which ends, uponhis death, during such year). (B) [Except as otherwise provided insubparagraph (D), the exempt amount which is applicable toindividuals described in such subparagraph and the exempt amountwhich is applicable to other individuals, for each monthof a particular taxable year, shall each be whichever]The exempt amount which is applicable for each month of a particulartaxable year shall be whichever of the following is the larger— (i) the [corresponding] exempt amount whichis in effect with respect to months in the taxable yearin which the determination under subparagraph (A) is made, or (ii) the product of the [corresponding exemptamount which is in effect with respect tomonths in the taxable year ending after 2001 andbefore 2003 (with respect to individuals described in subparagraph (D)) orthe taxable year ending after 1993—andbefore 1995 (with respect to other individuals)] exempt amount which isin effect with respect to months in the taxable yearending after 1993 and before 1995 with respect to individuals whohave not attained retirement age (as defined in section216(l)), and the ratio of— 16 (J) ** * (II)the national average wage index (as so defined) for [2000 (with respect to individuals described in subparagraph (D)) or 1992 (with respect to other individuals)] 1992, withsuch product, if not a multiple of $10, being rounded to the next higher multiple of $10 where such product is a multiple of $5 but not of $10 and to the nearest multiple of $10 in any other case. Whenever the Commissioner of Social Security determines that [an exempt amount] the exempt amount is to be increased in any year under this paragraph, he shall notify the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance within 30 days after the close of the base quarter (as defined in section 215(i)(1)(A)) in such year of the estimated amount of such increase, indicating the new exempt amount, the actuarial estimates of the effect of the increase, and the actuarial assumptions and method- ology used in preparing such estimates. * * * * * * * [(D)Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, the exempt amount which is applicable to an individual who has attained retirement age (as defined in section 2 16(1)) before the close of the taxable year involved shall be— [(i) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1995 and before 1997, $1,041.662/3, [(ii) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1996 and before 1998, $1,125.00, [(iii) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1997 and before 1999, $1,208.33'/3, [(iv) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1998 and before 2000, $1,291.662/3, [(v) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1999 and before 2001, $1,416.662/3, [(vi) for each month of any taxable year ending after 2000 and before 2002, $2,083.33V3, [(vii) for each month of any taxable year ending after 2001 and before 2003, $2,500.00.] * * * * * * * Reportof Earnings to Commissioner of Social Security (h)(1)(A) If an individual is entitled to any monthly insurance benefit under section 202 during any taxable year in which he has earnings or wages, as computed pursuant to paragraph (5) of subsection(f),in excess of the product of the applicable exempt amount as determined under subsection (0(8) times the number of months in such year, s.jch individual (or the individual who is in receipt of such benefit on his behalf) shall make a report to the Commissioner of Social Security of his earnings (or wages) for such taxable year. Such report shall be made on or before the fifteenth day of the fourth month following the close of such year, and shall contain such information and be made in such manner as the Com- missioner of Social Security may by regulations prescribe. Such report need not be made for any taxable year— 17 (i) beginning with or after the month in which suchindividual attained [age 70] retirement age (as defined in section 216(l)),or (ii) if benefit payments for all months (in suchtaxable year) in which such individual is under [age 70] retirement age(as defined in section 216(V) have been suspended under theprovisions of the first sentence of paragraph (3) of thissubsection, unless— (I) such individual is entitled to benefitsunder subsection (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), or (h) of section 202, (II) such benefits are reduced under subsection(a) of this section for any month in such taxable year, and (III) in any such month there is another person whoalso is entitled to benefits under subsection (b), (c), (d),(e), (f), (g), or (h) of section 202 on the basis of the same wages and self-employment income and who does not live inthe same household as suchindividual. The Commissioner of Social Security may grant areasonable exten- sion of time for making the report of earningsrequired in this paragraph if the Commissioner finds that there is valid reasonfor a delay, but in no case may theperiod be extended more than four months. * * * * * * * Attainmentof [Age Seventy] Retirement Age (j) For the purposes of this section, anindividual shall be considered as [seventy years of age] having attainedretirement age (as defined in section 216W) during the entire month inwhich he attains such age. * * * * * * *

DISABILITYINSURANCE BENEFIT PAYMENTS Disability Insurance Benefits SEC. 223. (a) ** * * * * * * * * Definitionof Disability (d)(1) ** * * * * * * * * (4)(A)The Commissioner of Social Security shallby regulations prescribe the criteria for determining when servicesperformed or earnings derived from services demonstrate anindividual's ability to engage in substantial gainful activity.No individual who is blind shall be regarded as having demonstrated anability to engage in substantial gainful activity on the basis of earningsthat do not exceed an amount equal to the exempt amount whichwould be applicable under section 203(0(8), to individuals describedin subparagraph (D) thereof, [if section 102 of the SeniorCitizens' Right to Work Act of 1996 had not been enacted] if theamendments to section 203 made by section 102 of the SeniorCitizens' Right to Work 18 Act of 1996 and by the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000 had not been enacted. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2), an individual whose services or earnings meet such criteria shall, except for purposes of section 222(c), be found not to be disabled. In determining whether an individual is able to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of his earnings, where his disability is sufficiently severe to result in a functional limitation requiring assistance in order for him to work, there shall be excluded from such earnings an amount equal to the cost (to such individual) of any attendant care services, medical devices, equip- ment, prostheses, and similar items and services (not including routine drugs or routine medical services unless such drugs or services are necessary for the control of the disabling condition) which are necessary (as determined by the Commissioner of Social Security in regulations) for that purpose, whether or not such assistance is also needed to enable him to carry out his normal daily functions; except that the amount to be excluded shall be subject to such reasonable limits as the Commissioner of Social Security may prescribe. * * * * * * *

Union Calendar No. 284

106TH CONGRESS 2D SEssIoN I•I• R. [Report No. 106—507]

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate theearnings test for individuals who have attained retirement age.

IN TIlEHOUSEOF REPRESENTATIVES MARCH 1, 1999 Mr. SAi1 JOHNSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. PETERSONof Minnesota, Mr. SESSIONS,Mr.ROHRABA(3HER,Mr. GOSS,Mr.MCCOLLUM,Mr. CUNNIN&HM1, Mr.ENGLISH,Mr.PAUL,Mr. UNDERWOOD, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. HORN, Mr. HOSTETTLER,Mr. MCCRERY, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. NEY, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. BOUCIR,Mr. LOBIONDO,Ms.RIVERS,Mr. GREEN ofTexas,Mr.KING,Mr. MCINTOSH,Mrs.MYRICK,Mr.TAYLOR ofNorthCarolina,Mr. KUYKENDALL, Mr. WELLER, Mr. ROGERS, Mr. BARTONof Texas, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr.TERRY, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania,Mr. SOUDER, Ms. DUNN, Mr. BDY of Texas, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr.STU, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mrs. BoNo, Mr. D00LITTLE, Mr. THORNBERRY,Mr. PACKARD, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. METCALF, Mr.FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. BLILEY, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr.SWEENEY, Mr. DREIER, and Mr. HASTINGS of Washington) introducedthe following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways andMeans

MARCH 1, 2000 Additional sponsors: Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. NETHERCUTT,Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. HERGER, Mr. NUSSLE, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr.COLLINS, Mr. SCHAF- FER, Mr. TA1'CREDO, Mr. FORBES, Mr.EHRLICH, Mr. FOSSELLA, Mr. PETRI, Mrs. FOWLER, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr.POMBO, Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. LINDER, Mrs.EMERSON, Ms. DAN- NER, Mr. FILNER, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. FROST,Mr. BISHOP, Mr. SHAD- EGG, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. MICA, Ms. PRYCEof Ohio, Mr. GARY MILLER of California, Mr. DIcIY, Mr. GORDON, Mr. BAIR,Mr. HANSEN, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. JoNES of NorthCarolina,Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. COBURN, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. EWING,Mr. TALENT, Mr. CLEMENT, Mr. LEACH, Ms. STABENOW, Mrs. NORTHUP,Mr. GOODLING, 2 Mr. BARR of Georgia, Mr. C.avERT, Mr. ABMEY, Mr. BILIItAInS, Mr. SAXTON,Mr. FOLEY,Mr. RILEY, Mr. OSE, Mr. ISARSON, Mr. EVERETT, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. McINnE, Mr. VITTER, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. INNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. GOODE, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. SI\UTH of New Jersey, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. WELDON of Florida,Mr. BACHUS, Mr. WEnER, Mr. SHERwOOD, Mr. HULSHOF, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. RoER, Mr. SUNTNU, Mr. GIUaN, Mr. PoRnw, Mr. BUYER, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. TANNER, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. WALDEN of Oregon, Mrs. ROUICMA, Mr. BASS, Mr. HOUGHTON, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. CRANE, Mr. MCINNIS, Mr. ThOMAS, Mr. SHows, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. WATIaNS, Mr. BALDACCI, Mr. WU, Mr. SHAW, Mr. ARCI-R, Mr. BAit- RETTof Nebraska, Mr. FRANICS of New Jersey, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. FRELINGHLTSEN, Mr. CAMP, Mr. BERRY, Mr. PHELPS, Mr. COMBEST, Mr. PITTS, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. JENIaNS, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. WasH, Mr.RANGEL, Mr. STAmC, Mr. COYNE, Mr. LEViN, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. BEcER1t, Mrs. THUR1, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. WOLF, Mr. HILL of Montana, Mr. MURTI-IA, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. KLECZICA, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. ROGAN, Mr. SALMON, Mr. HAns, Mr. POrvIEROY, Mr. COOKSEY, Mr. BURR of North Carolina, Mr. EDWARDS, .Mr. COOK, Mr. BENTSEN, Mr. WAMP, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. RUSH, Mr. LEwIS of Georgia, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. COBLE, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, and Mr. STRICIaAAND

MARCH 1, 2000 Reportedwith an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed [Stilkeout all afterthe enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] [For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced onMarch1, 1999]

A BILL To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the earnings test for individuals who have attained retirement age.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represent a- 2tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

•}m 5 RH 3

1 SECTION1. SHORT TITLE.

2 ThisAct may be cited as the "SeniorCitizens' Free-

3domto Work Act of 2000".

4 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EARNINGSTEST FOR INDIVIDUALS RETIREMENT AGE. 5 WHO HAVE ATTAINED Act (42 U.S.C. 403) 6 Section 203 of the Social Security

7is amended— striking "the age of 8 (1)in subsection (c)(1), by (as defined in 9 seventy" and inserting "retirement age

10 section216(1))";

11 (2)in paragraphs (1) (A) and(2) of subsection seventy" each place it ap- 12 (d),by striking "the age of (as defined in 13 pearsand inserting "retirement age

14 section216(1))"; striking "was age 15 (3)in subsection (f)(1)(B), by

16 seventyor over" andinserting "was at or above re-

17 tirementage (as defined insection 216(1))";

18 (4)in subsection (f)(3)— percent" and all that 19 (A)by striking "33½ individual," and in- 20 fbllowsthrough "any other individual's earnings 21 serting"50 percent of such product of the ex- 22 fbrsuch year in excess of the under paragraph 23 emptamount as determined

24 (8),";and and inserting "re- 25 (B) by striking "age 70"

26 tirementage (as definedin section 216(1))";

.HR5 RH 4

1 (5)in subsection (h)(1)(A), by striking "age 70"

2 eachplace it appears and inserting "retirement age

3 (asdefined in section 216(l))"; and 4 (6) in subsection (j)—

5 (A) in the heading, by striking "Age 5ev-

6 enty" and inserting "Retirement Age"; and

7 (B) by striking "seventy years of age" and

8 inserting"having attained retirement age (as de-

9 fined in section 216(l))".

10SEC.3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS ELIMINATING THE EX-

11 EMPTAMOUNT FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE

12 ATTAINEDRETIREMENT AGE.

13 (a)UNIFORM EXEMPT Ai1IOUNT.—Section 203W (8) (A)

14ofthe Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.403(f) (8) (A))is 15 amended by striking "the new exempt amounts (separately

16statedJbr individuals described in subparagraph (D) and

17Jbrother individuals) which are to be applicable" and in-

18serting"a new exempt amount which shall be applicable".

19 (b)CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 203(f) (8) (B)

20ofthe Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(B))is

21amended—

22 (1)in the matter preceding claise (i), by strilc- 23 ing"Except" and all that Jbllows through "which- 24 ever"and inserting "The exempt amount which is ap-

'HR5 RH 5

1 plicablefor each month of a particular taxable year

2 shallbe whichever";

3 (2)in clause (i), by striking"corresponding";

4 (3) in clause (ii), in the matterpreceding sub-

5 clause (I), by striking "corresponding"and all that

6 fblkiws through "individuals)" andinserting "exempt

7 amount which is in effect withrespect to months in

8 thetaxable year ending after 1993and before 1995

9 with respect to individuals whohave not attained re-

10 tirementage (as defined insection 21 6(1))";

11 (4)in subcla use (II) of' clause(ii), by striking

12 "2000"and all that follows andinserting "1992,";

13 and

14 (5)in the last sentence, by striking"an exempt

15 amount"and inserting "the exemptamount". OF EXEMPT 16 (c)REPEAL OF BASIS FOR COMPUTATION

17AJioUNT AFFECTING INDrVID UALSWHO HAVE ATTAINED

18RETIREMENTAGE.—Section 203(f) (8) (D) of' theSocial Se-

19curityAct (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(D)) isrepealed.

20SEC. 4. ADDITIONALCONFORMiNG AMENDMENTS. REFERENCES TO 21 (aELIMINATION OF REDUNDANT

22RETIREMENTAGE.—Section 203 of the SocialSecurity Act

23(42U.S.C. 403) is amended— 24 (1)in subsection(c),in the last sentence, by

25 striking "nor shall any deduction"and all that fbl-

.HR5 ER 6

1 lowsand inserting "nor shall any deduction be made

2 underthis subsection from any widow's or widower's

3 insurancebenefit if the widow, surviving divorced

4 wife, widowei, or surviving divorced husband involved

5 became entitled to such benefit prior to attaining age

6 60."; and

7 (2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking clause (D)

8 andinserting the following: "(D) for which such mdi-

9 vidual is entitled to widow's or widower's insurance

10 benefitsif such individual became so entitled prior to

11 attainingage 60, ".

12 (b)CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO PROVISIoNs FOR

13DETERMININGAMOUNT OF INCREASE ON ACCOUNT OF DE-

14LAYEDRETmEi1IENT.—Section 202 (w) (2) (B) (ii) of the So-

15cialSecurityAct (42 U. S. C. 402(w) (2) (B) (ii))is

16amended—

17 (1)by striking "either"; and

18 (2)by striking "or suffered deductions under sec-

19 tion203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal to the amount 20 ofsuch benefit".

21 (c)PROvISIONS RELATING TO EARNINGS TAKEN INTO

22ACCOUNTIN DETERMINING SUBSTANTIAL GAINFUL ACTrV-

23ITYOF BLIND INDIVIDUALS.—The second sentence of section

24223(d)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d) (4)) is amended by 25 striking "if section 102 of the Senior Citizens' Right to

.IIR5 RH 7

1 WorkAct of 1996 had not been enacted" andinserting the

2following:"if the amendments to section 203 madeby sec-

3tion102 of the Senior Citizens' Right toWork Act of 1996 4 and by the Senior Citizens' Freedom toWork Act of 2000 5 had not been enacted".

6SEC. 5. EFFECTIVEDATE.

7 (a) IN OENERAL.—The amendmentsand repeals made

8bythis Act shall apply with respect totaxable years ending 9 after December 31, 1999. WHO 10 (b)SPECIAL RULE APPLICABLE TO INDiVIDUALS FIRST 11ATTAINNORMAL RETIREMENT AGE DURING THE

12TAxABLEYE ENDING AFTER DECEMBER31, 1999.—Sec-

13tions202 and 203 of the SocialSecurity Act, as in effect

14immediatelyprior to the amendments andrepeals made by

15thisAct, shall apply to any individualwho attains retire- during 16mentage (as defined insection 21 6(1 of such Act)

17thefirst taxable year ending afterDecember 31, 1999 (and Social 18toany person receivingbenefits under title II of the

19SecurityAct on the basis of the wagesand self-employment

20incomeof such individual), but onlywith respect to earn-

21ingsfor so much of such taxable year asprecedes the month

22inwhich such individual attainsretirement age (as so de-

23fined,).

.IIR5 RH Union Calendar No. 284

1OGTII CONGRESS 2D SES1ON II• R [Report No. 106—507] A BILL To amend titleII of the Social Seern'ity Act to eliminate the earnings test for mdwiduals who have attained retirement age.

MA111 1, 2000 Reported vitIi an arncn(lrnent, conimittcd to the Corn— init.tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered tobeprinted

H580 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE March 1, 2000 SENIOR CITIZENS FREEDOM TO Freedom to Work Act. It is important WORK ACT legislation for our seniors. (Mr. EDWARDS asked and was given Seniors between the ages of 65 and 69 permission to address the House for 1currently will lose a dollar's worth of minute.) their Social Security benefits for every Mr. EDWARDS. Mr.Speaker, we$3 they earned over $17,000. Senior citi- should reward work, not punish work.zens should not be penalized for work- We should honor citizens who work.ing. It is unconscionable for this Gov- not tax them. That is why I urge theernment to take away these hard- House today to pass a bill to let seniorsearned benefits. work without losing any Social Secu- During the Great Depression, unem- ploymentexceeded 25 percentand rity benefits. wages were plummeting. In1935.it It is unfair under present law thatmade sense to create a disincentive for 800,000 of our seniors in America lose $1older workers in order to create jobs in Social Security benefits for every $3for new workers, but this policy is no they earn. The Seniors Citizens Free-longer needed. dom to Work Act deserves our support More than 800,000 working senior citi- today. Then, in the days ahead, thiszens lose part or all of their Social Se- Congress should move forward to usecurity benefits due to this obsolete pro- our surplus to protect Social Securityvision. Today, we will have an oppor- and Medicare and we should fight totunity to remove the earnings limit. bring down the high cost of prescrip- I am glad that the President is on tion drugs for our seniors. board and that he will be able to sign Our seniors have made this a betterthis legislation after we pass it. Ending country. They have earned our support.the earnings limit is good policy for They deserve our respect and our vote.America. It is good for our seniors; it is the right thing to do.

1030 MAKING IN ORDER AT ANY TIME CONSIDERATION OF H.R.5, SEN- IOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO ENDING THE EARNINGS LIMIT WORK ACT OF 1999 (Mr. KUYKENDALL asked and was Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- given permission to address the Housemous consent that it be in order at any for 1 minute.) time to consider in the House without Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr.Speaker.intervention of any point of order the today I rise in support of H.R. 5, whichbill (H.R. 5) to amend title II of the So- is coming up later, the Senior Citizenscial Security Act to eliminate the March 1, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE H581 earnings test for individuals who haveported. While there has been a lot of However, I am disappointed that Con- attained retirement age; the bill bediscussion about the possibility that agress is passing this important reform considered as read for amendment; thestronger economywillreducethewithout at least confronting the im- amendment recommended by the Com-shortfalls facing Social Security, thepact the change is going to have on the mittee on Ways and Means now printedTechnical Panel warned us that thetrust fund. Like it or not. election year in the bill be considered as adopted; theprojected shortfall could increase asor not, sooner or later this House, this bill,as amended, be debatable for2 life expectancy increases faster thanCongress, this Nation must address the hours, equally divided and controlledexpected. financial crisis that looms over Social by the chairman and ranking minority The panel also made a variety of use-Security. The longer we wait,the member of the Committee on Ways andful recommendations about additionaltougher the choices are going to be. Means; and the previous question beinformation that should be included in The legislation we pursue today must considered as ordered on the bill,asthe trustees' report regarding the sizebecome one part of a comprehensive re- amended, to final passage without in-of the unfunded liability and other in-form package. There are no shortage of tervening motion except one motion toformation illustrating the nature ofreform options. There is the one that I recommit with or without instructions.the problem in greater detail. Thismentioned myself that the gentieman The SPEAKER protempore(Mr.type of information would improve thefrom Texas and I have proposed. The LAHOOD). Is there objection to the re-quality of the Social Security debategentleman from Texas (Mr. ARCHER) quest of the gentleman from Florida? tremendously. because the facts of theand the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker,re-debate would be more clearly estab-SHAW) have another one. The gen- serving the right to object, I will notlished and stated. tleman from Michigan (Mr. SMITH), the object. I strongly support repeal of the Finally, the panel made several rec-gentleman from Ohio(Mr.KASICH). Social Security earnings limit and doommendations for the evaluation ofthose are just a few of the reform pro- not intend to unduly delay action onSocial Security reform proposals. Inposals that have been offered in this this bill. In fact, repeal of the earningsparticular the panel suggested that weHouse but have yet to come to the limit has been part of the comprehen-should look beyond simply determiningfloor, have yet to be really debated. sive Social Security reform legislationwhether or not a plan restores trustWhat we lack is will and leadership in that the gentieman from Arizona (Mr.fund solvency and consider other cri-this country and we have seen that at KOLBE) and I have introduced in theteria that are as important as, if notboth ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. last two Congresses. more important than restoringsol- We should pass this bill today. But I However, I rise in reservation to thisvency over the 75-year period such asdo not think we should be content with unanimous consent request to expressthe effect on the rest of the budget. this effort. We must recognize that we my disappointment that we are consid- Unfortunately. today we do not havehave an obligation to preserve Social ering legislation that will increase So-time to discuss any of these issues. ISecurityforourchildrenand our cial Security benefits without even dis-would respectfullyencouragethegrandchildren. Mr. Speaker, only real cussing the long-term financial chal-chairman of the Committee on Waysreform will do that. lengesfacingSocialSecurity.Weand Means and the subcommittee on Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, fur- Social Security to conduct hearings onther reserving the right to object,I should have spent the last year work-these recommendations so that theyyield to the gentleman from Florida ingonacomprehensiveplantomay receive the attention they de-(Mr. SHAW). the chairman of the sub- strengthen Social Security that wouldserv?. I also hope the Social Securitycommittee dealing with Social Secu- restore solvency, reduce unfunded li-trustees seriously consider all of therity. abilities, give workers greater controlrecommendationsofthetechnical Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman of their retirement income, improvepanel. for yielding to me under his reserva- the safety net, and reward work; but Mr. Speaker, further reserving thetion. I would like to compliment the we. both the President and Congress,right to object, I yield to my colleague,gentleman from Texas as well as the have ignored our opportunity to dealthegentlemanfromArizona (Mr.gentleman from Arizona and many with the long-term challenges facing KOLI3E)with whom Ihave workedmore Members of this body for having Social Security. closely on strengthening the future ofa genuine desire and actually having If we are going to pass this legisla-Social Security, a Member who hasstepped for-ward with regard to some tion increasing costs outside of thebeen a leading advocate of comprehen-genuine steps to prolong the life of So- context of reform, we should at least besive Social Security reform legislationcial Security and even to bring it about talking about ways to bring more at-that repeals the earnings limit and en-as a permanent program that would no tention to the challenges that remain.sures that Social Securitywillbelonger be concerned about the amount The gentleman from Arizona and I hadstrong for our children and grand-of funding. hoped to offer an amendment regardingchildren. The gentieman has taken some bold the recent recommendations of the So- Mt. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker,Iappre-steps. and he is to be complimented on cialSecurity advisory board whichciate the gentleman from Texas yield-that. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. would more directly confront Congressing to me under his reservation. I willARCHER), the chairman of the full com- with the true scope of Social Security'sbe very brief. Let me just say Ifeelmittee, and I have also put a plan on financing challenges. Our amendmentvery privileged today and am proud tothe table that has a great deal in com- would have made a modest step in ad-be associated with the remarks thatmon with the Stenholm-Kolbe plan, vancing the discussion about the chal-the gentleman from Texas just made.and we had hoped to bring this for-ward. lenges facing Social Security amongThe gentleman from Texas has been History tells us, however, that there policymakers and the public. and continues to be a leader in theis no genuine Social Security reform Last November. the Social Securityfight to have a responsible Social Secu-without the inclusion of the President. Advisory Board Technical Panelre-rity reform. The integrity and the un-Every single major change that has leased a report outlining a variety ofwavering commitment thathe hasbeen made in Social Security has been recommendations about how we meas-shown for preserving Social Securitymade with the encouragement and the ure the problems facing the Social Se-for future generations are worthy ofjoinder of the White House. Also,it curity trust fund, how we talk aboutthe respect of all of us in this body. would be wrong and extremely difficult those problems and criteria for evalu- I am a longtime advocate of repeal-for one party to reform Social Security ating reform proposals. Our amend-ing the earnings limit. It is a remnantwithout being joined by the other ment would have taken the good workof depression-era policies that have noparty. We have sent Outmany. many of the Technical Panel to encourage aplace in a 21st century economy. I havefeelersto the White House. I know the more honest and accurate discussion ofsupported similar measures in the pastgentleman from Texas (Mr. ARCHER) the challenges facing Social Security. and as the gentleman from Texas (Mr.has been down and talked personally The Technical Panel report suggestedSTENHOLM) has said, it is a cornerstonewith the President. He is well aware of that the challenges facing Social Secu-of the Kolbe-Stenholm Social Securityyour plan, and he is well aware of our rity may be even greater than re-reform legislation. plan. March 1, 2000 H582 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE SECTION1, SHORTTITLE. We have also spoken with members ofhowever, that both the gentleman from ThisAct may be cited as the 'Senior Citi- the leadership on the Democrat sideTexas (Mr. ARCHER) and the gentlemanzens' Freedom to Work Act of 1999". and we have also spoken to organizedfrom Florida (Mr. SHAW) have a pro- SEC. 2.ELIMINATION OF EARNI]GS TEST FOR IN. labor and various Senior groups. Weposal, the President has a proposal. and DIVmIJALSWHO RAVE ATFMNED find now that everything seems to beperhaps there will be a time in the next RETIREMENT AGE. few months where we can bring a num- Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 getting down into presidential politics U.S.C. 403) is amended— and to actually quote the Presidentber of them, all three, four or five of (1) in subsection (c) (1). by striking' the age from an interview he had, I think itthem, whatever number there are,to-of seventy" and inserting'retirement age was a Wall Street Journal someweeksgether to begin to discuss them. Obvi-(as defined in section 216(l))" ago. he said that this reformwould beously the solving of the Social Security (2)in paragraphs (1)(A) and(2)of sub- left to the next President. deficit problem is the number one prob-section (d) by striking "the age of seventy" lem we are all facing. But I appreciateeach place it appears and inserting "retire- I regret that. But I think that that is ment age (as defined in section 216(1))"; a fact of life and it is somethingthatthe fact that the two gentlemen have (3) in subsection (f)(1)(B). by striking "was we are going to be faced with.I look toraised this issue. age seventy or over" and inserting "was at next year perhaps we could stilldo it Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker. fur-or above retirement age (as defined in sec- this year. I would like to reach out tother reserving the right to object. andtion 216(1))"; the gentleman from California(Mr.I will conclude by this observation. I (4) in subsection (f)(3)— MATSUI) and to the gentleman fromwould very muchly associate myself (A) by striking"33'/3 percent" and all that Texas (Mr. STENHOLM) and to the gen-with the remarks of the gentlemanfollows through "any other individual,' and from Florida. He has been a true work-inserting "50 percent of such individual's tleman from Arizona (Mr. KOLBE) and earnings for such year in excess of the prod- all those who want to reform Social Se-er in this endeavor. He points out someuct of the exempt amount as determined curity. of the pitfalls and the difficulties thatunder paragraph (8)."; and We are going to have more hearings.we would have this year. But by the (B) by striking "age 70" and inserting "re- We are not going to waste the rest ofsame token. and I will have more totirement age (as defined in section 216(1))"; the year. However I will say this, andsay about this in the 2 hours of general (5) in subsection (h) (1) (A), by sng"age I think this is tremendously impor-debate.I would hope that everybody70" each place it appears and inserting "re- reformwould recognize that there are those ontirement age (as defined in section 216(1))"; tant. Part of Social Security and has been to lock away the Social Secu-this side of the aisle that are prepared (6) in subsection (j)— rity surplus so it cannot be spent. Theto reach out in the hands of friendship (A) in the heading. by striking "Age Sev- House has done that. Also, an impor-and bipartisan work to deal with theenty" and inserting "Retirement Age"; and tant part is a bill that we havetoday,tough questions and that how we han- (B) by striking "seventy years of age' and and that is to get rid of this shamefuldle this debate politically on both sidesinserting "having attained retirement age earnings penalty that should have beenof the aisle can again do the kind of(as defined in section 216(1))'. done away with many, many years agodamage to the process of which I know SEC.3.CONFORMING AMENDMENTS ELIMI- (Mr. NATING THE SPECIAL EMPT and was not. thegentlemanfromFlorida AMOUNF FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO This is a great day, and it is a day for SHAW),thegentleman from Texas (Mr. HAVE ATFAINED RETmEMEN'r AGE. us to celebrate that we are coming to-ARCHER) and the gentleman from Cali- (a)UNIFORM Ei.T AMOUNT—Section gether, we have a piece of Social Secu-fornia (Mr. MATSUI) do not wish to see203(f)(8)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 happen. So I would hope that we couldU.S.C. 403(f)(8)(A))is amended by striking rity reform, This is a very important "the new exempt amounts (separately stated piece for our seniors. I compliment thecushion and caution and soften ourfor individuals described in subparagraph (D) gentleman from Texas, and I look for-words as we debate today about thisand for other individuals) which are to be ap- ward to continuing to work with himissue since there is unanimous agree-plicable"andinserting"a new exempt for the rest of the year. ment that this issue needs to happen. amount which shall be applicable". We are going to have hearings; we are (b) CONFORIflNC AMENDMENTh.—Section going to have hearings on this and 1045 203(f)(8)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 Secu- It is the context in which we bringU.S.C. 403(f) (8) (B)) is amended— many issues pertaining to Social this reservation up. (1) in the matter preceding clause (i). by rity between now and the end of this Mr. Speaker, with those comments, Istriking"Except"andallthatfollows term, and we all will come back nextencourage Members to unanimouslythrough "whichever" and inserting "The ex- term and really put it away.We are empt amount which is applicable for each support this very good piece of legisla-month of a particular taxable year shall be not wasting time, we are goingaheadtion today. with the hearing process. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reserva-whichever"; However, we need a coming together, (2) in clauses (i) and (ii). by striking "cor- thetion of objection. responding" each place it appears; and we need a joinder, we need to get The SPEAKER pro tempore(Mr. (3) in the last sentence. by striking "an ex- presidential election behind us. I wouldLAHOOD). Is there objection to the re-empt amount'and inserting "the exempt hope whoever the President is. the nextquest of the gentleman from Florida? amount'. President is. that that President. that There was no objection. (c) REPEAL OF BASIS FOR COMPUTATION OF he will be anxious, willing and reach SPEcIAL EXEMPT AMOUNT—Section out to the House and the Senate to re- 203(f)(8)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 form Social Security for all time. SENIOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO U.S.C. 403(f) (8) (D)) is repealed. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker. will the WORK ACT OF 1999 SEC.4.ADDITIONALNra CONFORMING AMEND- gentleman yield? Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker. pursuant (a) EL1?flNATION OF REDUNDANT REF- Mr. STENHOLM. Further reservingto the unanimous consent requestofERENcES To RETIREMEWT ACE—Section 203 of the right to object. I yield to the gen-earlier today. I call up the bill (H.R. 5)the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403)is tleman from California. to amend title II of the SocialSecurityamended— Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker,IwillAct to eliminate the earnings test for (1) in subsection (c), in the last sentence. take just a moment, but I would like to by strikingnor shall any deduction' and individuals who have attained retire-all that follows and inserting 'nor shall any commend the gentleman frorp Texasment age, and ask for its immediatededuction be made under this subsection and the gentleman from Arizona.Iconsideration. from any widow's or widower's insurance looked at their proposal. It has been The Clerk read the title of the bill. benefit if the widow, surviving divorced wife. out there now for a year and ahalf. I The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-widower or surviving divorced husband inhave to say it is a very credible pro-ant to the order of the House of today.volved became entitled to such benefit prior posal. It is probably one of the most re-the bill is considered read for amend-to attaining age 60.'; and alistic proposals that we have beforement. (2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking clause for us. The text of H.R. 5 is as follows: (D) and inserting the following: (D) H.R. 5 which such individual is entitled to widow's The fact that you have raised this be- indi- fore this matter is brought to the floor Belt enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-or widower's insurance benefits if such is timely. and I am very pleased thatresentatives of the United States of America invidual became so entitled prior to attaining you have done so. I would want to say.Congress assembled. age 60.. March 1, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE H583 (b)CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO PROVISIONS (1)inthe matter preceding clause (i), by strik- The Chair recognizes the gentleman FOR DETERMININGAMOUNT OF INCREASE ON ing "Except'and all that follows throughfrom Texas (Mr. ARCHER). ACCOUNT OF DELAYED RETIREMENF.—Section "whichever' and inserting "The exempt amount GENERALLEAVE 202(w)(2) (B) (ii) of the Social Security Act (42which is applicable for each month of a par- U.S.C. 402(w) (2) (B) (ii)) is amended— ticular taxable year shall be whichever'; Mr.ARCHER. Mr. Speaker,Iask (1) by strikingeither" and (2) in dause (i),bystriking "corresponding';unanimous consent that all Members (2) by striking 'or suffered deductions (3) in clause (ii), in the matter preceding sub-may have 5legislative days within under section 203(b)or 203(c)in amountsdause (I), by striking "correspondingand allwhich to revise and extend their re- equal to the amount of such benefit'. that follows through 'individuals)" and inserting "exempt amount which is in effect with xe-marks and include extraneous material (c) PRoVIsIoNs RELATINGTO EARNINGS on HR. 5. TAKEN IN-rn ACCOUNT IN DErERMINING SuB- spect to months in the taxable year ending after STANrLAL GAINFUL AcTWrIY OFBLINDINDI- 1993 and before 1995 with respect to individuals The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there VIDUALS—The second sentence of sectionwho have not attained retirement age (as de-objection to the request of the gen- 223(d)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(4)) isfined in section 216(1))"; tleman from Texas? amended by striking'if section 102 of the (4) in subdause (II) of clause (ii), by striking There was no objection. Senior Citzens Right to Work Act of 1996 2000" andall that follows and inserting '1992,'and Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield had not been enacted" and inserting the fol- (5)in the last sentence, bystrikingan ex-myself such time as I may consume. lowing:If the amendments to section 203 made by section 102 of the Senior Citizens empt amount' and inserting 'theexempt Mr. Speaker, today is an exciting day amount". for me personally, and it is a great day Right to Work Act of 1996 and by the Senior (c) REPEAL OF BASIS FOR COMPLrTA TION OFfor the hundreds of thousands of work- Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 1999 had EXEMPT AMOUArT AFFECTING INDIVIDUALS WHO It is not been enacted'. HAVEATTAINEDRETIPEMENT AGE. —Sectioning seniors across this country SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. 203(1) (8) (D)of the Social Security Act (42 USC. the culmination of my personal 29-year The amendments and repeals made by this 403(1) (8) (D)) is repealed. effort to repeal the earnings penalty. Act shall apply with respect to taxable years SEC.4. ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. I launched this effort as one of the ending after December 31, 1998. (a) ELIMINATION OF REDUNDANT REFERENCESfirst bills that I introduced after being SPEAKER pro tempore. The amend- TO RETIREM.EIff AGE—Section203 of the Socialsworn in in 1971. The reason then to re- Security Act (42 U.S. C. 403) is amended— peal the earnings penalty is the same ment printed in the bill is adopted. (1) in subsection (c), in the last sentence, by The text of H.R. 5, as amended, is asstriking "nor shall any deduction' and all thatas it is today: the earnings penalty is follows: follows and inserting 'nor shall any deductionsimply wrong. I also thank the gen- H.R. 5 be made under this subsection from any widowstleman from Texas (Mr. SAM JOHNSON); Beit enactedby theSenateand House of Rep-or widower's insurance benefit ifthewidow, thegentlemanfromFlorida (Mr. resentativesofthe UnitedStates ofAmericainsuiviving divorced wife, widower, or survivingSHAW),the Chairmanof theSub- Congressassembled. divorced husband involved became entitled tocommittee on Social Security; and the SECTION1. SHORT TITLE. such benefit prior to attaining age 60.';and Speaker for their tireless efforts on (2) in subsection (1)(1), by striking clause (D) This Act may be cited as the "Senior Citizens and inserting the following:'(D) for which suchthis bill. Freedom to Work Act of 2000". individual is entitled to widows or widower's The Social Security earnings pen- SEC. 2. RLmflqATION OF FARN7NGS TEST FOR IN. alty. like the marriage tax penalty, DIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ATtAiNED J. insurance benefits ifsuchindividual became so TIREMENT AGE. entitled prior to attaining age 60, like the death tax, like the capital (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO PROVISIONS Section gains tax, like the tax on savings, like 203 of the Social Security Act (42FOR DETERMINING AMOUArT OF INCREASE ON AC- U.S.C.403)is amended— the alternative minimum tax and so COUWr OF DELA YEJ) RETIREMENT. —Section (I)in subsection(c)(1), by strikingthe age of many other taxes, is simply unfair and seventy" and inserting "retirement age (as de-202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42wrong. It is unfair;itis backwards. U.S.C. 402 (w) (2) (B) (ii))isamended— fined in section 216W)"; (I) by striking 'either' and The earnings penalty actually cuts So- (2) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2) of subsection (2) by striking "or suffered deductions undercial Security benefits for many work- (d). by striking "the age of seventy each placesection 203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal to theing seniors over the age of 65. and it itappearsand inserting 'retirement age (as de-amount of such benefit". discourages them from working. It in- fined in section 216(1)) (c) PROVISIONS RELATING TO EARNINGS TAKENcreases their effective tax rate to the (3) in subsection (f)(1)(B), by striking "wasINro ACCOUNT iN DETERMINING SUBSTANTIAL age seventy or over" and insertingwas at or GAINFUL ACTIVITY OF BLIND INDIVIDUALS. —Thehighest percentage of a lifetime for above retirement age(as defined in sectionsecond sentence of section 223(d) (4,1ofsuch Actmany of them, and that is wrong. 216(1)) (42 U.S.C. 423(d) (4))isamended by strikingif Now, why in the world would we want (4)insubsection (f)(3)— section 102 ofthe Senior Citizens' Rightto Workto discourage any American, whether (A) by strIking "33½ percent' and all that Actof 1996 had not been enacted' and insertingthey are 17 or 67. from working? follows through 'any otherindividual, "and in- thfollowing:'if the amendments to section 203 Today this Congress will once again sertingSO percent of such individuals earningsmade by section 102ofthe Senior Citizens' Rightdo the right thing and repeal the earn- for such year in excess of the product of the ex-toWork Act of 19% andby the Senior Citizens' empt amount as determined under paragraphFreedom to Work Act of 2000 had not been en-ings penalty for those hard-working (8), and acted". and deserving Americans. I am proud (B) by striking "age 70" and insertingretire-SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. to be a part of a Congress that fixes ment age (as defined in section 216(1))': (a) IN GENERAL—The amendments and re-what is wrong and does what is right. (5)insubsection (h)(1)(A), by striking "agepeais made by this Act shall apply th respect It was right to balance the budget 70" each place itappearsand insercing "retire-to taxable years ending after December 31, 1999.and to pay down the debt, and we did ment age (as defined in section 216(1))"; and (b) SPECIAL RULE APPLICABLE TO INDIVIDUALS that. It was right to strengthen Medi- (6) in subsection (Q— WHO ATTAIN NORP1AL RETIREMENT AGE DURING care, and we did that. It was right to (A) in the heading, by striking "Age Seventy"THE FIRST T4x4BLE YEAR ENDING AFTER DE- and inserting "Retirement Age"; and CMBER 31, 1999.—Sections 202 and 203 of thecut taxes for families and to promote (B) by striking "seventy years of age" and in-Social Security Act, as in effect immediatelyhigher education and expand health sertinghaving attained retirement age (as de-prior to the amendments and repeals made bycare, and we did that. It was right to fined in section 216W) this Act, shall apply to any individual who at-fix the broken welfare system so that SEC. 3. CONFORMINGAMENDMENTS EUMI- tains retirement age (as defined in section 216(1)Americans can discover the freedom of NATING flE MPr AMOrJ7.JT FORof'such Act) during the first taxable year endingwork, independence and the power of Th7DIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ATtAINED alter December 31, 1999 (and to any person re-responsibility, and we did that. It was REI7REME2VT AGE. ceiving benefits under title II of the Social Secu- (a) UNIFORMEXEMPT AMOUWr.—Sectionrity Act on the basis of the wages and self-em-right to reform the IRS. and we did 203(1) (8) (A) of the SocialSecurityAct (42 U.S. C. ployment income of such individual), but onlythat.It was rightto expand edu- 403(f)(8)(A)) new is amended by striking'the withrespect to earningsfor so much of suchcational opportunities for school chil- exemptamounts (separately stated for individ-taxable year as precedes the month in whichdren and give more flexibility to par- uals described in subparagraph (D) and forsuch individual attains retirement age (as so de-ents, teachers and local school boards, other individuals) which are to be applicable and inserting "a new exempt amount whichfined). and we did that. It was right to stop shall be applicable The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gen-the raid on the Social Security trust (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS—Sectiontleman from Texas (Mr. ARCHER) andfund and protect every dime of Social 203(1) (8) (B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S. C.the gentleman from California(Mr.Security from being spent on other 403 (1) (8) (B)) is amended— MATSUI) each will Control 1 hour. programs, and we did that. HOUSE March 1, 2000 H584 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — the cut in their benefits. Whilethat Now it is right to repeal the earningsplus the delayed earnings credit essen-was a positive step. manyof us have penalty for working seniors. Theyde-tially costs $100 to $150 million a year:long felt that it was wrong topunish serve to be treated fairly.After alland because of the earnings credit, wehard-working seniors, period, many of thishave seen errors in the range of $500,000 these years. it is heartening that to $600,000 per year just inadmin-whom just want to work, and manyof effortisfinally bipartisan and the ofwhom have to work. President will sign this bill. Clearly itistering this program. As a result Mr. Speaker. what message doesthe is the right thing to do. that, it is obvious we should repeal itearnings penalty send? That the con- The Social Security earningspenaltyat this particular time. tributions of seniors are no longer punishes seniors whà choose tokeep Mr. Speaker. it is my hope also as weneeded? That seniors should head for working. More seniors are choosing totalk about repealing this earnings test,the sidelines of the economy due to age work past their retirement for manywhich will be done, we not be unmind-alone? That seniors do not deserve the financial needs,ful of what the gentleman from Texas reasons: for their own STENHOLM) and the gentlemanbenefits that they paid for simply be- because Social Security benefitsfor(Mr. cause they continueworking? I do not most are not adequate bythemselvesfrom Arizona (Mr. KOLBE) said in termsthink anybody in this chamber orin help theirof some of the long-term issues of So- to support retirement; to of us inthis Congress feels that way. Thatis families or their grandchildrenthroughcial Security that I am sure all why so many of us have expressed sup- school; and for their own personalful-this institution want to deal with. port for H.R. 5, this bipartisanbill be- The gentleman from Florida(Mr. this fillment. The point is, Americans areSHAW) yesterday when we marked upfore us today, that will eliminate living longer now and olderAmericans inpenalty for good. can work, they want towork, and theythis bill indicated he will be holding A broad spectrum of businessand outdatedthe month of March, this month, some AARP. should not be punished by an additional hearings dealing with pov-senior groups. including the law if they choose to work. and thesupport this bill. They know it isgood In addition, repealing the earningserty among women, the blind for seniors, it is good for business,and produc-disabled, and I want to thank the gen- penalty now will unleash the tleman for holding those hearings asit is good for this country and its econ- tivity of one of the mostexperienced omy. and talented workforces in this coun-well, because I think that willfurther I congratulate the gentlemanfrom try at a time when ourgrowing econ-the procession of making sure that weTexas (Mr. SAM JOHNSON) and the gen- create incentives for workunder the PETER- omy needs it. This isclearly a win-winSocial Security system for those thattleman from Minnesota (Mr. for everyone, which is why thebill now benefits atSON), the original sponsors of thebill. I enjoys widespread bipartisan support. need to work and receive want to congratulate thegentleman In summary. repealing theearningsthe same time. from Texas (Chairman ARCHER)for his fundamental Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye" vote on relaxing and penalty is based on the this particular bill. years of tireless work in principles of fairness and freedom.Sen- ofnow repealing thisearnings penalty. iors should be free to workwithout Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance The gentleman has been apersonal tes- penalty and treated fairly by a pro-my time. tament to what hard-workingseniors Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker. Iyield especially gram they paid intoall of their lives.3½ minutes to the gentlemanfromcando.The gentleman Working seniors across this country SHAW), the highlyre-should be gratified that all of his years have waited long enough; andthey de-Florida (Mr. of hard work to repeal thisunfair limit and they will getspected chairman of the Subcommittee serve the action now, on Social Security. are paying off. it now. the Mr.Speaker, eliminating the earn- Mr. Speaker. I reserve thebalance of Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank ings penalty is the rightthing for sen- chairman for yielding me time. iors who have spent a lifetimeworking my time. I yield Mr. SpeakerIobviously strongly benefits. They Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker support H.R. 5, legislation thatwouldfor their Social Security myself 2 minutes. hard-should get all the benefits they earn Mr. Speaker first of all Iwould likerepeal the earnings penalty for and that they have paid for.Today we gentleman fromworking seniors age 65 and over.Many to congratulate the seniors are shocked to learnthat ifare taking one major stepcloser to see- Texas (Mr. ARCHER) and thegentleman ing that occur. I encouragethe Senate certainlythey work past the age of 65 they may quickly so it from New York (Mr. RANGEL). lose some or even all of theirSocial Se-to approve this legislation the gentleman from Florida(Mr. SHAW)curity benefits. This is due to some-can be signed into law aspromised by and members of the committee,and "earn-the President. also the two prime sponsorsof this bill.thing called the Social Security Mr. MATSIJI. Mr. Speaker. Iyield 2 (Mr. SAMings limit" or 'earningspenalty." This from Cali- the gentleman from Texas rule has been in place sinceSocial Se-minutes to the gentleman JOHNSON) and the gentleman from Min-curity started in the 1930's. butthatfornia (Mr. STARK). nesota (Mr. PETERSON).They have ob- Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker.I thank viously done a great job in getting co-does not make it right. the gentleman for yielding metime explaining it Because of this rule, many older peo- those who sponsors of this bill and ple left the workforce, makingtheirand join in the accolades to to Members of this institution. workers.have brought thisbillto the floor Mr. Speaker. I would just like toreit-jobs available for younger today, which addresses a problemprob- of the chair-That policy may have made sensedur- wealthiest erate some of the words ing the Great Depressionwhen thoseably for 5 percent of the man of the committee.The earnings clearlybeneficiaries under Social Security.It test is obviously somethingthat hasjobs were needed. However, that is a vestigial prohibition ongetting re- been misunderstood over the years.Itdoes not apply today. tirement income. No otherretirement those senior Today's economy needs the experi- is basically a penalty on ence and ability ofseniors; yet theplan denies that. citizens that have earned theirSocial Seniors I was intrigued this morning as we Security benefit but want to stayinearnings penalty has lived on. had all of this bipartisanself-congratu- affected by this penalty lose an average do the workforce beyond the ageof 65. Nation-lation. The fact is that while we The fact that we have had this earn-of $8,000 in benefits per year. justthis, there are partisanrumblings in ings test actually hasdeterred overwide, about 800,000 lost benefits attacking members of theDemocratic last year, and thousands moreavoided perhaps 800,000 AmericanS a yearfrom the howParty for sometime in the past workforce. In fact, we have had somelosing benefits by cutting back on having voted against thisprocedure in of Cali-much they worked in order toavoidanother bill. So I would just as soon studies done by a Universitythat hasthis unfair penalty. fornia San Diego professor Some might recall that in 1996 weunmask for a while. in the most par- said that this will actually,by elimi- tisan way I can, theRepublican cha- nating the earnings test, increasetheeased the earnings limit for seniorsrade, because while we are doingthis, who reached the full retirement age.As under the Repub- labor pool in America by 5 percent. a result, seniors aged65 through 69we are still denying In addition, the Social SecurityAd- eachlican leadership the chance forthe Pa- ministration has estimated thatthehave been able to earn a bit more tients' Bill of Rights bill to goforward. administration of the earnings testyear since then withoutexperiencing March 1, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE H585 It is a bill that was passed in a bipar-ings penalty and these other taxes, oursion. yes, many of us would like to see tisan way; yet it is being stalled by theseniors may face a marginal tax rate ascomprehensive reform of our social se- Republicans. high as 80 percent. curity system. We should be doing Last year in October in the Com- The earnings penalty is complicatedthat. But we should not stop making mittee on Ways and Means, in a bipar-and difficult to understand. In addi-changes that are commonsense. that tisan attempt to pass the Balancedtion, the earnings penalty is complexwe can get done, such as removing the Budget Act, we offered an amendmentand costly to the Federal governmentearnings test. that would have given a discount onto administer. For example. the earn- I urge my colleagues on the other pharmaceutical drugs to every senior.ings penalty is responsible for moreside of the aisle that the same logic a substantial discount, at no cost tothan half of the social security over-should apply to Medicare. If we are un- the Federal Government, and every Re-payments. able to bring forward comprehensive publican voted to deny the seniors this The Social Security AdministrationMedicare reform, let us at least agree opportunity to get a discount on theirestimates that administering the earn-on prescription drugs. We know in a bi- pharmaceutical drugs. So as we talkings penalty takes1.200people andpartisan way that we need to do that. later today, I hope that the gentlemancosts $150 million a year. Repeal of the The example that we have used on from Florida (Mr. SHAW) will explain toearnings penalty would allow our sen-this earnings test. a bipartisan agree- me why that is a good bipartisan thingior citizens to work more, the Amer-ment between the Democrats and the for the seniors in Florida to be deniedican economy would benefit from theirRepublicans to move this bill, let us do a discount, and I hope the gentlemanexperience and skills. and it does notthe same on other issues that are im- from Arizona(Mr.HAYwORTH) willcost anything. portant to all of our constituents. come down and explain to us why he According to the Social Security Ad- Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker. I yield 2 voted to deny seniors in Arizona a dis-ministration actuaries, a repeal of theminutes to the gentleman from Ari- count on their pharmaceutical drugs. earnings penalty will not affect the so-zona(Mr.HAYWORTH), anotherre- cial security trust fund. Two weeksspected member of the Committee on 1100 ago. the President finally agreed toWays and Means. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3sign the bill. I am pleased that he has Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr.Speaker.I minutes to the gendeman from Texasdecided to help us fix this unfair pen-thank the gentleman from Texas for (Mr. SAM JOHNSON). a respected mem-alty. yielding time to me, the distinguished ber of the Committee on Ways and Mr. Speaker, I fought for freedom inchairman of the Committee on Ways Means. two wars. Korea and Vietnam. I believeand Means, who has labored so hard for Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr.that freedom entitles our seniors thethis commonsense reform so greatly Speaker.Iappreciate the gentlemanability to work without penalty. Amer-needed for so long. yielding time to me. I appreciate whatica's seniors want, need, and deserve a History reminds us that Arizona's fa- he has been doing on this bill. I knowrepeal of this penalty. vorite son. Barry Goldwater, in the he has been working on it for many. Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker. I yield 2other Chamber, brought this idea for- many years. We truly appreciate itminutes to the gentleman from Mary-ward long ago. I am so glad. in the spir- coming up today. land (Mr. CARDIN). it of bipartisanship now, that others in Mr. Speaker. 1 year ago I introduced Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thankprevious Congresses so reluctant to ad- H.R. 5, the Freedom to Work Act. Yes-the gendeman for yielding time to me.dress this commonsense reform would terday, every member of the Com- join with us today for this landmark Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out.legislation. mittee on Ways and Means voted tolast year almost 800,000 seniors had Almost 20.000 seniors in Arizona, 1.1 send the bill to the floor to repeal thetheir social security benefits reducedmillion seniors nationwide. are being social security earnings penalty. because of this earnings test. Nextpenalized because they choose to work. Under current law, our seniors age 65year, over 600,000 seniors will be forcedare being penalized because they bring to 69 can earn only $17,000 before theyto defer their benefits because they hadto the workplace maturity and experi- lose $1 in social security benefits forearnings over $17,000. ence and energy. every $3 they earn. This limit is unfair, Today we are passing a commonsense Mr. Speaker. we need those experi- outdated, and bad for the economy.change that allows seniors to be able toenced workers in our work force. One This obsolete social security earningsearn, be able to continue to work, andthing I have learned in representing penalty must be eliminated. be able to collect their social securitythe Sixth Congressional District of Ari- As we all know, our seniors havechecks. As the gentleman from Texaszona. with so many seniors,is that earned social security benefits through(Mr. SAM JOHNSON) pointed out, it willthese folks have so much to contribute. a lifetime of contributions. They havehave no effect on the long-term sol-so much to give, yes. as volunteers in worked for them, and they are entitledvency of social security. retirement age. but also active in the to their full benefits. It is their money. For the first time, we allow seniorswork force. That is what they bring it is not Washington's money. It shouldto continue to earn a paycheck withoutand that is what we celebrate today. not be taken away from them just be-taking it out of their social security So again. we welcome the converts to cause they choose to work after theycheck. Seniors who want to continuethis. and we are at long last addressing reach normal retirement age. working should be able to stay in thethisissue. Thisisa great day for The earnings penalty adversely af-labor force without losing their hard-America's seniors, for all Americans. fects 800000 seniors who reach the nor-earned social security benefits. At abecause today we throw off the yoke of mal retirement age.It discriminatestime with a tight labor market and his-unfairness:an importantfirststep against our senior citizens who musttorically low personal savings, it doeswhich we must follow in many other work in order to supplement their ben-not make sense to discourage our mostways, but it begins here, it begins now. efits. That is just not right. The earn-experienced workers from staying pro-and we welcome the cooperation. ings penalty is a Depression-era lawductive.Yet,theearningspenalty Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker. I yield 2 whose time has long since come andarnount to a 33 percent marginal taxminutes to the gentleman from Texas gone. Today. with unemployment atrate on work. (Mr. DOccErr) record lows, seniors are needed in the This change will particularly help Mr. DOGGE1T. Mr. Speaker, in 1996. work force, so the last thing we oughtwomen workers, who have historicallyI voted to increase the Social Security to do is discourage them from working.had lower earnings and an uneven workearnings limit to $30,000. effectively the Senior citizens who work not onlyhistory. Work for women becomes evenyear after next. In 1998, I voted to in- lose a large percentage of their socialmore important. and they should notcrease it even further, up to $39,000. So security benefits today due to the earn-be penalized by the social security sys-I am. of course. supportive when the ings penalty. but they pay social secu-tem. Republican leadership finally gives us ritytaxes.Medicare taxes,Federal Mr. Speaker. let me point out, as myan opportunity to take the cap off en- taxes,andprobablyStateincomefriend,thegentlemanfromTexas.tirely. This bill may help as many as 5 taxes. as well. Combined with the earn-pointed out during an earlier discus-percent of our most successful seniors. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE March 1, 2000 H586 having Worth, Florida. He contributed to theof the problem our farmers are But amid all the selfcongratUlat0ry Countyis with their being taxed onthe rent back-slapping that we see here today.children ofPalmBeach that they are charging for their farm- what thisschools. and he did it because. firstand let us be sure to understand foremost. he loved children. and sec-land. The IRS. because apparently one bill is and what it is not. It represents word was left out of a statute. areforc- well-justified relief for the top 5 per-ondly. he had a lot to give to our com-ing farmers to pay selfemployment reform.munity. cent. It represents top-down But no, for many. many years theytax on their rent. These arethe only but it does nothing for the 95 percentofblocked the attempt to reform thisbusinesspeOplein America that are the remaining Americans who rely on doing this. If you are in the real estate does nothing forcrazy notion of retirement at65, or pe- socialsecurity.It nalizing. should one work. business. if you are a CPA, if you rent those seniors whose health does not Mr. speaker. let us face reality. Justa building or land to yourkids or to permit them to work, and whowouldlike social security predicts that moreanybody else. you do not pay self-em- benefit more from getting access toretirees than active workers will existployment tax. but farmers do. prescription drugs and an end to thein 10 or 20 years. so will be thenotion If they pay this selfemployment tax, discrimination they face with hugeof less workers available foractivethey can also be subject to theself-em- prices they are charged by thepharma-duty. This bill provides relief for theployment tax penalty that we are get- ceutical companies. baby boomers who will retire to stayting rid of here today. so this isgoing This legislation is very significant toengaged and stay working. to solve part of the problem. older Americans who have the capacity So today. rather than takingpolit- We appreciate the chairman'sleader- to keep earning morethan S30,000 aical shots across the aisle, let usjoinship on this issue. and we hope the gen- year. but in terms ofoverall reform ofhands in this bipartisan spirit.But Itleman would look at the other partof the Social Security system. to preservemust insist on commendingthe gen-the problem. because it really is crazy. it for future generations. it is a verytleman from Texas (Mr. ARCHER).be-what we are doing to farmers.They modest change. this them Of all the changes that we canmakecause he has been working on have tremendous pressure on enoughwhen he was in the minorityand fi-now. In my district. noneof them are in this Congress. interestingly nally now has had comity fromthemaking any money. this is one of the few that ispoliticallyother side of the aisle to bringthis painless. It represents essentially an gentleman 1115 eat-dessert-first approach to reform.measure to the floor; the have thefrom Illinois(Mr. HASTERT)in the The last thing they need is to Congress should be grappling with same period, and again. thegentlemananother tax put on them. So wewould tough choices that we face on how to dis-appreciate a look at that. from Florida (Mr. SHAW) from my the extend the solvency of Social Securitytrict. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker. will for all Americans and forfuture gen- The gentleman from Florida(Mr.gentleman yield? erations of Americans, not justthe po- and yield putsSHAW) and I have probably the 6th Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I litically easy step that primarily 7th oldest Medicare recipientdistrictsto the gentleman fromFlorida. more benefits in thepockets of thein the Nation. So today I join mygood Mr.SHAW. Thegentlemanhas most successful seniors,coincidentally.friend, the gentleman from southFlor-brought up a very sensitive point. (Mr. during an election year. ida,insalutingourretireeswho The SPEAKER pro tempore I would say this morning, better a re-worked so hard to pay to run the gov-LAHOOD). The time of the gentleman form for 5 percent than no reform at PETERSON) has ex- who areernment of the United States ofAmer-from Minnesota (Mr. all. But for most Americans ica. pired. countingonSocialSecurity,this yield 2 Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker. Iyield 2 change makes no real differencein Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker. I thatminutestothedistinguishedgen-minutes to the gentleman fromNew their lives. It is long past time tleman from Minnesota (Mr.PETER-York(Mr.HOIJGHTON).anotherre- this Congress got about doing some-SON). the original sponsor of thislegis-spected member of the Committee on thing for them. Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker. Iyield 2lation. Mr.Ways and Means. Florida Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker.I yield minutes to the gentleman from Speaker. I thank the gentlemanforbriefly to the gentleman fromFlorida (Mr. FOLEY). another respectedmember and Means.yielding time to me. (Mr. SHAW). of the Committee on Waysthank the Mr. Speaker. I am proud to behere Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker.the gen- Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker. I today. along with my good friend.thetleman from Minnesota (Mr.PETERSON) gentleman for yielding time to me.I JOHN- thank the chairman for his hardworkgentleman from Texas (Mr. SAM brought up a point that we are waiting SON). bringing this bill forward. for the Commissioner ofSocial Secu- on this bill. Since 1986the gentleman This is something that I have been has raised from Texas (Mr. ARCHER). thechair- rity to reply to, because he been work-for for a long time. I used to do tax re-a very good pointand something that man of our committee, has turns for a living. and sawfirsthandour committeeintends to address.I ing on this product. joinedwith thethe impact this had on people.This is York gentleman from Illinois (Mr.HASTERT). thank the gentleman from New leadership of thesomething that probably made sense(Mr. HOIJGHTON) for yielding to me. now. and with the back in the thirties. but its timehas Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker. re- gentleman from Florida (Mr.SHAW) rid of this and the gentleman from Texas(Mr.past. It is time for us to get claiming my time, I thankthe gen- today forpenalty. which causes these people totleman from Texas (Mr.ARCHER) for SAM JOHNSON). we see victory pay some of the highestmarginal taxyielding me this time. It is sortof too senior citizens. rates in this country. the other But even in light of victory, wehave district.bad that certain people on political zinger My district is a very rural side take a partisan view of thisthing. to have a little bit of a We are having a lot of trouble outin bipartisan. It put on the floor by thegentleman from the cit-It is not partisan; it is Texas (Mr. DOGGETT). He has todrill athe farm part of the district. In makes sense. The timingisright. little needle there into thisdebate,ies, St. Cloud is a big city.and Moor-There is overwhelming support forthis. rather than celebrate therewards ofhead. which is a middle-sized city. or When I started to work inthe early Aurora. which is a small city. theprob-1950s. 47 percent of the people over65 senior citizens across America. lems we are having is gettingenough At 65. under this policythat was havewere working. Today.only 17 percent. maintained by 40 years of Democraticworkers to fill the jobs that we That is not very good. leadership. we were telling seniors, getout there. I always think as the speedof light old and you In this pool of workers that arebeingand communication and data proc- out of the way. you are too penalized, we have a lot of people that is the are too tired. Modern-dayAmerica rec- and thisessing is sort of inevitable. so ognizes. and particularly our party rec-have talent that want to work. fact that people are living longer. in theis going to free up a lot offolks to do old. ognizes. that seniors 65are what they want to do. It makes sense. I have a mother who is 99 years prime of their lives. born in 1900. When she wasborn, the My father at 77 years of ageretired One other thing I want to focus on.actual actuarial age of womenwas as a principal of a highschool in LakeOne of the things this will solve is, part March 1, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE H587 about47. That was the life span. Today, Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker. I thank the Currently, the Social Security earn- it is in the 70s. Tremendous difference.gentleman from Texas (Mr. ARCHER),ings penalty takes $1 in Social Secu- We need able people. Warren Buffettmy friend and the distinguished chair-ritybenefitsfromAmericans 65 r Berkshire Hathaway has a lady overman, for yielding me this time. through 69 for every $3 they earn above 90 years old working in his company. Mr. Speaker,Irise,obviously, inthe $17,000 per year limit. When Ameri- When companies get somebody good,strong support of H.R. 5. As just one ofcans turn 65, they ought to be able to they want to hold on to them. And peo-many on this side of the aisle who hascount on the Social Security benefits ple who work longer, they live longer.worked hard to eliminate the archaicthey have earned. and this bill would they feel healthy and want to make aand punitive Social Security earningsrepeal the earnings test once and for contribution. So anything standing intest since coming to Congress 12 yearsall. the way, which is this double taxationago, I am delighted that today we are Mr. Speaker. this is a bipartisan bill. of their Social Security benefits,isfinally going to right this wrong. But unfortunately. there has been a lit- wrong and is not fair and it will be I represent many seniors in south-tle partisan byplay here today; not scrapped, and should be scrapped,ifwest Florida who have eagerly awaitedfrom our side of the aisle. but from our H.R. 5 goes through. this moment and I know are going tofriends on the Republican side. They Mr. Speaker. I would just like to saybe very happy. Last year, over 800.000are accusing us of reversing ourselves one other thing. There was a ladyseniors across America were penalizedon this issue. They are referring to called Marijo Gorney. and she hassimply because they chose or needed,what in 1998 we aptly termed the Raid worked around here for 35 years. She isneeded, to remain productive membersSocial Security for an Election Eve now retired. Mr. Speaker, this was herof our workforce. In an ever-expandingTax Cut Act. I would like to just read baby. This was her concept. She pushedeconomy where employers increasinglywhat I said at the time we debated that it. She is now retired; and I hope she islack capable and experienced employ-bill: watching this, because a lot of the suc-ees, the Federal Government contrarily The problem is not with the specific cess of this program is due to her. sends a message that our seniors needtax cuts, but with using the Social Se- Mr. MATSUT. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1½not apply. curity Trust Fund surplus to pay for minutes to the gentleman from Massa- I know it is true. because I hear itthem. These tax cuts are also con- chusetts (Mr. NEAL) a member of thefirsthandfrom workingseniorsintained in the Democratic substitute". committee. southwest Florida who choose to stayin fact,it included exactly identical Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr.active and supplement theirretire-earnings test provisions,but they are Speaker. I would like to offer my voicement, perhaps as a cashier at the localpaid for in that substitute and they in support of repeal of the earningsgrocery store or perhaps as a sub-maintain the trust in the trust fund." test, and I am certainly pleased thatstitute teacher at the middle school. So what we have before us right now, the Committee on Ways and Means Proud Americans who survived theMr. Speaker, is clean legislation that acted so quickly, once President Clin-Depression and defeated Hitler's Ger-addressestheearningstestissue. ton urged us to do so on February 14. Imany are punished for displaying theunencumbered by controversial or ex- only wish that at the committee levelsame self-reliance, perseverance. andtraneous provisions. Today, we have an we could be as accommodating on someindividual responsibility that definesopportunity for a bipartisan bill, a bi- other issues. them as our greatest generation and.partisan result. andIurge my col- frankly, has made our Nation as greatleagues to support this legislation. The retirement test is clearly a pro-as it is today. It is a national embar- Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 vision which has outlived its useful-rasment that we will end today. minute to the distinguished gentleman ness. With senior citizens living longer Today. finally. and I say finally. thefrom Texas(Mr.ARMEY), Majority and longer, we should encourage thoseWhite House and congressional Demo-Leader of the House of Representa- who want to continue to work, rathercrats will apparently join with us intives. than discourage that effort. I do wishending the unfair earnings tax. But it Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank that we had the ability in committeewas not always so. Just 2 years ago,the gentleman from Texas (Mr. AR- to make some additional changes, how-only 19 Democrats voted to end theCHER) for yielding me this time. I just ever. such as offering the governmentearnings limit. But in the best spirit ofwanted to take a moment to add my pension offset that was sponsored byour representative democracy, we haveword of appreciation for everybody's the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.made our case and we have persuadedgood work on this. There can be noth- JEFFERSON). them. or at least most of them. to joining I can imagine that can be more un- Mr. Speaker, this unfair provision af-us. This has been a long and tryingfair to our working senior Americans fects the spousal benefits of State andfight. And besides the gentleman fromthan to be told that under the law of local workers and was enacted in re-Texas (Chairman ARCHER) and the gen-this land that they are required to pay sponse to a Supreme Court case thattleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW), myinto the Social Security program all dealt with an entirely different prob-Florida colleague, and the gentlemantheir working years, and then at that lem. It is now time for that provisionfrom Texas (SAM JOHNSON). courageoustime in their life when they are enti- to be repealed as well, or at least sig-souls like Jay Rhodes no longer here,tled to withdraw the benefits that they nificantly modified. JIM BUNNING in the other body. whopaid for, that the government of the Mr. Speaker, this is a good bipartisanshould be here to celebrate with usUnited States is going to take those bill. I hope it reaches the Presidentstoday I hope are taking joy in this. benefits away if they have the audacity desk soon, and I hope it will serve as an Aboveall.we shouldcheerourto continue work. example that reaching an agreementSpeaker. the gentleman from Illinois Many of us have seen the injustice of when we can is far better for the Amer-(Mr. HASTERT) who led the fight for in-this. and so many of us have worked on ican people than producing what is of-cremental reform before it was fashion-it over the years and had so many tentimes so much unnecessary conflictable and who appropriately will presideyears of frustration. in this institution. I am pleased to lendover this Congress today as we end this Mr. Speaker, I always like to remind my name in support of this initiative.tax on working seniors once and for all.people that this is the very first bill It is long overdue, but the point is thatI urge a "yes" vote. that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. we are acting on it today. I think that Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield P/zARCHER) introduced in Congress in 1972. there is an opportunity here for a lot ofminutes to the gentleman from NorthI studied it as an undergraduate. I un- people to take some satisfaction fromCarolina (Mr. PRICE). derstood at the time how important it this initiative. Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr.was.I have watched the gentleman Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2Speaker, I rise in support of the Sen-from Texas (SAM JOHNSON). the gen- minutes to the gentleman from Floridaiors Freedom to Work Act. More thantleman from Illinois (Mr. WELLER), and (Mr. GOSS). 800,000 senior citizens aged 65 to 69 inthe Speaker himself and others. and it (Mr. GOSS asked and was given per-our country lose part or all of their So-is just such a heart-warming thing for mission to revise and extend his re-cial Security benefits each year be-me today to see us passing this legisla- marks.) cause of this so-called earnings test. tion with such bipartisan support. H588 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE March 1, 2000 The President committed to sign it, Mr. Speaker, I think it is right thata bill that will help 800.000 seniorsand arid we will finally have a real act ofwe repeal today. right now, as soon asit is a bill that will actually help So- justice and fairness for today's workingpossible, this old and outdated vestigecial Security by bringing additional seniors. I just wanted to share in thatof the Social Security system and saySocial Security revenue and income moment with all of our body. thisis something on which we alltax revenue into the Federal Govern- Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1½agree. ment as additional seniors enter the minutes to the gentleman from South Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr.workforce. Carolina(Mr.SPRATr)the rankingSpeaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gen- 1130 member on the Committee on thetleman from Illinois (Mr. WELLER), one As to the fight over paternity, it is a Budget. of our great committee members. Democratic President who stood here (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given (Mr. WELLER asked and was givenin his State of the Union message and permission to revise and extend his re-permission to revise and extend his re-urged us to pass this bill and the marks.) marks.) Democratic alternativebillin 1998 Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker. I thank Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today'swhich provided an increaseinthis the gentleman from California(Mr.debate is all about fairness. This Con-limit which we are now going to repeal. MATSUT) for yielding me this time. gress has accomplished so much overand that alternative bill would have Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support ofthe last 5 years, and I am proud thatbeen signed into law. We voted for a this bill, the retirement earnings testjust in the past year we have accom-bill that would have dealt with this is an old vestige of the 1930s, createdplished our goal of stopping the raid onissue in 1998 and would have become when Social Security was born as aSocial Security for the first time in 30 retired law. way of telling who was truly years and we balanced the budget with- Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 and, therefore, qualified for benefits. Itout touching one dime of Social Secu-minute to the gentleman from New was looked upon as goodpolicy thenrity. paid down $350 billion of the na-York (Mr. SWEENEY). because it spurred older workers totional debt, and 3 short weeks ago this Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise stop working and take their Social Se-House passed with 268 votes, 48 Demo-very briefly to congratulate the gen- curity benefits and, therefore, freed upcrats joining with every House Repub-tleman from Texas (Chairman AR- jobs for younger workers in what waslican. legislation wiping out the mar-CHER). I rise in strong support to repeal then, the 1930s, a period of high unem-riage tax penalty for 25 million mar-the earnings limitation for Social Se- ployment. ried working couples who pay highercurity recipients.I am particularly Today, we do not have a labor surplustaxes just because they are married. pleased to be an original cosponsor of in most parts of the country; we have a Like the marriage tax penalty, thethis legislation. And I want to con- labor shortage. For example, I had an call me aearnings limit on our seniors is angratulate the gentleman from Texas owner of a trucking company issue of fairness. And I want to com-(Mr. JOHNSON). few months ago and tell me in despera-mend the Speaker of the House, the We have had a lot of debate and dis- tion that this offset policy in Socialgentleman from Illinois (Mr. HASTERT),cussion over whose idea this was, but I Security was causing him to lose driv-the gentleman from Texas (Chairmanthink the record is very clear and will ers. They would not work uponreach-ARCHER), the gentleman from Floridavery clearly show that we, the major- ing the age of 65, and he could not re-(Chairman SHAW), and the gentlemanity in Congress, over the last 5 to 6 place them. He saw no reason for thisfrom Texas (SAM JOHNSON) who haveyears have really begun to move for- policy, and I can tell from talking tobeen tireless leaders and fighters forward in a meaningful way to bring other workers in my district neither dothis effort to bring fairness to seniors.steps towards comprehensive reform of they. Mr. Speaker, let us not forget thatSocial Security. I am proud to join We can explain all the reasons behind that effort. This is good for senior citi- it, going back to 1935, but most peoplethis effort to repeal the earnings test see this as a stiff, unfair, tax onhard-on seniors was part of the Contractzens. and it is good for America. working people. I think it is time forwith America. It is unfinished business. Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to togetherFor far too long, seniors who worksupport us in this endeavor. us to repeal these offsets all after age 65 have been punished. Since Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 for those people who have reached re-the 1930s, seniors who live longer, wantminutes to the gentleman from Michi- tirement age. The question arises: Whyto be active longer and work longer.gan (Mr. LEVIN), a member of the com- did we not do this in 1998? There hashave been punished. 800,000 seniors inmittee. been some accusation here that someAmerica, 53.000 seniors in my home Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker.Irise in of us who voted for that particular taxState in Illinois, are punished just be-strong support of H.R. 5, bipartisan leg- bill then, which was an $8.1 billion taxcause they want to work when they areislation, to repeal the Social Security bill in 1998, voted against the elimi- retirement earnings test. I am a proud billage 65 or older. nationof thethreshold. That I think of my own parents, farmers incosponsor of this legislation which has would not have eliminated the thresh-their early 70s today who want to workthe backing of so many of us on the old. It would have raised the thresholdand be active longerLike millions,Committee on Ways and Means. to $39,750 by 2008. they suffer. This legislation is supported by the But in 1996, almost all of us came out Mr. Speaker, the earnings limit onClintonadministration.Indeed,the here and voted for H.R. 3136, the Seniorseniors is wrong. Let us repeal it. I ap-President called for repeal of the test Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996.preciate the fact the President nowmore than a year ago. This bill raised the limit in annual That As the Subcommittee on Social Secu- steps from $12,500 to $30,000 by 2002,andsays he will sign it into law. rity learned during the hearing on this indexed the threshold after 2002 to risemakes it a bipartisan effort.I commend the chairman and commend thebill on February15,the retirement with the rate of inflation Had we sim- earnings test is both confusing to bene- ply followed the course of that law, bySpeaker and commend the gentlemanficiaries and difficult to administer. It 2008, the threshold would have beenfrom Texas (Mr. SAM JOHNSON) my friend, for their leadership. Let us getdiscourages older people from remain- about $38,000, just a little bit less than ing in the workforce and contributing the bill in 1998 provided. the job done. I ask for an 'aye' vote. It is So this argument is really not a fair Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1to our country's economic growth. minute to the gentleman from Cali-past time to eliminate this disincen- argument. I am glad to see us bring tive to work. something to the floor that is bipar-fornia (Mr. SHERMAN). The bill repeals the test for workers tisan. Let us keep it bipartisanI do Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, successwho attained the normal retirement not think I need to encourage anybodyhas many fathers; failure is an orphan hun- to vote for this. The vote is going tobeThis bill is an outstanding bill and weage. Its repeal will allow literally are all fighting over paternity. dreds of thousands of Social Security overwhelming. And any time we get recipients to work without a reduction this kind of bipartisan consensus on an It is a bill that will help our economy issue of this substance, it is a sign ofby bringing experienced workers into ain their benefits. This is an idea whose an idea whose time has come labor shortage work environment. It istime has come. March 1, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE H589 It is important to note that the re- Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Iwork in order to improve their quality peal does not adversely affect the long-thank not only the gentleman fromof life or even just to make ends meet. term financial health of Social Sew-California (Mr. MATSUI) but also theThey must not lose Social Security rity. members of the Committee on Waysbenefits that they earn simply because This bill shows that members of theand Means for allowing me to speak. they choose to work. committee can work in a bipartisan I rise in support of the Senior Citi- The Social Security Administration way. I hope this effort remains such. zens' Freedom to Work Act, a legisla-reports that more than 800,000 working Let me stress that passage of H.R. 5tion that I am proud to be a co-sponsorseniors between the ages of 65 and 69 today is not in any way a substitute forof and will vote for today. lose part or all of their Social Security comprehensive Social Security reform. It seems hard to believe that our taxbenefits due to this outdated limita- Congress must redouble its efforts tolaw actually punishes people for work-tion. That is an outrage. pass legislation to extend solvency ofing. Yet under the current law, 48,000- In Pennsylvania, we are sixth in the the fund. plus Texans lose all or part of their So-number of seniors adversely affected by Again, the President has proposedcialSecurity payments each monththe earnings limit; 48.000, over 48,000 legislation that would defeat the inter-simply because they want to work.Pennsylvania seniors are penalized for est savings earned by paying down theNow if one can work after one is 70working. publicly held debt to make Social Se-years old, one is not penalized. Iurge my colleagues to join the curity stronger. This would extend the Seniors who have worked hard theirAARP, join the Subcommittee on So- solvency of the program to 2050. whole lives and paid into the Social Se-cial Security, and the gentleman from There is an old proverb that sayscurity system for decades should getFlorida (Mr. SHAw) and vote in favor of that a journey of 1,000 miles beginstheir Social Security benefits regard-this legislation. It is important that with a single step. We are taking aless of whether they continue to work.Congress protect the dignity of retire- good first step with the passage of H.R.This important legislation puts an endment and unshackle the creative ener- 5 today. It should not. Mr. Speaker, beto the inequitable treatment of seniors.gies of America's seniors. our last. My only concern. Mr. Speaker,is Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield P12 Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker,I yield 2that, hopefully, this is not a step to-minutes to the gentleman from New minute to the gentleman from Cali-ward increasing the retirement age.Jersey (Mr. PASCRELL). Mr. I fornia(Mr. HERGER),anesteemedCongress already did that once, instead PASCRELL.Mr.Speaker, member of the Committee on Ways and thank the gentleman from California of using 65. So hopefully this will not(Mr. MATSUI) for yielding me this time. Means. happen. Mr. Speaker, I would like to com- Mr. HERGER. Mr.Speaker, what This is a clean bill. It is not loadedmend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. could be more fair than allowing sen-down with other provisions. So it doesARCHER) and the gentleman from New iors to continue working without los-not bust the Federal budget caps thatYork (Mr. RANGEL) for the leadership ing Social Security benefits? we have talked about. in working to bring to the floor this Today we are voting on legislation to Hopefully, this Congress can addressvery important piece of legislation. end the outdated Social Security earn-other senior citizens issues, providing We are focusing on reforming our ex- ings limit. Under this legislation, moreprescription medication for seniors. be-isting Social Security program. cor- than 800,000seniors nationwide willcause allowing them to work still mayrecting an unfairness that impacted have the opportunity to work withoutnot pay for it. 800,000 seniors last year. It provides an seeing their Social Security benefits Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker,I yield 2incentive for those skilled, dedicated reduced. minutes to the gentleman from Penn-committed workerstocontinueto Consider• a senior in my district insylvania (Mr.ENGLISH),a respectedwork and enhance our society. northern California who is between themember of the Committee on Ways and I want to bring one thing, Mr. Speak- ages of 65 and 70 and who earns $20,000Means. er, to the attention of the folks here a year to supplement their Social Se- Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I par-today; and that is this. we have been curity benefits. Under current law, thisticularly want to congratulate the gen-told by Mr. Greenspan that one of the senior will lose $1,000 in Social Sew-tl(man from Florida (Mr. SHAw), chair-greatest threats to the growth in the rity benefits due to the earnings limit.man of the Subcommittee on Socialeconomy is we do not have enough At a time when our U.S. workforceSccurity, for his extraordinary leader-workers, skilled workers, to produce needs the skills seniors have to offer,ship, not only on this issue, but inthe supply for the demand that is out this disincentive to work makes abso-moving forward to make Social Secu-there. lutely no sense. Our seniors deserve therity more solvent. This is a very unusual situation that freedom to work without being penal- Mr. Speaker, today Congress says towe are in. Thank God for the seniors ized for it. seniors, you may choose to work,who are going to bail us out, because This legislation before us today ischoose to remain part of the productivethis will be an incentive for them. This based on the principles of fairness andeconomy, and choose to share your tal-is critical. This is something that we freedom.Seniors shouldbetreatedents. Right now the Social Securityneed, and we are working together fi- fairly after paying into Social Securitysystem places a higher tax penalty onnally. By the way. does it not feel good all their lives. They should have theworking seniors than on billionaires.to work well on things that America freedom to work without worryingWe have been sending seniors the mes-needs? about losing their benefits. sage that when they hit retirement age Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such Mr. Speaker, it is important to notethat we do not want them anymore. Wetime as he may consume to the gen- that this legislation is fiscally respon-n'ed to change that. tleman from Illinois(Mr. HASTERT), sible. It does not affect the long-term The earnings limit was created 60the Speaker of the House. solvency of the Social Security trustyears ago, and it is a relic of Depres- (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given fund. sion-era economics that says seniorspermission to revise and extend his re- I commend the President for sup-should make room for younger work-marks.) porting our position to end the out-ers. We now know that seniors add Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank dated earnings limit. Mr. Speaker, letmore to the workforce and more to thethe gentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW) us give all our seniors the freedom andeconomy than they can ever takefor yielding me this time. the fairness they deserve. I urge myaway. They add their years of experi- Mr. Speaker. when one looks at the colleagues to support this legislation. erice, their expertise, their talents. genesis of an idea, why a bill like this Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1 This legislation repeals the earningscomes into being. sometimes it has not minute to the gentleman from Texaslimit that unfairly punishes seniorsjust happened overnight.Thispar- (Mr. GREEN). who earn more than $17,000 a year. Thisticular bill, this has been worked on for (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and wasarbitrary limit serves as a barrier toalmost 20 years. given permission to revise and extendmany low- and middle-class seniors Irememberthegentlemanfrom his remarks.) who take on ajob because they need toTexas (Mr. ARCHER) when he first came H590 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE March 1, 2000 to Congress talked about this. The gen-cannot help earn that tuition for yourSecurity earnings limit to a tax cut tleman from Texas (Mr. ARMEY) triedfamily and, by the way, you cannotthat would have been funded by raiding to push this concept. He brought to-have that car that you would like tothe Social Security surplus. gether economists that shows there ishave to go on vacation because you Isupport eliminating the earnings really a positive effort when peoplecannot earn more than this amount oflimit. More than that, I support being work. The positives, when one does dy-money because you are going to be pe-honest with our seniors. namic scoring,really has outshonenalized." Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1½ what the negatives were, and that was This is wrong. It has been wrong forminutes to the gentleman from New a long. long time, And especially in to- the payment is out of the Social Secu-day's economy. when seniors are val-Jersey (Mr. HOLT). rity trust fund. ued, because it is the seniors that have (Mr. HOLT asked and was given per- Then 14 years ago, the 100th Congresswork ethics. It is the seniors that putmission to revise and extend his re- decided that this was a project that marks.) was something that was important forin a full day's work. and they know the people. For 14 years. we have been try-value of work. People like Sears Roe- Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the buck and J. C. Penney and McDonald's,gentleman for yielding me this time, ing to get the Social Security earningsand on and on, have been telling me forand I rise in strong support of H.R. 5. limit, as we call it, changed. We didover a decade that they want thosebipartisan common sense legislation to change it. Twelve years ago, one could repeal the SocialSecurity earnings earn $10,000:andanything over $10,000.seniors in their ranks. Because not every $2 that one earned one lost a dol-only are they good workers, peopletest. lar in one's Social Security. Then wethey can depend on, but for people en- I believe the Social Security earnings kind of phased it out to $3, and it wenttering the work force they are greattest should be eliminated. Simply put, up from $10,000 to $13,000 to $17,000people to train. It is a good ethic tothis provision of the Social Security pass on. law has outlived its usefulness. It is a today. So we cannot afford to keep this re-relic from another time, It survives But the fact is, when a senior citizensource, these people who have builtonly to punish older Americans for goes to work at McDonald's or startsthis country. these people who want to his or her own little business or, like their productivity. contribute. even into their retirement, to the lady 10 years ago when I boughtto what America is all about. we can- Today.most seniorscontinue Valentine flowers for my wife at thenot afford to keep them out of thiswork at least part time after retiring. florist shop, she said, CongressmanI process. These men and women have some of had just came back to work in Janu- I want to again say that I urge every-the most dedicated and experienced ary. I had stopped work last Octoberbody to vote for this bill. And I amskills to bring to our work force. And, because I was up against the earningsvery pleased that the President has en-as a Nation. we should be doing every- limit, at that time about $10,000. I haddorsed this piece of legislation. I thinkthing we can to encourage them to con- to leave my job. Or the seamstress atit is good. as the gentleman said, thattinue to contribute their time and the little corner dress shop that thewe have foind something that we cantheir talents. not penalize them for owner came out to me and said, I amwork on,something thatliftsthedoing so. going to lose my seamstress becauseAmerican people and gives them a bet- HR. 5 would repeal this limit en- she has reached that earnings limit,ter future. tirely, effective immediately. It is a That was in November just at a busy I want to also thank certainly thebill that is worthy of our unanimous time. gentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW) forsupport. The President proposedit: So the unfairness of the earningsbringing this legislation up, and theboth parties support it. It is simple. we limit for today's worker certainly hasgentleman from Texas (Mr. SAM JOHN-need to pass H.R. 5. been apparent. and it has been appar-SON). who has worked on this as a pio- We also need to undertake a com- ent for a long time. neer for years, and JIM BUNNING. whoprehensive legislative fix that would Slowly, but surely. we have been ableused to be a Member of this bodyuse the projected budget surpluses to to move this bill to a point where weworked on it for years and years. Thereextend the life of Social Security and can pass it and we can give equity toare a lot of people and a lot of historyMedicare and pay down the debt. seniors. people who are over the age ofhere. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1½ 65 that do not want to relegate them- Ithinkitis time that thisbill selves to a rocking chair. passes. and I urge everybody to standminutes to the gentleman from Maine Now. quite frankly. some seniors atup and voteyes." Thank heavens this(Mr. ALLEN). age 65 want to retire. and God blessis here. a time of salvation for our sen- Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker. I thank them. They should be able if they haveiors. the gentleman for yielding me this had that productive life. But the issue Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1½time. and I rise in strong support of re- is that seniors who maybe did not haveminutes to the gentleman from Mis-peal of the earnings limit for Social Se- to work by the sweat of their browsissippi (Mr. SHOWS). curity recipients between 65 and 70 their whole life. that they have un- Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker.Iriseyears of age. earned income. if they have pensionstoday to express my strong support for When I talk to employers in Maine. and they have retirement accounts,HR. 5. to repeal the Social Securitymany cannot find all the employees they were not penalized by the earn-earnings limit. that they need. Many seniors between ings test. I am pleased finally to have the op-65 and 70 want to work but are discour- The people that were penalized byportunity to bring this to a vote. Afteraged from doing so by the Social Secu- the earnings test were people that hadall, House Democrats have long sup-rity earnings limit. This bill will help to go out and earn by the sweat of theirported repealing the earnings limit,seniors who want to work and employ- brow. people that were never to savebut within the framework of com-ers who want to hire them. up, never to have an IRA. never to beprehensive Social Security reform. to This bill is also an example of what able to have a lot of money in pensions,protect the Social Security Trust FundRepublicans and Democrats can do people that had to go out and workand make sure it is there for seniorswhen we bring to the floor legislation every day to feed their families, towho need it, on which we can agree. In 1998. Ivoted make ends meet. Now they are 65 years The Republican tax cut actually heldfor a Democratic proposal to lift the of age and. all of a sudden. they have athe Social Security earnings limit hos-earnings limit. but I pointed out at big government tell them. oh, by thetage to election year politics. Their proposals would have raided the Socialthat time that the competing 1998 Re- way. you can get Social Security, butSecurity surplus to fund huge ill-con-publican plan included tax cuts that you cannot work anymore. ceived tax cuts, of which repeal of thedid not protect Social Security sur- 1145 earnings limit was one small part. pluses. That was the wrong approach You cannot work tosend your Seniors will not be fooled by a polit-and I opposed it. This bill is the right grandchild or child on to college; youical effort to tie repealing the Socialapproach. and I am proud to support it, March 1, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE H591 Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield P12 In 1999, an estimated 1.2 million bene-talk to me about a very personal, very minutesto the gentlewoman from Ne-ficiaries had some or all of their bene-important matter related to Social Se- vada (Ms. BERKLEY). fits withheld for some portion of thecurity. When she came into my office Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise inyear under the Social Security earn-she was noticeably upset and apprehen- strong support of H.R. 5, to repeal theings test. About 800,000 beneficiariessive about her situation. She sat down Social Security earnings test. It is longlost some or all of their benefits underand explained to me that $4,000 had overdue. the test as a result of their work atbeen taken out of her retirement bene- It makes absolutely no sense to pe-ages 65 to 69. Additionally, the benefitsfits and she desperately needed that nalizeolder Americansforpartici-of 150,000 family members were limitedmoney today. In fact. she needed the pating in the work force at any time. Itor withheld due to the earnings of themoney for dentures. and if she did not makes particularly no sense to penalizeprimary beneficiary. get those new dentures she would be older Americans at a time when busi- Mr. Speaker, for many seniors, work-placed on a liquid diet. unable to eat nessesareclamoringforqualifieding after the age of 65 is not an option.solidfood. The $4,000 she had lost workers. Our most experienced workersFacing mounting bills for prescriptionwould help her afford these dentures should not be left out of America'sdrugs and the increasing cost of living,and maintain the independence and work force, out of Americas future. it is something they must do to con-life-style that she deserves. Many of the seniors in the district Itinue to pay their bills. We should be When I told her about what Congress representinsouthern Nevada havedoing everything we can to increasewould hopefully do today. about the asked me to champion this issue onthe standard of living for these valu-bill before us to remove the Social Se- their behalf. They have so much en-able employees. curity earnings limit, she started to ergy, so much talent, so much to con- Older women in particular face acry. Her eyes welled up with tears. she tinue to give this great country. Con-major hardship from the earnings test.clasped her hands together and she gress must repeal this obsolete earn-The poverty rate for women is highersaid,Praise Jesus. Thank you, God." ings limit and give seniors the freedomthan the poverty rateoverall, and Well, this is an important bill in the to work without penalty. women have a greater reliance on theirlives of real people. real seniors who Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker. I yield suchSocial Security benefits for income.need that $4,000, who need the money time as he may consume to the gen-Widows account for 66 percent of agedthat has been taken by the Federal tlemanfromNorthCarolina(Mr.women in poverty. There are 1.2 mil-Government. In voting for it, my col- COBLE). leagues, we help Anna Marie, we help (Mr. COBLE asked and was given per-lion aged widows who receive Socialmany others like her across the coun- mission to revise and extend his re-Security benefits and have had incomestry. In voting for it, to remove the So- marks.) below the poverty line. cial Security earnings limit, we will Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, Irise in Because women livelonger,havemake a real difference in the lives of strong support of this proposal andlower lifetime earnings and, therefore,real seniors, ensuring that not only can commend the gentleman from Texasfor dependent on Social Security bene-they keep the money they earn, that (Mr. SAM JOHNSON) and the gentlemanfits. they are more likely to be workingthey need, but also the independence from Florida (Mr. SHAW) for their ef-well past the traditional retirementthat these seniors deserve. forts in this endeavor. age. We need to boost the Social Secu- So I hope in a bipartisan way we Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker.I yield 2rity earnings for this most vulnerableoverwhelmingly pass this legislation minutes to the gentleman from Geor-group of seniors rather than puttingbefore us today. gia (Mr. COLLINS). a member of theroadblocks in their path. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield l'12 committee. Mr. Speaker, repealing the earningsminutesto the gentleman from Wash- Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, if we arelimit is good for seniors and good forington (Mr. SMITH). to climb the mountain of tax reform.empkyers too. Older workers are ex- Mr.SMITHofWashington.Mr. we have to take it one step at a time;actly the type of employees that busi-Speaker, I too rise in strong support of and I think the right approach is tonesses want. They are dependable. ex-HR. 5 today. This bill is a win-win sit- aim first at individuals and remove theperienced, and have a strong workuation, not just for seniors but for the burden of excessive taxation and com-ethic. We should be encouraging thesecountry as a whole as well. plicated regulations. workers to remain in the work force in- Clearly. it is to the great advantage The very first place to start is bystead of trying to force them out. Asof seniors to have the opportunity to scrapping tax penalties. Why hit peoplethe number of older workers grows. andcontinue to work, to bring in income with a heavier tax burden for beingthe need for quality employees be-and not have their Social Security cut. married, for working after retirement.comes more acute, we need to take ad- or for building a family business orvantage of the experience and skills 1200 farm? The Senior Citizens Freedom tothat older workers provide. It is the right thing to do. Seniors, Work Act is an important step to re- Eliminating the earnings test is notparticularly between 65 and 70,still move one of those penalties. It will endonly the fair thing to do for workinghave a lot of bills and a lot of concerns theSocialSecurityearningslimitseniors but it will improve the qualitythat Social Security cannot meet. Al- which discourage seniors from con-and efficiency of the Social Securitylowing them to work is a way to help tinuing to work. program as well. them make that up. But it is also a This legislation follows an important Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2great benefit to our economy. If there first step we took a couple of weeksminutes to the gentleman from Min-is one thing I hear from every business ago with the passage of the marriagenesota (Mr. RAMSTAD), a member of thein my district, it is that they cannot penalty tax relief. Finally, I hope thatCommittee on Ways and Means. find enough workers. It does not mat- we will take a third step, and that is by Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thankter what the job is; they cannot find helping families by eliminating thethe gentleman for yielding me thisenough people to do the jobs they need. death penalty tax which hammers fam-time and for his leadership on this Well, we have a wealth of talent out ilies,family-ownedbusinessesandissue. there with great experience. and that is farms. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strongour seniors who can fill those jobs and Mr. Speaker, let us keep moving for-support of this bill to get rid of the So-help our economy. This bill is fair to ward, making progress in tax reformcial Security earnings limit.Ihaveseniors. excellent for the economy, and and support H.R. 5. been an original cosponsor of this billI recommend that we support it strong- Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker. I yield 2many times. and I am pleased that we y1 minutes to the gentleman from Texashave gotten to this point today. also think it is great that it is a bi- (Mr. FROST). Th need forthisbill was reallypartisan piece of legislation. It shows Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker. I rise todaybrought home to me last Friday. In myan example of where the House can in strong support of H.R. 5, legislationdistrict officein Bloomington, Min-work together to solve real problems that is long overdue for our Nation'snesota, a woman named Anna Mariefor real people in this country. and I seniors. came to see me and said she needed toam very proud to support it, 11592 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE March 1, 2000 Mr.SHAW. Mr. Speaker.I yield 2 Thereiscurrently a shortage oftribute their skills to the workplace. minutes to the gentleman from Ohioworkers in the U.S. There is no goodespecially in a time when businesses (Mr. PORTMAN), an esteemed member ofreason for Social Security to punisharefindingitdifficulttorecruit the Committee on Ways and Means andpeople who want to work. These moreenough qualified workers to fillthe a member of the Subcommittee on So-mature workers are some of our Na-jobs that remain vacant. cial Security. tion's most skilled. The current system is a disincentive Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker. I appre- Mr. Speaker. the earnings limit is afor seniors to continue to work. and it ciate the gentleman yielding me therelic of the Depression era. With Amer-needs to be changed. And this legisla- time; and I want to thank him and theicans living longer. Social Securitytion is long overdue. gentleman from Texas (Mr. ARCHER)shouldnotdictatetheirlife-style But there are a lot of other things we and other members of the Committeechoices to them. This bill is good socialalso need to work on. We need to help on Ways and Mean who have put thispolicy and good economic policy.Itretirees by using the surplus to extend legislationforward.I riseinverydoes not make sense to punish Ameri-Social Security and Medicare, to pro- strong support of it, the Senior Citi-cans for working when Congressisvide a prescription drug plan for all zens Freedom to Work Act, properlybeing lobbied to allow additional work-seniors, and to lift the limit on outside named, as well. ers into the country from other coun-income for beneficiaries of Social Secu- The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.tries. rity. RAMSTAD) talked earlier about a con- Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we I have supported raising the limit in stituent who had come into his officeare approaching this in a bipartisanthe past. and I support repealing it and talked about the penalty that shemanner; and I hope that my colleaguestoday. now lives under, which is about 4,000 aon both sides of the aisle can use this Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker. I yield 2 year. and does not enable her to doyear to address broader reform. minutes to the gentleman from Illinois things she needs to do for herself. When discussions turn to handling(Mr. CRANE) a respected member of the Let me tell my colleagues anotherthe budget surplus, we must insist thatCommittee on Ways and Means. story. And there are so many out there.the solvency of Social Security and Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker. I want to Each of us knows people in our dis-Medicare are addressed first and thatthank the chairman for yielding to me tricts, maybe in our family. who are af-our older citizens have a prescriptionthis time. fected by this. But Marjorie Thompsondrug benefit. We should be addressing I want to say to my colleagues that is a dear friend of mine back home. Shethis now, not adjourning. all of us understand the meaning of the is a caregiver. She is a nurse. She takes Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1 phrase an honest day's pay for an hon- care of elderly patients primarily. Sheminute to the gentleman from Cali-est day's work." is a compassionate. a skilled personfornia (Mr. KUYKENDALL). Because of the many. many decades who has a very strong work ethic and Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker,Iof hard work in all kinds of jobs, our wants to work. rise today in strong support of this leg-older Americans appreciate that adage Marjorie is in her late sixties, andislation. It is important legislation formore than most. They know what it she wants to go to work every day. Sheour seniors. means to expend a lifetime of dealing has come to me and she has said. Rob. Incredibly, seniors between the ageswith the uncertainties of living pay- should I work? And I have to tell herof 65 and 70 currently lose a dollarscheck to paycheck. They got up early that her marginal tax rate for everyworth of Social Security benefits forevery morning, went to the assembly additionaldollar sheearns now isevery $3 earned over $17,000. Seniorsline, the office, the shop. and came about 80 percent. She is getting adviceshould not be penalized for working. Ithome at night to enjoy some time with now from everybody she knows thatis just plain unconscionable that thefamily and friends. say. of course she should not work, notGovernment would take away these When they were rearing their fami- with that kind of penalty. hard-earned benefits. lies, they simply hoped to make life a If we could take away the earnings With our powerful economic growthlittle better for their children: and penalty from her, she would work andcontinuing, the need for skilled work-when they reached retirement age, she would work a full year and sheers in the workforce is increasing. Tothey hoped to collect the money they would not stop when she has reachedhave any disincentive to work is badcontributed to Social Security and a that cap. policy. More than 800,000 working sen-pension. But if they continue to work People like Marjorie Thompson areior citizens lose part or all of their So-after 65, they are forced to watch the needed. They are needed to care for ourcial Security benefits due to this obso-Federal Government continue to try to elderly. They are needed throughoutlete provision. And today we can re-squeeze every cent it can from their our economy. These are people thatmove the earnings limit. paycheck: and to add insult to injury. have a lot to contribute. And it is not I am glad to hear also the Presidenteven their Social Security is affected just economically. They have a lot torecognizes this unfairness in this earn-until they turn 70. contribute to our society. They wantings limit. Ending the earnings limit is So I proudly stand before my col- to work. They want to have the dignitygood for seniors, good for the Nation;leagues today because. after decades of and the self-respect that comes withand it is the right thing to do. I urgetrying to eliminate the Social Security work. my colleagues to support this legisla-earnings limit, it is finally happening The last thing that this Congress andtion. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1½on the floor of the House today. This this Government should be doing is dis- means that the over 42,000 seniors liv- couraging them from working. We haveminutes to the gentlewoman from Cali-ing in my district, many of whom con- to remove this penalty from the Taxfornia (Ms. SANCHEZ). tinue working beyond the average re- Code. It is overdue. Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker. today I rise in support of H.R. 5. legislation totirement age, will be getting a little Again.Icommend the gentleman bit of a break. from Florida (Mr. SHAW) and others,repeal the earnings test for Social Se- On behalf of my 8th District con- the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SAMcurity for the ages 65 through 69. It is I want to thank and com- who putthis forward. And Itime to get rid of this penalty. and Istituents, JOHNSON) am glad that we are finally debatingmend my colleague,the gentleman am really looking forward to its being from Texas (Mr. SAM JOHNSON). for his enacted into law. this issue. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1 The earnings limit originated in thepersistence in getting H.R. 5to the 1930s, but today people remain healthyfloor for a vote. I want to commend the minute to the gentlewoman from New gentleman from Texas (Mr. ARCHER). York (Mrs. MALONEY). and vigorous longer than they did then; Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr.and it makes sense to repeal this obso-our chairman, who was pioneering in Speaker. I rise in strong support of re-lete and punitive limit. this effort years ago. And I want to pealing the earnings test for Social Se- It makes no sense to penalize seniors,commend the gentleman from Florida some who still have to work in the(Mr. SHAW). our distinguished chair- curity beneficiaries between the ages man of the subcommittee. for all of his of 65 and 69. workplace, some who want to con- March 1, 2000 CoNc;REssI0NAL RECORD—HOUSE H593 efforts. And I commend all of our col- Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I wantwe cannot find enough workers to fill a leagues, on a bipartisan basis, for join-to say how glad I am that today weburgeoning economy. ing as cosponsors of a bill that my col-have an opportunity to vote to repeal I have heard from many small busi- leagues.I know, will want to unani-the earnings test for Social Securitynesses in my district that are very ex- mously support and eliminate this ob-beneficiaries between the ages of 65 andcited about the possibility of hiring ad- scene tax. 69. This action is long overdue. ditional workers, workers who have Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 The earnings limit originated in thesolid work values, who are responsible, minute to the gentleman from Ten-1930s when the Social Security programexperienced and eager to fill the posi- nessee (Mr. CLEMENT). was started during the Depression, andtions which are currently available. Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker,I amit remains despite the vast changes in As we vote on this important bipar- very pleased today that H.R. 5 is mov-the economy and the lives of seniortisan legislation today. I want to ening. citizens that have taken place over thecourage my colleaguestocontinue I have been in Congress for severalla;t 60 years. work in assisting our seniors to retire years now, and this is a piece of legisla- It makes no sense to penalize seniorsso they are not forced to work. How- tion that I have felt like should havefor participating in the workplace, es-ever, I strongly believe that those who been passed many years ago. And Ipecially at a time when businesses can-choose to work should not be penalized. know senior citizens that have quitnot find enough qualified workers toAnd this bill solves that. work simply because the penalty wasfill jobs that remain vacant. People re- I urge my colleagues to support this too high. main healthy and vigorous longer thanlong-needed legislation. Now they will be able, after this leg-they did in the 1930s. So it makes per- Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker. I yield 3 islation passes the House and Senatefect sense to repeal this obsolete andminutes to the gentleman from Texas and signed by the President, and I ex-punitive limit. (Mr. STENHOLM), the ranking Democrat pect it all to happen this year and very By passing this bill. seniors who needon the Committee on Agriculture. soon now, where senior citizens willor want to work can now do so without (Mr. STENHOLM askedand was have an opportunity to make some de-the fear of being punished by an out-given permission to revise and extend cisions and whereby they can havedated law. his remarks.) some structure in their lives, where I am glad that today we, both sides of Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker. I rise they can have some peace of mind,the aisle. can all be on the same pagein strong support of this legislation knowing that if they want to continuearid finally take this action. Let usand encourage all of my colleagues to to work, and many of them want to dovote "yes" to pass HR. 5. support it.I have been a strong sup- that, they will be able to accomplish Mr. MATSUT. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1'/2porter of legislation to repeal the earn- those goals and objectives for them-minutes to the gentleman from Min-ings limit for several years. In fact. re- selves and their families. nesota (Mr. MINGE). peal of the earnings limit was part of It is estimated that. under current Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker.I wouldthe comprehensive Social Security re- law. about 4 percent of Social Securitylike to thank my colleague from Cali-form package that I introduced. along recipients will exceed the $17,000 earn-fornia for yielding the time to me. with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. ings limit and will have the benefits re- Mr. Speaker. I join in the parade ofKOLBE) in 1998. duced by an average of $8,154. ThatMembers who support this legislation Our legislation though contained sev- does not have to happen now with thisPreviously, this proposal to lift theeral other provisions that rewarded in- legislation. earnings limit has been used as a par-dividuals who continued to work after Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1 tian Trojan horse. It included tax cutsretirementage.While I amdis- minute to the gentlewoman from Illi-that were controversial. and it wouldappointed that Congress is not acting nois (Mrs. BIGGERT). have required raiding the Social Secu-on the other parts of our proposal to Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I riserit:y trust fund. strengthen Social Security. I am very today to commend the gentleman from Today we have a balanced budget. wepleased that this part of our legislation Texas (Chairman ARCHER) and the gen-are not engaged in a raid on the Socialis going to be enacted today. tleman from Florida (Chairman SHAW)Security trust fund. and we can ap- Senior citizens are some of our most and in support of the Senior Citizensprove this proposal on its merits. It isvalued workers. contributing a wealth Freedom to Work Act. not a Trojan horse. It is not accom-of experience that can be gained only The Members of this body have dif-panied by other controversial Internalthrough years of dedicated service. For ferent philosophies about the role ofRevenue Code changes. thisreason,Iagree wholeheartedly government. Some want an expansive, Strong policy considerations supportwith the statement of former Senator activist government. Others. like my-this legislation. They have been amplyBentsen that discouraging seniors cit- self,believe that government shouldstated by previous speakers. I wouldizen from working is'like keeping have a much more limited role. But Ijust like to say them briefly: fairnessyour best hitters on the bench." think everyone agrees that the Govern-to seniors who wish to work. We should Our society should not overlook the ment should not discourage hard workencourage a work ethics. Two. itiscontribution of our seniors. Unfortu- and self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, webudget neutral. This proposal does notnately. press reports suggest that some do just that. And nowhere is this morecost money. Three, we have a laborin the Republican party intend to use evident than with the so-called Socialshortage. We need additional workersthis vote on the earnings limit for par- Security earnings limit. in America. tisan political purposes. I would ask a Incredibly, more than 800.000 working reconsideration of those who choose to seniors between the ages of 65 and 69 1215 do that. lose part or all of their Social Security I am pleased to join in supporting As Democrats who have worked in a benefits simply because they choose tothis legislation. bipartisan way on comprehensive So- work in their golden years. This is Mr. MATSUT. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1½cial Security reform. I am extremely wrong. minutes to the gentleman from Oregondisappointed by these reports and hope No matter what the rationale for the(Mr. WU). that the Republican leadership will re- earnings limit was during the Great Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker. I rise today aspudiate these tactics. The suggestions Depression, this is the year 2000. Wea cosponsor of H.R. 5. the Senior Citi-that Democrats have opposed repeal of should not stand for a Tax Code thatzens' Freedom to Work Act. Under cur-the Social Security earnings limit are penalizes hard work and responsibility.rent law, seniors who earn more thancompletely false. I urge all my colleagues to support$17,000 per year are penalized $1for Democrats have supported repeal of the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Workevery $3 of additional earnings. This isthe Social Security earnings limit as Act. wrong. We should not penalize hardpart of a comprehensive legislation Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1'/2work. It makes no sense to penalizethat keeps Social Security strong for minutes to the gentleman from Texasseniors who are participating in ourthose currently retired or close to it. (Mr. HINOJOSA) work force. especially at a time whenand everyone knows that. March 1, 2000 H594 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE theirin my district this past weekendand In fact, the reported line of criticismthetime,livelongerthan they talked about their need to hire someactuallyspouses. And they ought to be able to beingsuggestedby have the peace of mind that they canworkers over the age of 65 because they raises questions about their commit- are having such trouble findingskilled ment to the integrity of theSocial Se-supplement their retirement earningsworkers for jobs that are available curity trust fund. The votes being citedif they wish without being penalized. bills In Washington State alone, moreright now. This bill will encourage sen- to criticize Democrats were on than 13.000 seniors have been forced toiors to return to the workplace and en- that would have raided the Social Se- able business owners to fill vacantjobs. curity surplus to fund tax cuts,inchoose between keeping the job they love or losing the retirement income This earnings limit is a relic of the which repeal of the earnings limit wasfor which they worked all their lives.great depression when weexperienced one small part. This is wrong. It also keeps an intel-double-digitunemployment among Seniors will not be fooled by a polit- make ical effort to use the issue of repealingligent and productive part of our workyoung people. The limit does not force at home. any sense in the year 2000. Itneeds to the Social Security earnings limit to Seniors who are currently retiredbe relegated to the dustbin of economic advocate a tax cut that would havehave been called the greatest genera-history. This is just the first step tobeen funded by raiding the Social Secu- wards strengthening retirement security surplus. tion, for the sacrifices they made in de- The past votes that some Repub-fending freedom and building Americarity for all seniors. Now it is time to licans seek to exploit for political pur-into the world's only remaining super-take the next step, using the surplus to poses were on bills that wouldhavepower. It is time that we honor theextend the life of Social Security and threatened the integrity of the Socialcontributions to America, their con-Medicare. tributions, by allowing them to work, Today. we are voting to allow work- Security trust fund. The $80 billion tax Social cut considered by the House in thefallif they wish, and to give one of theing seniors to fully enjoy their most precious gifts of all, thattheySecurity benefit, but that very benefit of 1998 that included repeal of the So- will be in danger if Republicans do not cialSecurity earningslimit wouldcan offer their work ethic. have been funded entirely out of the I want to congratulate the gentlemanjoin with Democrats to take imme- Social Security surplus. from Florida (Mr. SHAW) and the gen-diate action to strengthen the Social The Republican leadership at thattleman from Texas (Mr. SAM JOHNSON)Security trust fund with an infusionof time did not even allow a vote on thefor persevering in this cause. I want tofinancial support. Stenholm-Neumann amendment, whichurge my colleagues to support thisbill I hope my Republican colleagues will provided that the tax cuts could not beand the President to sign it. join us over the next several months in funded with a Social Security surplus. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5using the surplus to strengthenboth Likewise, the tax bill considered by theminutes to the gentleman from Mis-Social Security and Medicare. This bill House last year would have dipped intosouri (Mr. GEPHARDT), the Democraticshows that Democrats and Republicans the Social Security surplus by moreleader. can work together to rebuildand build than $70 billion and would have ex- (Mr. GEPHARDT askedand wasretirement security. I hope that we can ploded in costs at the same time thegiven permission to revise and extendbuild on this foundation and work to- Social Security system is projected tohis remarks.) gether toputSocialSecurity and begin running shortfalls. Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker todayMedicare on a sound financial footing Let us use today to set aside the bi-we are taking the first steptowardswell into the next century. partisanship. Let us recognize thatstrengthening retirement security for Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker I yield 1 today we are reaching out in a bipar-all seniors and moving closer to put-minute to the gentleman fromNew tisan way in order to do what everyoneting Social Security on a firmer foot-York (Mr. GILMAN). has agreed. While I am critical of theing for the rest of the century. This (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given fact we are not doing more, we accepttime, we are doing it in a fiscally re-permission to revise and extend his re- this today, let us put the partisanshipsponsible way. marks.) for I am gratified that Republicans are aside. Let us continue to reach out joining with us to repeal the earnings Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman a long-term solution forSocial Secu- truly afor yielding me this time. Mr.Speaker. rity. test for Social Security. This is I rise in strong support of theSenior yield 2bipartisan effort. Democrats have over-Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. This Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I whelmingly voted three times in recent minutestothe gentlewoman from Presidentbill is simple and straightforward re- Washington (Ms. DUNN). a respectedyears to raise the limit and moving the earnings limit forworking member of the committee. Clinton has requested repealing thisseniors receiving Social Security.Sen- Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker. on behalfofearnings limit in his last two budgets.iors aged 65 to 69 who have chosen to the seniors and near seniors in the Con-The sooner we send this to his desk.continue to work have had theirSocial gressional district that I represent. Ithe faster we will be able to deliverSecurity benefits reduced by $1for rise today in enthusiastic supportofthis relief to seniors who want to con-every $3 earned when theirtotal earn- H.R. 5, the Seniors Citizens' Freedomtinue making a real contribution toings went over $17,000 annually. to Work Act. our society and our economy. The 104th Congress made a longneed- The Social Security earnings limit is Unlike a Republican attempt to raiseed change, raising the annual earnings another aspect of a 60-year old Socialthe limit in 1998. the bill wedebate More today does not hurt the long-term sol-limit to $30,000 by the year 2002. Security system that no longer applies Thisneeded to be done on this issue.Ever to modern society. These days seniorsvency of Social Security to do so. since coming to Washington in the93rd are living longer. They arehealthier.reform is long overdue. It is about timeCongress I have introduced legislation that we stand up for America's seniors. limit or and yet too many of our Nation's best According to Federal Reserve Chair-to either raise the earnings workers are sitting in rocking chairs. toeliminate it altogether. These earnings We need their strength. We needman Greenspan, we are beginning limits have discouraged seniorsfrom their experience in our comx7iunities.suffer from a serious worker shortageworking and diminished their potential And young people starting new jobsthat threatens our economic expansion. This bill will play a major role inproductivity conveying a message that need their example, their example ofprotecting our economic gains of theseniors have nothing to contribute and the value of work and the disciplineof are better off not working inthe work- work. Unfortunately. by denying re-last 7 years. It will not only help raiseforce. It is gratifying that thePresi- tirement benefits for those who choosethe standard of living for many of ourdent has stated his support for the to work, Social Securitypenalizes sen-seniors but it will also help us keep theelimination of the earnings limit, andI iors who want to be productive andstrongest economic growth of our life- of hard work totime on track by keeping a generationcommend the gentleman from Florida teach the values of skilled workers in the economy. (Mr. SHAW) and the gentleman from younger generations. I met with a number of small busi-Texas (Mr. SAM JOHNSON) for their at- Mr. Speaker this bill is also very im- tention to this important issue. portant to women who. 75 percentofness owners in South County St.Louis March 1, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE H595 Accordingly. I urge our colleagues to Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in Do you know that today someone join in supporting this timely, impor-support of H.R. 5. I came to this Con-reaching the age of 65 has an additional tant senior legislation. gress recently following in the great15 years of life expectancy if they are a Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1½footsteps of my colleague, the gen-male, and 19 years if they are a female? minutes to the gentleman from Ken-tlman from Sacramento,CaliforniaSurely there are substantial needs for a tucky (Mr. LUCAS). (Mr. MATSUI), and I want to specificallyretirement nest egg in light of that (Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky asked andapplaud the fact that after 40 years ofkind of life-span opportunity. In addi- was given permission to revise and ex-Democratic majority here and 6 yearstion, we know that people reaching the tend his remarks.) of Republicanmajority, we finallyage of 65 today are healthier, more en- Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky. I thank thehave been able to move a bill out of thegaged and want to work than ever be- distinguishedgentleman fromCaii-House, hopefully on to the Senate. andfore: and we ought to give them that fornia for yielding me this time. then to the President for signature. opportunity. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support This particular issue, where we in ef- Additionally, we know that in light of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedomfect tax the ability of our seniors toof our strong economy. the needs in the to Work Act. The elimination of thecontribute to our workforce dispropor-workforce are intense, and this poten- Social Security earnings limit is a re-tionately, has needed to be changedtial source of labor can help employer form that is long overdue. since it was first passed in the Depres-after employer, right across the coun- Under the current system.seniorsion. There is no argument about that.try. citizens are forced to choose betweenThere is no getting around that fact. In my own State. the State of North the loss of their Social Security bene- Again, we spent 40 years under theDakota, people over the age of 60 rep- fits and dropping out of the workforce.tutelage of one party, and now 6 yearsresent 18 percent of our population. What a terrible message to send to ourwe have been at it here. We finallyClearly we need their participation. seniors that their work is not valued.have agreement, and I am happy to beThat is important today. but it is only With their wealth of information andpart of this. This is one of the things Igoing to grow more important, because experience, senior citizens are a trulycampaigned on, to try and get this taxthis over-60 segment will swell by 60 vital part of the stability of our work-off the backs of our seniors. I welcomepercent in North Dakota by the year force and the development of the work-my friends on the other side to this. I2025. Quite frankly. I do not know how force of tomorrow. am very, very pleased to be here withwe will keep our schools going. I do not The current limit takes away thethe gentleman from California(Mr.know how we will keep some of the benefits from those who have rightfullyMATSUI) and the gentleman from Flor-businesses going if we do not have earned them through a lifetime of hardida (Mr. SHAW) in this effort. workers in this age span, 65 to 70. par- work. We should not be punishing our Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker. I yield 3ticipating if they want to in the work- senior citizens for continuing to workminutes to the gentleman from Northforce without the absolutely ruinous but, rather, encouraging them. That isDakota (Mr. POMER0Y). penalty presented by the tax on earn- just common sense. Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker. I thankings today. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1½the gentleman for yielding me time. minutes to the gentleman from Illinois Mr. Speaker, I would echo the com- For every reason I have mentioned, I (Mr. RUSH). mnts just made by my friend, the gen-urge a unanimous vote on this. What a (Mr. RUSH asked and was given per-tleman from California (Mr. OSE). It ispleasure it is to have this bipartisan mission to revise and extend his re-fun for a change to participate in a de-achievement. marks.) bate on a bill that enjoys broad bipar- Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker.I yield 1 Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gen-th;an support, improving the Social Se-minute to the gentleman from Cali- tleman from California for yielding mecurity program that we have for ourfornia (Mr. HORN). this time, and I want to commend himseniors. (Mr. HORN asked and was given per- for his leadership on this very, very im- It is time we lift the earnings limit.mission to revise and extend his re- portant piece of legislation. We need to do this as part of a multi-marks.) Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R.faceted approach at improving income Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker. today this 5,the SeniorCitizens' Freedom toinretirement years.ThisapproachHouse of Representatives will take a Work Act. This Social Security earn-needs to include other activity by thisreal step toward tax reform for Amer- ings limit is wrong and archaic. WhyCongress. activity where hopefully weica's working retirees. By repealing the penalize able-bodied senior Americanswould come together also in a bipar-so-called Social Security earnings test, who can work? At a time when ourti;an way to strengthen Social Secu-we are doing away with an outdated economy is in need of an experiencedrity, making certain that it is going tolaw that affects over 800.000 seniors workforce, we should not be turningbe there for the long run, and comingwho have been denied the needed in- our backs on seniors who have valuabletogether in a bipartisan way to helpcome to survive in their golden years. experience and skills. additional employers offer retirement Created in the Depression to encour- The worst part of the earnings limitsavings opportunities for their work-age older workers to move out of the is that it penalizes poor senior citizens.place. Presently. only half the workersjob market, the earnings limit is an an- Mr. Speaker, not every senior who re-have retirement savings at work. Wetiquated solution to a problem that no tires has private pensions to supple-need to do better, and there are strate-longer exists. Many of today's seniors ment their Social Security benefits. gies introduced and supported by Mem-want to take part in this economic bers of both parties to get this done asboom, but are penalized $1 in Social Se- 1230 well. curity benefits for every $3 they earn Health costs are rising; prescription Finally. we need to come together tobeyond $17,000. My State of California drugs are unattainable. Seniors need toadd additional savings incentives, tar-is hit hardest by the earnings test, af- work to supplement their Social Secu-getedspecificallyatmiddle-incomefecting over 161,000 seniors. When sen- rity benefits. No longer should we forceand lower-income households, so thatiors are denied the opportunity to work seniors to choose between food andthey might save for retirement. and governments are denied income medicine. Do not deny our seniors their But back to today's bill. Today's billtaxes generated by seniors working, we basic rights. We must do away withreally is for those that hit retirementall lose. this archaic earnings limit which de-years without enough savings already Mr. Speaker, I have long believed the prives our seniors of their earned bene-accrued. Those years,65 to 70.rep-outright repeal of this law was the fits. resent an important last opportunityright thing to do, and I am pleased to Again, Mr. Speaker. I rise in supportto get some additional income, evenhave an opportunity today to be part of of H.R. 5. while the Social Security checks startthe team that will send the bill to the Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1 coming. so that they might build thatSenate and the President that lowers minute to the gentleman from Cali-nest egg, to meet their needs. to keepthe tax burden for so many working re- fornia (Mr. OSE) them comfortable as they go on. tirees. March 1, 2000 H596 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE derlyworker and also prevents America's full Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2appropriate that we are getting around educated el- distinguishedgen-to enacting this legislation. useof eager, expenenced and minutestothe I might point out I am glad to see thederly workers.Finally,itdeprives the U.S. tleman from Michigan (Mr. BONIOR),minority party supports this piece ofEconomy of the additional income tax which the Democratic whip. elderly workers. Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker. first of alllegislation. For almost 4 decades thewould begenerated by the let me congratulate my two friends.Democratic party did not seem to want Thereisno good reason tokeep thisanti- to initiate and to pass this legislation: quatedanddiscriminatory law in existenceany the gentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW) of the Senior and the chairman here, the gentlemanlonger. I supportswift passage and the gentleman from California (Mr. Act and call upon MATSUI). for their fine work in bringingfrom Florida (Mr. SHAW). and others onCitizen's Freedom toWork this side, worked so hard to try andmy colleagues onboth sides of the aisle to this forward today. votefor this very important and long overdue Mr.Speaker,today we have thepass this. So this is a great day, to see chance to take action to repeal the So-the folks on the other side of the aislechange in the law. cial Security earnings limit, a law sosay let's pass it by unanimous agree- Mr.MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 outdated few can remember how it everment. minute to the gentlewoman from Cali- got on the books. There is no good reason, of course.fornia (Mrs. CAPPS). What is the Social Security earningsThere is no longer a reason for this an- Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker.Irise limit? Well, ask any senior and theytiquated law to be on the books. It istoday and join my colleagues in strong will tell you the earning limit is adiscriminatory. support of this legislation. and I com- Catch-22 of the Social Security system. SoIsupport the Senior Citizens'mend the leadership of this House, the It is a law that actually punishes olderFreedom to Work Act. I am an originalgentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW) people for working. In fact, it forcescosponsor of it. It is a law we have toand the gentleman from California (Mr. them, literally forces them, to becomebe very joyful this afternoon for, be-MATSUI). It is a good day when we can Securitycause it is a law that is needed. be so united in a bipartisan way to end more dependent on Social seniors. than they need to be. Mr.Speaker, since the Social Security pro-an unfair tax on our working Now, why would anybody want a lawgram was created in 1935, it has alwaysin- Mr. Speaker. many seniors work be- like that? Well. Mr. Speaker. I do notcluded an earnings test. There have beencause they need to. They should notbe know any of us who want a law likemany efforts through the years to eliminatethepenalized for trying to put food on that, and it is time for a change. Thatearnings test, butnonewere successful. their table. They should be supported. is why we are repealing it today. Back in the 1930's the reason given forSeniors in my district have been tell- Our message for every American. nostarting the earnings test was to "open uping me this is something that they matter how old, ought to be thatif youjobs" for younger workers. What we are cur-need. Some seniors work because they want ajob and you are able to doajob,rently experiencing is a shortage of qualifiedwant to. They should not bepenalized by God, this government is never goingand experienced workers. The time to act isforremainingactiveandinvolved. to try to stop you from gettingajob. now. These seniors should be supported as We are voting to repeal the earnings In 1996 I voted to increase the earningswell. Our country is the richer for it. limit because in this incredible econ-limit for seniors who chose to continue work- It is time to act in this way. Today omy. there is more than enoughworking. We were able to increase the earningswe will have, I hope, unanimous sup- that needs to be done, and older Ameri-limit for those aged 65—69 to $30,000 by theport to remove this onerous burden on cans may be just some ofthe peopleyear 2002. At the time this legislation wasworking seniors and end the earnings who can do it and do it well in a laborpassed, a workingseniorwhoreachedlimit. I urge my colleagues to support market that is struggling for good.$11,280 in earned income lost $1 in Socialthis bill. competent. qualified people. Security for each $3 earned thereafter. That's Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1 We are voting to repeal the earningsa marginal tax rate of 33%! That's a high pnceminute to the gentleman from Colo- limit not only because we believe olderto pay for merely wanting to work. rado (Mr. HEFLEY) people ought to have the right to earn Let's take a look at how the current law af- Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker. I thank higher incomes, but because they de-fects our nation's seniors who are receivingthe gentleman for yielding me time. serve the opportunity to livericherSocial Security benefits and also working. This Mr. Speaker a few weeks ago this lives, lives made better by the oppor-year beneficiariesaged65—69 can earn up toHouse voted to right a wrong. Mostof turlity to join the world of work. But,$17,000 without being penalized. They loseus agree it is unfair for amarried cou- Mr. Speaker, the truth is that it is notonedollarfor every three of earnings that ex-ple to be penalized by the Federal Gov- just seniors who win if we repeal this ceedthislimit. ernment just simply because they are foolish law; we all win. We all win be- Beneficiariesaged62—64, those individualsmarried. so we passed legislation to fix cause this Nation needs theexperience.who retire early, are allowed to earn up tothat unfairness. Today it is time tofix the skill and the maturity of older peo-$10,080 this year without a penalty. They lose another long-standing unfairness, the onedollar ofSocial Security benefits for everySocial Security earnings limit. ple that they can bring to the Amer- theimposed limit. ican workplace. two dollarstheyearn above Mr. Speakerit is about time. For Older Americans today are one ofWhile themeasure we passed in 1996made too long we have penalized ourmost this Nations greatest resources. It isvast improvements tothe earnings test, ourexperienced workers, created disincen- realgoal at thattime was to repeal the law high time we take advantage of it. This we will be successfultivesfor them to work. oftentimes is a win-win proposition for America. outright. Ibelievethat when their employers need their exper- this time around. should be Again.I want to congratulate my What's wrong with giving elderly workerstise the most. No American colleaguesfor bringing this to the penalized for their desire to work and whoeither want to work or must work in order economyand floor. to maintain a decent hfestyle the ability to docontributetothe Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1 strength of our country least of all our minute to the gentleman from Florida so. amproud to be a cosponsor of HR. 5 that would repeal the Social Secunty earningsseniors. (Mr. STEARNS). a proponent of In 1987, my class in Congress. the Re- (Mr. STEARNS asked and was giventest entirely.I have long been publican members of my class, voted to permission to revise and extend his re-repealingthis outdated provision and shalltake this on as a project. to try to marks.) continue to support such proposals until weeliminate the earnings limit. We met Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker. I thanksucceed in changing this law. with Dan Rostenkowski. I think it was the distinguished gentleman for yield- The earnings test limit is unjust. It treats So- cial Security benefits tess like a pension andthe only time he ever spoke to me, but ing. Secu-we met with DanRostenkowski, and he Mr. Speaker. back in the 1930s themore like welfare. It represents a Social said, "No, we won't do it." So over the reason for starting the earnings testrity biasinfavor of unearned income overyears we have picked away at itwith the Democrats said it was necessary to earnedincome. the gentleman from Florida (Mr.SHAW) Itiseffectivelyamandatory retirement allow younger workers to work. Today 'onger accepts orand the gentleman from Texas (Mr. AR- what we have is a shortage of qualifiedmechanism ourcountry no CHER) and various ones. and with their and experienced workers. so it is veryneeds. Itprecludesgreater flexibility forthe el- March 1, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE H597 help picked away at it and made it bet-though that is not employment per se,social security generally. and this type ter. But today is a chance to get rid ofit still might have impacted their in-of cooperation between our parties still it. come by way of the income being at-gives me some ray of hope. no matter For the sake of simple fairness, it istributable to each individual from thehow small that glimmer may be, as we time for this body to eliminate thecrafts that they made. move forward on our political calendar, earnings limit. I urge my colleagues to The repealing of this will in fact in-that there are many other things that support this legislation. crease work incentives; will put good.we can accomplishin working to- Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker. I yield 2strong, valued seniors in the work-gether. minutes to the gentleman from Ohioplace, and will add to the value of what For those people who believe that it (Mr. TRAFICANT). they have already given to the work-is in our best interest to have con- (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and wasplace and this Nation. Repealing thefrontation and do nothing, I suggest given permission to revise and extendRET will not affect social security's fi-that at the polling places. both Demo- his remarks.) nances over the long run, and in par-crats and Republicans may suffer. It Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker. Danti(:ular. repealing the RET will makeseems to me that there have been Rostenkowski would not do it. He is athe social security program easier andenough suggestions made by the Presi- Democrat. I am embarrassed by it. le;s expensive to administer. dent that Republicans can pick and I want to commend the gentleman This is long overdue. As I have saidchoose those that they feel comfortable from Texas (Chairman ARCHER) and thewhen I have come to the floor before,with. those that they think are in the gentlemanfromFlorida(Chairmanthis spells relief. It is relief for seniors,best interests of the people of this SHAW).Iwant to commend the gen-for the social security program. for thegreat country. and to be able to work tleman from New York (Mr. RANGEL)community where these valuable sen-with us to do it. and the gentleman from California (Mr.iors can be Out and about in the work This is a classic example of the lead- MATSUX). force contributing to this Nation asership of the chairman and the sub- But. Mr. Speaker. this -is not enough.they have done in the past. committee chairman. in working with Everybody is reaching into that Social Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker. I yield suchus so that we can get things done. I Security trust fund and they are raid-time asI may consume to the gen-laud the Members for this effort, and I ing it. I have a bill and it calls for atleman from California (Mr.look forward to working with them on constitutional amendment, and it saysGALLEGLY). other issues that remain within the you cannot touch the Social Security (Mr.GALLEGLY askedand wasbudget. as this has. that do not invite trust fund. It can only be used for So-given permission to revise and extendand encourage a veto. but those things cial Security and Medicare. If we passhis remarks.) that we know that we can work out our that, we would have enough money to Mr.GALLEGLY. Mr.Speaker,I differences on. not only on both sides providehealthinsuranceforeverystand in strong support of this legisla-of the aisle but also on Pennsylvania American. tion. It is a bill we have worked on forAvenue. many years. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker,I yield But I want to pay tribute to the Re- back the balance of my time. publican Party today. Rostenkowski Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker.I yield Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield my- did not do it. Rostenkowski would notmyself such time as I may consume. self the balance of the time. do it. and the gentleman from Texas Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.I Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an (Chairman ARCHER) and the gentlemanjust again would like to thank Mem-observation which I think is something from Florida (Chairman SHAW) did it.bers for the bipartisan atmosphere thatthat all of us have sort of made ref- But the gentleman from Californiaoccurs on the floor of the House. as iterence to, but not particularly in this (Mr. MATSUX) and the gentleman fromdid in subcommittee and in the fullregard.Some whoarelookingon New York (Mr. RANGEL) deserve a lot ofcommittee. The fact that we havetoday. tuning in on C-Span. probably credit for making it happen as well. moved this bill in an expedited fashionthink they have the wrong channel. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker. I yield 1½certainly means that we should get it This has been, I think, a real land- minutestothegentlewoman fromto the President in a timely fashion somark in what we can accomplish in Texas (Ms. JACKSON-LEE). that it will become law in the yearthis Congress by working together. 2000.Again, thisisa much needed My good friend, the gentleman from 1245 change in the social security system. New York (Mr. RANGEL), and we use Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas.Mr. I might just add, just so there is nothat phrase a little flip around here, Speaker.I thank the gentleman formisunderstanding, that this will have abecause when we refer to someone as yielding time to me. $23 billion revenue loss out of the so-our good friend. that is about the time I would like to add my applause andcial security system over the next 10we are about to drop a hammer on appreciation to the gentleman fromyears. But over the life of the social se-them, but we are good friends. We are Texas(ChairmanARCHER) andthecurity system itself, because of the de-very good friends. We have been for ranking member, the gentleman fromlayed credit, it will have no impact onmany years. asI am with the gen- New York (Mr. RANGEL). to the gen-the solvency of the social security sys-tleman from California (Mr. MATSUX). tleman from Florida (Chairman SHAW).tem, so this has no impact on the so- The gentleman from Texas (Mr. AR- and the ranking member, the gen-cial security system nor on the Medi-CHER)I think has been an incredible tleman from California (Mr. MATSUfl.care system. chairman of the Committee on Ways for their vision. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as heand Means. and we have brought things This bill spells relief.I have spentmay consume to the gentleman fromtogether that have made a real dif- some time with seniors, most of us doNew York (Mr. RANGEL). the distin-ference, and we do come together on as we visit our senior citizen centers.guished ranking Democrat on the Com-things that we can politically agree as we work with seniors in our respec-mittee on Ways and Means. upon. tive religious communities, as we work (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given There should be no disagreement in with seniors as our neighbors. permission to revise and extend his re-this country. no disagreement. that I can actually say that the retire-marks.) people who work their entire working ment earnings test keeps good talent Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker. I thanklives. when they reach retirement age. away from the job market. This legis-the gentleman from California(Mr.just simply because they have to work lation will allow thousands of social se-MATSU!) for the way he has handledbeyond that or just simply want to curity recipients to work without a re-this, not only on the floor. but cer-work beyond that. that they should not duction in their benefits, to work intainly, as the ranking member of thebe penalized. We agree on that. We child care, to work in volunteer pro-subcommittee on social security. ought to constantly look Out and reach grams, after-school programs. It gives me an opportunity to onceout for things that we agree upon, be- In fact. as I visited the Latino Learn-again congratulate my long and dearcause it is so important to such an im- ing Center and their Senior Citizenfriend,the gentleman from Floridaportant segment of our population. It Center. they were making crafts. Al-(Mr. SHAW). who showed an interest inis so important. H598 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE March 1, 2000 effectsbe- So this bill is going to pass. I amdeducting a portion of seniorsmonthlySocial negligiblebecause ofoffsetting going to ask for a recorded vote, be-Secunty checkshould theycontinuetoworkcause retirees would no longer receive de- haveand eam income aboveanarbitrary govem-layed retirement credits, which under current cause I want all the Members to lawcompensateforthe benefitslost to the the opportunity to step forward on thement-set level. the full Whenthe govemmenttakesmoneyeveryeamings testappliedtoworkersabove Democrat and the Republican side arid this month from people'spaychecks forthe Socialretirementage,and the savingsfrom cast their vote, a recorded vote, to say the they are in favor of American seniors.SecurityTrust Fund,it promisesretirees thatwouldoffset thecost from eliminating themoney willbe thereforthem when theyeamingstest. They are working with us, and we are outside income forbene- working together to make a better life retire.Thegovemmentshouldkeep that prom- Lifting the limit on ise and not reducebenefitssimply because aficiaries of retirement security is akey compo- for the senior citizens of the country. initiatives to extend the life of So- This bill takes effect on January 1 ofseniorchooses to work. nent ofmy Furthermore, Mr.Speaker, by providingacial SecurityandMedicare.HR.5 iscrucial the year 2000. That means exactly 2 oppor- disincentiveto remainingintheworkforce,theas partofabroaderplanthat usesthe months ago this bill comes into effect. the life of Social The senior citizens of this country willeamingslimitationdeprives theAmericantunity of asurplustoextend of the benefits of senior citizens whoSecurityandMedicareandpay down the debt. enjoy the fruits and labor of what weeconomy 'eadership brought have started here today. wish to continueworkingbutare discouraged In 1998, the Republican from doing so by fearoflosing partoftheiran increaseinthe eamingslimitto the floor at- I am pleased to say that the Presi- been 11- Social Security benefits. Thefederalgovem-tached toatax billthatwouldhave dent is with us. Yesterday while we from the Social Com-mentshouldnotdiscourageanycitizen fromnancedbyborrowing directly were marking this bill up in the opposedthis bill funded seekingor holding productive employment. Security Trust Fund. I mittee on Ways and Means, the Presi- surplus, andsupported dent was in Miami Beach doing a fund- Theunderlying issue of the earningslimita- by the SocialSecurity tion goes back to the fact that money from theanaltemativethatprovidedforan increasein raiser for my opponent at a cocktail to party. In fact. I thought it was rathertrust fund is routinely spent for things otherthe Social Securityeamingslimit identical than paying pensions to beneficianes. This isthe one in the Republican bill,but not from the ironic because it was taking place at the bill the exact time we were voting on thiswhy the first billI introduced in the 106th Con-SocialSecurity surplus. Unfortunately, gress was the Social Security Preservation Actfailedto be enacted. bill. upon abipartisan measureen- That is the way the system works. (H.R.219),whichforbidsCongress from H.R.5 builds spending Social Security funds on anythingacted in1996 which I supported,the Senior Thereis nothing wrong with that. which other than paying Social Security pensions. Citizens'Right toWorkAct(H.R.3136), There is nothing wrong with Democrat for increases in the amountsofal- presidents supporting Democrat can- In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to reit-provided erate my strong support for the Senior Citi-lowableeamings under theSocia? Security didates and Republican presidents sup- whohave attained porting Republican candidates. zens Freedom to Work Act. Repealing theeamings limit for individuals I will tell the Members that I would'eamingslimitation"willhelp ensurethatretirement age.Now we are going a step fur- certainly guess, and as tradition has it,America's seniors can continue to enjoy ful-ther and eliminatingthecap altogether. This is filling and productive livesintheir "goldentherightpolicyatthe right time. just as we did in welfare reform and The eamings testis arelicofthe Great De- I also urge my colleagues to protect other pieces of meaningful legislationyears." terminate that has come out of this Congress.the integrity of the Social Security Trust Fund pression andthe timehascome to by cosponsonng the SocialSecurityPreserva- it.The test is a severe disincentive for older that the President will invite the Re- people to work. Not only do older workers suf- publicans down to take part in thetion Act (HR. 219). ofliving be- bill's signing. That is the way it should Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker,I want to ex-fer areductionintheir standard press my strong support for HR. 5, The Sen-cause of the test, the nation'seconomyloses be. ior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 1999.valuableexperienceand skiUs as well. So many people here can take credit I today in This long overdue measure would allow per- Mr.EVANS. Mr. Speaker, rise for what is going on here today. I am Senior Citizens'Free- very pleased and proud that ithappenssons aged 65 through 69 to continueworkingsupportof H.R.5, the without losing some of their Social Security domto Work Act. during the Republican majority, but we This important legislationislongoverdue. have come together. We have locked benefits. our seniors are more healthy andTheeamings limit is a relicof anera when away the social security surplus so we Today, economic vigorous than ever. Many seniors who chooseAmericawasin a stateofextreme are no longer spending it. Thismakes Speaker, todayweare experi- America's great pension program avail-to continue to work find that working greatlydespair. Mr. enhances their retirement years. They are liv-encing unprecedented prosperity. Ourecon- able for the seniors without penalty. rateis ing longer and often finding that they eitheromy isbooming.Ourunemployment This is a wonderful thing that has lowerthanit has been in 30 years.Itjust happened.Thiscountryhasgoneneed or want to work well beyond traditional through a great transition, and when itretirement age. Further, the time has come todoesn'tmake sense to discourage our nation's stop penalizing seniors who need to keepseniors fromcontinuing tocontribute to our comes to working together tomake theirSocialSecurity things happen. the best of us comes outworking to supplement their Social Security in-economyby reducing when we work together. comes. benefits. This legislation, which I cosponsored, would Manyof the seniors in my home state of Illi- I want to publicly thank the gen- nois continue to contribute to their commu- tleman from New York (Mr. R.NGEL)do away with this antiquated and obsolete punitive limit to Social Security payments. Undernities through hard work. Repealing the eam- and the gentleman from California (Mr. ings limit will have a very real impact on these MATSUI), and of course, my chairman,current law, senior citizens in this age group their lose $1 in Sociai Security benefits for every $3seniors. Instead of being punished for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. AR- participation in the workforce, seniors shou'd CHER), and the gentleman from Texasthey eam each year above a certain level, which is $17,000 this year. The eamings testbe encouraged to remain working. Eliminating (Mr. SAM JOHNSON) and the gentleman the eamings test makes sense.ItwiN begood from Minnesota (Mr. PETERSON) for thewas designed during the Great Depression to work that they did in bringing thisencourage older workers to leave the work-for our seniors and good for our economy. force to create more jobs for younger workers.And most importantly, we can do it without thing together. This is truly a bipar- jeopardizing the future of Social Security. It is tisan effort. It is truly in the best tra-Today, we are experiencing a labor shortage, not a surplus. With our economy's emphasissomething that all of us, on both sides of the dition of the American democracy. aisle, should be abletoagree on. Mr.PAUL. Mr. Speaker,I am pleasedtoon increased productivity, older workers have the years of experience and work ethic that But, once again, Republicans are playing offer my support to the Senior Citizens Free- politics with the issues that affect our nation's dom to Work Act (HR. 5), which repeals the are in great demand. is estimated that initially about 600,000seniors the most. They are clamoring to point Social Security "eamings limitations." During a It fingers at Democrats who have long been in time when an increasing number of senior citi-seniors would be affected by the elimination of the eamings test. According to the Social Se-support of amending the archaic eamings zens are able to enjoy productive lives well But ournation'sseniorscannot be past retirement age and businesses are incunty Administration, H.R. 5 will increase So-limit. Security outlays by $17 billion over 5fooled. Democrats support repealing the earn- desperate needof experiencedworkers,it cial ings limit while protecting the integrity of So- no sense to punish seniors for working.years and $26 billion over 10 years. However, makes cial Security. Yet the federal government does just that byin the long term, the measure's cost would be March 1, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE H599 Inthe105th Congress, the Republicanslonger—andare as entitled as the rest of usishes senior citizens for their work ethic and brought an increase of the earning lirnits to theto fair wages for their labor. desire to be self-reliant in their "golden years." floor but attached it to a risky tax cut package At a tirne when unernployment is at a 30- Today unernployrnent is at an all-tirne low. that would have put Social Security in severeyear low and we face acute labor shortages,The experience and skills developed by older jeopardy. Dernocrats strongly opposed that billthis Depression-era work disincentive for sen-workers during a lifetirne in the workplace are and offered a rneasure to raise the earningsiors no longer rnakes sense. being recognized and are in dernand. lirnit and rnake the rernaining tax cuts contn- Older Americans possess enormous talent Social Secunty recipientsareentitledto gent on protecting the solvency of Social Se-and experience. It boggles the rnind why we'dtheir benefits because they earned thern dur- cunty. This Dernocratic alternative was a re-want tornaintain disincentives for thernto ing a lifetirne of hard work. The governrnent sponsible tax cut package that did not raid thework. The earnings test not only erodes sen-should not take those benefits away because Social Secunty Trust Fund. Not one Repub-iors' standards of living, but also costs the na-individuals want to work. That's why I strongly lican voted for this rneasure. This is just onetion valuable skills in the workforce, as well assupport the passage of H.R. 5 today. of rnany cases that dernonstrates who is ontax revenue generated by this incorne. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the side of seniors in this fight. Retirees who receive incorne frornothertoday Irise in support of the Senior Citizens' We rnust stop the finger pointing and cornesources such as pensions or capital gains doFreedorn to Work Act (H.R. 5). The Social Se- together to protect Social Security for genera-not have any benefits reduced. Why should in-cunty earnings lirnit discourages those on re- tions to corne. This is not the tirne for politicscome frorn pensions or investrnents be treatedtirernent frorn rernaining in the work force and as usual. The livelihood of our nation's seniorrnore favorably than earned incorne? contributing to the country's econornic growth. Due to the longer life-spans and the irnproved citizens is at stake. I received a letter last surnrner frorn a re- quality of health arnong retirees, the advent of Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I nse today intiree frorn rny horne town—Quincy, Massachu- strong support of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens setts. He wrote: "I would like to retire with dig-an aging society, and decreasing work force growth nurnbers, itis irnperative that we ex- Freedorn to Work Act of 2000. nity and only want what Ideserve. I feel that Under current law, over 8,000 Kansas sen-with your support of this bill,it would enableplore better ways to tap the vauable and often iors lose sorne or alt of their Social Secuntyrne to live without worries of finances and di-underutilized resources of older Arnericans. Due to the retirernent earnings test, Social benefits due to the Social Security earningsrninish the concerns of rny farnily." lirnit because they choose to continue to work. That is what this legislationis all about—Security beneficiaries who have attained the normal retirernent age (presently age 65) have Seniors aged 65 to 69 have $1 of their bene-sirnply giving seniors what they deserve. fits reduced for every $3 they earn over the While thisis a step in the right direction,their benefits reduced by $1 for every $3 that they earn in excess of $17,000. Sirnilarly, So- current earnings hrnit of $17,000. Sirnply, cur-seniors deserve rnore—and we could and cial Security beneficiaries between age 62 and do notshould be doing rnore—much rnore. rent law penalizes seniors for working. the normal retirernent age have their benefits is fair to punish those seniors who Dunng Cornrnittee deliberations on this 'eg- believe it reduced by $1 for every $2 that they earn in want or need to participate in the workforce byislation last night, an arnendrnent was offered to restore sorne of the benefits that are re-excess of $10,800. Although both groups of having this disincentive to work. beneficiaries receive benefit increases once Elirninating the earnings Urnit is not only fairduced due to the Governrnent Pension Offset. they stop working in order to cornpensate for for working seniors, it will irnprove the quafltyThi; provision would have rnade widow's ben- reductions white they were working, there are and efficiency of Social Security since the pro-eflt; rnore fair, and helped reduce the high a nurnber of good reasons to support repeal- grarn will be easier and less expensive to ad-rates of poverty that especially face eldetlying the earnings test for beneficiaries who rninister. Furthermore, repealing the Social Se- women. have reached the normal retirernent age. curity earningslirnitisfiscallyresponsible. Unfortunately, the Chairrnan passed on this Repealing the retirernent earnings test will While the bill would increase Social Secuntyopportunity—even though the Social Secuntyallow thousands of Social Security recipients spending by $22.7 billion over the next 10Administration stated that the costs of addingto work without a reduction in their benefits. years, theresulting lower long-term benefitthis provision would be negligible. The Social Secunty Adrninistration estirnates payrnents will rnore than offset the costs. Mr. Speaker, rernoving the earnings lirnit isthat, in 1999, 793,000 beneficianes aged 65 Mr. Speaker, by allowing seniors who wantprogress—but is this all that we are going tothrough 69 had sorne or all of their benefits to work to retain their benefits, Congress willdo for seniors this year? withheld because of the retirernent earnings take an irnportant step towards strengthening Are we going to address other inequities intest. retirernent secunty for all seniors. This step,the Social Security system—like the govern- Repealing the retirernent earnings test rnay however, should not be our last I urge rny col-rnent pension offset, windfall reductions, duelcreate positive work incentives. Because rnany leagues to begin working with rne, in the sarneenttlernent provisions—or even the long-termSocial Security beneficiaries are unaware that bipartisan rnanner that we worked on today'ssolvency of the prograrn? the benefit reductions they experience when bill, to put Social Security on a firm financial Will we finally reauthorize the Older Arner-they are working are offset by benefitin- footingfor future generations. We need toican Act? creases once they stop working, they rnay build on todays success by dedicating a sub- Will we enact a Medicare prescription drug perceive the retirernent earnings test as a tax. stantial portion of the budget surplus to paybenefit? In response, they rnay reduce the nurnber of down debt and strengthen Social Security and our senior citizens deserve rnore—muchhours they work or they rnay decide to leave Medicare. rnore. Passing this bill is the very least we canthe labor force altogether. I urge rny colleagues to support H.R. 5 anddo. I urge rny colleagues to support this legis- The rnost recent econornic research indi- to join rne in the larger challenge of strength-lation—and invite you to join rne in efforts tocates that repealing the retirernent earnings ening Social Security and Medicare for ouren,ure retirernent security for all older Amen-test for beneficiaries between the normal re- seniors and for generations of future retirees. cans. tirernent age and age 69 rnay encourage Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, today, we Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise towork. In a 1998 study, Leora Friedberg, an take an irnportant step forward in addressingsupport H.R. 5, the 'Senior Citizens' Freedorneconornist at the University of California, San a Social Secunty inequity that is an injustice toto Work Act." Diego, found that repealingtheretirernent working seniors. Under the Social Secunty For years rny constituents have raised con-earnings test for those beneficianes would in- Earnings Lirnit, beneficiaries aged 65—69 cancerns about unfair Social Security earningscrease their labor supply by about five per- earn up to $17,000 a year—but for every $3lirnit. Finally, the House is going to elirninate cent. earned over this arnount $1 of benefits is lost.this unfair penalty. Repealing the retirernent earnings test will The cap has always been one of the rnost Whenever a workingretiree earns rnorenot affect Social Security's finances over the unpopular parts of the Social Security pro-than $17,000 per year, they lose $1 of Sociallong run. Repealing the RET for beneficiaries gram—and for good reason. It penalizes olderSecurity benefits for every $3 they earn abovewho have reached the normal retirernent age people for working—and deprives the nation ofthe lirnit. We penatize senior citizens who wantwould not change (for better or for worse) So- the talent of working seniors. It's tirne to getto continue to participate in the work force. cial Security's currently projected long-range rid of it, once and for all. There are 800,000 senior citizens who losefinancingshortfall.Repeating the retirernent The earnings cap is a relic of the Great De-pait orallof the Social Secunty benefitsearnings test for beneficiaries above the nor- pression, when concern over rnassive jobless-they've worked hard for because they earn rnal retirernent age has a signfficant short-run ness led to a perception that retirees should "too rnuch" rnoney in retirernent. cost ($22.7 billion over the next 10 years), but, be discouraged frorn rejoining the workforce. The Social Secunty earnings iirnit was cre-over the long run, that cost is offset by lower Today, people are living longer and workingated during the Great Depression and it pun-benefit payments. March 1, 2000 11600 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE zens' groups have joined us in this fight, and under current law, workers who have education,a trip to visit their family or other Again, I welcome President Clinton's announced sup- their benefits reduced due to the retirementloved ones, a car, medical expenses, and prescription drugs. port for this repeal as well. earnings test receive an actuarial adjustment The Social Security earnings limit is a relic that increases their benefits once they stop Republicans have ended 40 years of raiding of the Great Depression whenit was nec- working. Repealing the retirement earningsthe Social Security Trust Fund to fund pet projects by tax and spend politicians. Repeal-essary to entice older workers to leave the test would mean that such workers would no work force, making more jobs available to longer receive that actuarial adjustment anding this seniors tax builds on that commitment to senior citizens by making sure they get theyounger workers. Today, many businesses that benefit payments would be lower. and communities face a serious worker short- Repealing the retirement eamings test Willbenefits they have worked for, even if they age. My congressional district has an espe- make the Social Security program easier and choose to continue working. In Florida, over cially low rate of unemployment now: a mea- less expensive to administer. The Social Se-80,000 seniors could be ab'e to take advan- curity Administration estimates that the cost oftage of this tax fairness package. This bill en-ger 1.6 percent. This means that opportunities administering the earnings test in 1999 rangedsure that they get the money they havefor older workers abound, providing earning earned as well as the Social Security benefitspotential and related benefits to the seniors from $100 to $150 million. willing and physically able to meet the chal- Since those costs include administering thethey deserve. A similar bill introduced in 1998 as part of lenge. Further,I am pleased that H.R. 5 pro- earnings test for workers between age 62 and relief by covering income the normal retirement age, repealing the retire-the plan to abolish the Social Security earn-vides immediate earned after December 31, 1999. ment earnings test for workers above the nor-ings limit only received support from 19 House For those in the 10th Congressional District mal retirement age would save less than thatDemocrats. This year the President has indicated his willingness to sign such a bill, but heand elsewhere who do not know me well,I am amount.) I am a working senior. addition, SocaI Security Administrationdid not include it in his recently submitted FYproud to report that In Too old now to benefit from this change in the estimates that it overpaid $787 million in bene-2001budget. The measure enjoys support in from such groups as AARP, United Seniorstax code, I nevertheless enjoy a higher quality fits due to the retirement earnings test perhapsbetterhealth—which 1997. Payments tobeneficiariesaged 65Association, and the 60 Plus Association. Lets ofIife—and comes with being more active. In addition, I through 69 accounted for 63 percent of retire-do the right thing and pass this bill. Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, mil- feel that my many years of experience add to ment earnings test related overpayrnents in my job performance as a long work history 1998. lions of older Americans are penalized every year simply because they settheir alarmdoes for so many seniors. If older Americans have the capacity to earn appreciate the sup- more money without penalty, there will be aclocks to get up early in the morning, get Again, et me say that I port of our colleagues in getting this repeal bill greater incentive for them to work. Workingdressed and head off to work. But unlike the before the House today. Our Nation's seniors older Americans conthbute additional moneyrest of us who pull into rush hour traffic in the morning, that 65 year old in the car next todeserve this extra incentive to remain produc- to the economy and provide more revenue for in their later years and our work force the treasury. Furthermore, with advances inyours is paying the government a fee to go totive medical technology older Americans willre-work that day. That fee is called the Socialneeds them. I rise in strong Security Earnings Limitation. Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, main healthy longer and live longer productive support of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens Free- lives. My colleagues, today we can eliminate that fee and undo that injustice. Today we candom to Work Act. I have long supported re- join with my Democratic colleagues and peal of this onerous, burdensome rule on this elirnnatingtheretirementbegin to give America's senior citizens equal strongly support nation's working seniors. earnings test that penalizes and discouragestreatment under the nation's tax laws. Today we can guarantee that those senior Americans The earnings limit penalty requires seniors workers age 65 through 69 from remaining in age 65 to 69 who earn over $17,000 toforfeit the workforce and contributing to our pros-who want to continue to work—and can continue to work—today we can guarantee that33% of their Social Security benefits. Seniors perous economy. with golden parachutes or extensive invest- Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, laterthey won't be penalized for making that con- ments do not face such a penalty . . . only today, the House of Representatives will passtribution to their families, to their communities and to society in generaL those who get up every morning. head off to H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work work, and make valuable contributions to our Act. This Act will eliminate the current tax law By allowing older Americans the opportunity to stay in the workforce without penalty, welabor force. This is unfair. which penalizes senior citizens between 65— As a relic of the Great Depression Con- 69 who continue to work. The Senior Citizensare allowing them to supplement theirin- comes, we are helping them to stay healthier, gress is overdue to reform this antiquated law. Earnings Test taxes senior citizens up to 33 The earnings limit is a great disincentive to percent of a senior's Social Security benefits.and we are giving them the opportunity to add to their later retirement. This is especially im-seniors to remain in the workforce if they so One of the most egregious elements of our choose. In reality. it is the imposition of a htgh tax code is the continued over-taxing of Amer-portant as we see more and more Americans living into the eighties, their nineties and evenmarginal tax rate on productive seniors in the icansenior citizens who want to continue workforce, who are also paying federal and working. Repealing this tax on working seniorsinto their hundreds. So I encourage my colleagues today to give state income taxes, and Social Security payroll was the first bll I cosponsored when I was taxes. Ithinktheir older neighbors a fair break. Vote for the sworn into office in 1995, and, finally, I'm pleased to see this legislation come to wouldSenior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. we see light at the end of this tunnel. the floor in a bipartisan fashion. I'm pleased like to thank Speaker 1-JASTERT for his leader- Mr. BALLENGER.Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that another popular tax relief pro-the President has indicated he will sign it. I ship on this issue for more than a decade. look forward to lifting this burden from working This Social Security Earnings Test has twoposal, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work seniors. adverse effects:it discourages seniors fromAct, is coming up for a vote today. First, let me point out that the debate over H.R. 5 Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, today we are working and for those who do work, it takes considering very important legistation which away a portion of the Social Security benefitsshould contain no rhetoric that this repeal of the Social Security earnings limit will break thewill eliminate one of the most unfair tax bur- they have earned. With today's labor shortage, dens even placed on Arnencans and give our greatly outdated and needsbank. The Social Security actuaries have con- thispolicyis senior citizens the freedom to work. changing. firmed that repeal of the earnings limit main- tains the current projected solvency of the So- The high tax rate on the earnings of older The Senior Citizens earnings tax penalty Americans has created a significant roadblock takes $1 of working seniors' Social Securitycial Security Trust Fund. The repeal of the Social Security earnings at a time when workforce participation by benefits for every $3 they earn over a federal these individuals is extremely important to the imposed income limit. Seniors earning morelimit for individuals who have attained the full continuinggrowthoftheU.S.economy. than $17,000 are subject to the earnings tax.retirement age has been a very high priority of mine and for my Republican colleagues elect-Economists and Federal Reserve Board offi- In 1999 there were over 4 million working sen- including Chairman Alan Greenspan, ior citizens, at least 800,000 of them lost someed to the House in 1986. Although we werecials, able a few years ago to secure a gradual in-have expressed concern that the shrinking of their Soaal Security benefits because of the pool of available workers cannot satisfy the earnings test By repealing this tax penalty,crease in the earnings limit for seniors who were 65 to 69 years old, the complete repealsurging quantity of goods and services de- the ten year benefit to senior citizens would be manded by the American people and people about $23 billion. Seniors can use this extraof the earnings limit for this group is a big vic- money for helping with their grandchildren'story.I am pleased that so many senior citi- around the world. March 1, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE H601

I have heard a number of stones, some dur-subjectto a reduction in benefits if they con- In this time of instant gratification,I can think ing a hearing I held as Chairman of the Over-tinue to work. For seniors 65 to 69, benefitsof no better teachers of the value of a work sight Subcommittee for the Education & Work-are reduced by $1 for every $3 that their earn-ethicwhich developed over timecan be force Committee, and others more recentlyings exceed the limit, which was $17,000 inpassed on to future generations. Seniors have dunng town hail meetings Iheld last week in2000, and which rises to $30000 in 2002 andmuch to offer and this bill will make it easier West Michigan.In each case the messageis indexed after that. Thisbifi would repealfor the workforce to receive the benefit of their was the same: the current system discouragesthese limits entirely, effective immediately. wisdom and expenence. older Americans from re-entering or continuing The eamings limit originated in the 1930's Seniors have worked long and hard to earn in the workforce. We need to keep these indi-and has remained in effect because Congressand they should not be deprived of the fruits viduals in the workforce and the repeal of thenever changed it, despite the vast changes inof their labor. Today, seniors are living longer earnings limit will be an essential step in en-the economy and the lives of senior citizensand healthier lives and they are more fit and couraging their participation. that have taken place in the last 60 years. wifling than ever to contribute to our nations Mr. Speaker, I should also note that as sen- Nearly 50,000 senior citizens in Texas areworkforce. Many view working as a necessary iors and others enter the workforce, there iscurrent'y being penalized for working, a pros-part of their well-being and quality of life. As one thing they do not know—the true costs ofpect that does not bode well for the economica society we should not handicap the lifestyle Social Security and Medicare. Currently, ancircumstances for those in the twilight of theirof those who choose to work into their silver employee's W—2 lists his or hers withholdingslives. We should not punish senior citizens foryears. I-$R. 5 reconciles past policy that pun- for Social Security and Medicare. What the participatingin the workforce; we should re-ished seniors by forcing them to sit on the employees dont know, is how much their em-ward that. People remain healthy and vigoroussidelines of the workforce. ployer also pays for these programs. This is much longer than they did in the 1930's. There are also many seniors who have no another unfairness we need tocorrect by It makes sense to repeal this obsolete andchoice but to work. Skyrocketing, pharma- passing the Right To Know National Payrollpunitive limit.I have supported raising the limitceutical prices have left seniors struggling to Act, which would require the employers sharein pa8t years and support repealing it now. To-meet the financial burden of much needed of Social Security and Medicare taxes to bedays legislationis important to consider asmedicine. Every year we listen to the stories disclosed on each employees annual W—2.part cf a broader plan to use the surplus toof seniors who die in their home due to their American workers have aright to know theextend the life of Social Security and Medicareinability to meet the heating or air-conditioning true costs of Social Security and Medicare. and pay down the debt. costs. I-$ow can we continue to penalize them Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, we are Today, we can take the first step towarIsfortheirnecessary effortstomeet those witnessing the best of Congress as Membersstrenqthening retirement security for all sen-costs? ofdifferentideologiesandpoliticalparties iors. 3ut this step was just the very beginning Unfortunately, many of the seniors who come together for the benefit of the Americanof what we must do in order to put Social Se-need to work most are our nation's women, people. curity on a firm financial footing well into thewho outlive their male spouse 75% of the Today, the I-$ouse of Representatives will21st century.I hope the I-$ouse of Representa-time. Indeed, "103,000 dependent and spous- pass the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Acttives, which showed such passion today whenal beneficiaries are affected by the limit." Wid- (I-$.R. 5) which will repeal the Depression-eratalking about removing the earnings limit willowed women often are forced to reenter the earnings limit imposed on Social Security re-show the same kind of passion over the nextwork force in order to meet their basic needs. cipients between the ages of 65 and 69 whofew months as we debate the proper use ofThey shou'd not be forced to lose some or all decide to supplement their retirement incomethe surplus. We must use the budget surplusof their retirement benefits, while striving to by working. Under current law, seniors whoto strengthen Social Security and Medicare. secure the simple necessities of hying. work lose $1 of their Social Security benefits Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, Irise today While I support and applaud this effort on for every $3 they eam outside eamed incomein strong and stringent support of I-$R. 5, thebehalf of our nation's seniors,I would be re- miss not to mention the continued problem beyond $17000 a year. Senicr Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. Current In the real world, this outdated law has ad- facing Social Security. Ensunng the future sol- law limits the income of retirees ages 65 to 69 versely affected several thousand of my con-to $17000. Social Security benefits are re-vency of the Social Security Trust Fund is a stituents in Queens and the Bronx. A number problem this Congress still must address. It is duced onedollarforeverythreedollars of seniors in my district have gotten part-time my hope thatI-$.R.5,is simply a stepping jobs to supplement their income so as to im-eamod above $17000. Social Security Admin-stone along the path of addressing a problem istration statistics show that nearly "690,000 prove their quality of life, offset some of their that is not going to go away. I urge the leader- beneficiaries between 65 and 69 lose some or expenses such as the high costs of their pre- ship of this I-$ouse to bring forth legislation that all of their benefits because of excess earn- scnption drugs and remain active. seeks to make the tough decisions necessary ings resulting from their work." This biD, which Unfortunately, once many of these seniors to address the solvency of the Social Security recognize how much they are losing in theirrepeds the eamings limits imposed under So-Trust Fund before we are faced with even Social Security benefits by working, they quitcial Security on our nation's working seniortougher more painful decisions. their jobs. citizens,isa welcomed measure which will Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank aVow our seniors to continue to contribute to I believeitisboth foolish and counter- the Speaker of the I-$ouse, the gentleman from productive to punish working people. our growing economy. Illinois (Mr. I-$ASTERT), for his long commitment This legislationwillassist people like Mr. Th eamings limit is an outdated relic of theto repealing the punitive tax on seniors. One Christopher Christie,aconstituent of minedepression era social security program. It wasof the first billsI sponsored way back rn 1989, from the Bronx, New York. I-$e was punishedinstituted based on a policy that addressed aduring my first year in Congress, was DENNY by the eaming limit After he retired, he spentproblem of that time; however, times have I-$ASTERT's'Older AmericansFreedomto several weeks working ina small businesschanjed. Then, our nation was worried aboutWork Act.' I'm delighted that we are finally she operated and as a doorman on Park Ave.moving seniors out of the work force to makemoving forward with this historic legislation. It nue. I-$e saw his Social Security check gar-room for the growing number of younger work-is long overdue. ers. Now, labor statistics indicate that as our nished monthly because of his outside jobs. I recenily pointed out, while arguing for re- Therefore,I am pleased that the I-$ouse isnation's population ages, there will be a short- peal of the marriage penalty tax, that in Amer- debating this legislation to repeal the earningsage of workers available to meet our futureica you should not be discnminated against by limit and allow our seniors the freedom tolabor needs. I-$R. 5 is needed to provide in-our tax code solely because of your status. work and attain some financial independence.centive to seniors to help supplement the na-We have civil rights laws in America to make This bill represents a solid first step in im-tion's future need for workers. sure that each of us is protected against unfair proving the quality of life of Amencas seniors. Past Social Security policy overlooked thetreatment by our govemment. Yet, just as the

I hope that Congress will now address thevaluable assets that senior citizens bring tomarriage penalty discnminates against people other issues of importance to seniors, such asour ration's workforce. Seniors have a wealthwho are married, the eamings test discrimi- theinclusion of prescription drug coverageof wisdom and experience to offer the work-nates against people over 65 who choose to under Medicare. force. Most enjoy bestowing the benefit ofstay productive. Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sup-theirexperience and wisdom on younger This costly and regressive tax forces many port the bill ftR. 5, The Senior Citizens Free-workers and generally offer their knowledgeseniors from the job market. Whereas 50 dom to Work act. for reasons other than the sheer pursuit ofyears ago 47% of men over 65 were em- Under current law, seniors who claim Social wealth.Seniors tendtoexemplify theat-ployed inthe labor force, todayitisonly Security benefits before they reach 69 aretnbutes of hard-work, punctuality and patience. 16.5%. H602 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE March 1, 2000 continueto work after 65, are perfect exam- Asenior who chooses to work after the re-$3,600 a year. However, if that worker enjoys an average length of retirement, this delayples of why the earnings penalty is wrong and tirement age of 65 faces a tax burden that I want to thank both amounts to government confiscation. A seniorputs him at a disadvantage. He should be re-why we need to end it. of them for sharing their story with me. who chooses to work loses $1 in Social Secu-ceiving an extra $4,800 a year, not $3,600. Under current law, the DRC is set to rise to Ending the earnings penalty today is a good rity benefits for every $3 in wages and salaries start.It's important to thousands of seniors. he or she earns over $17,000. Yet $17,000 is8 percent in 2008. This is the amount that So- be actuariallyBut tomorrow, let's get to work and pass a re- close to the official U.S. government poverty cialSecurityconsidersto sound.' That means that a retiree who delayssponsible plan that will strengthen Social Se- level for working families. When one adds the curity and Medicare, and provide our seniors thisreceiving his benefit is getting proper com- burdens of income and payroll taxes, with a prescription drug benefit.Itis a plan amounts to a marginal tax rate on workingpensation in the future for the money he does not get today. As we eliminate the earningsthat honors our seniors and protects our val- seniors as high as 80%—higher than the rate limit, it is reasonable to include an increase inues. We've taken a positive first step today. for billionaires. Let's get to work and finish the job. The government should not penalize work-the DRC. Retirees deserve a fair deal today— not in 2008. Now that we are taking away the Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, the ing seniors by canceling their Social Security second session of the 106th Congress has benefits. These benefits are not welfare; theyearnings limit that discourages senior citizens from working, we should accelerate the DRCbeen off to a quick start passing landmark leg have been earned over a lifetimeof hard isiation that directly impacts millions of Ameri- and encourage them tosave" so they have work. a higher benefit during the years they nocans and improves our quality of life. Repeal of the earnings test is also another First, we repealed the Mamage Penalty Tax, important step toward ensuring that Social Se- longer have outside earnings. The accelerated DRC will encourage people to work as long asand today, we will ensure that older men and curity is always there for seniors.am hopeful in the workforce will be able to they choose. The Social Security actuarieswomen still we can bring the same bipartisan supportwe keep more of their hard-earned money without upcomingdebate onhave examined my proposal to accelerate the have todaytothe is actuarially sound. Itlosing important Social Security benefits. Social Security benefitsDRC, and they say it Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, the supplementing doesn't cost taxpayers or weaken the Social through personal retirement accounts. golden years for many older men and women The Clinton-Gore administrationhas hadSecurity trust fund. in America involve all types of activities. More There are three reasons to accelerate the eight years to repeal this discriminatory bur- and more, older Americans are sharing their DRC: den on seniors. The Democratic Congress has 1. Fairness—Give workers who choose tolifelong experience in business and industry 40 years to do it. Not only did they fail to dodelay receiving their Social Security benefit anwith a new generation of Americans in the The so, they raised taxes on working seniors. increase that is consistent with actuarial as-workplace.Benefiting from tremendous ad- 1993 Clinton tax increase included a 70% in- vances in health care and increasing life ex- sumptions. crease in income taxes on SocialSecurity 2. Choice—Give senior citizens more op-pectancy rates, our older people—the genera benefits,forseniorsearningaslittleastions to manage their retirement—they choosetion of men and women who carried our nation $34000. when they retire and when they should applythrough World War II, and beyond—continuE to contribute to the economic well being of our In 1996, for the first time ever, the new Re-for benefits. publican majority in Congress provided relief 3. To Fight Poverty—Give a higher survivorstate and nation. toseniors by reducing the Social Securitybenefit to widows whose spouses took bene- While some older men and women are working because they need the paycheck to earnings penalty. The new law more than dou-fits based on the DRC. put food on the table, others keep working bled the amount a senior citizen could earn When I learned of the Ways and Means without losing his or her Social Security bene- markup of H.R. 5, approached Representa-simply because they like what they do and fits, from $11,280 to $30,000 in 2002. Thistive SNAw and Representative ARCNER, andsee no reason to stop doingit just because change has already had a positive effect: thepresented my amendment to accelerate thethey have reached their sixty-fifth birthday. number of senior citizens choosing to remainDRC. After careful consideration by the Social Right now, the tax code penalizes older Americans who choose to keep working. Over in the labor force has increased by 7%. To-Security subcommittee, I received agreement day's long-overdue step—passage of HR. 5to add this amendment. Gene Spelling called800,000 seniors today lose part or all of their to completely repeat the unfair earnings test—me on the evening of Feb. 28 to tell me thatSocial Security benefits because of the Social finally finishes the job Congress startedin the President had agreed to support it, andSecurity 'earnings limit." Almost 37,000 older hit 1996, and that Speaker HASTERT started morethe minority gave their consent on Tuesday. men and women in New Jersey alone are This amendment is to too important to beby this unfair penalty. than a decade ago. The present limit cuts or entirely eliminates Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker,I amstalled by politics.Iwill continue to fight for its proud to stand with members of Congressindusion, and I remain optimistic that I will seeSocial Security benefits for working older men who have introduced bills that advocate com-the DRC acceleration language in the bill thatand women whose yearly incomes exceed a prehensive reform of Social Security. We un-President Clinton finally signs into law. certain amount. In 2000, working Americans between the ages of 65—69 will lose $1 in So- derstand the immensity of the challenge facing Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in sup- the country as baby boomers retire, how de-port of bringing relief to thousands of seniorscial Security benefits for every $3 in earnings mographics result in a huge responsibility forwho are unfairly punished by the Social Secu-over the limit. rity earnings penalty. For too many seniors. The Social Security earnings limit was cre- future generations, and the importance of pre- ated during the Great Depression when jobs paring Social Secunty for the future. You will working after they turn 65 isn't an option—it is were scarce.It was designed to encourage find repeal in the Social Security So'vency Acta necessity. They can ill afford a smaller So- Bills older workers to leave the workforce to free up for 2000, which I introduced in November. cial Security check each month. We should fixjobs for younger workers. What may have introduced this year and last year, in-this inequity and do what is fair and right for that I been good policy during the worst economic our seniors. They deserve nothing less. cluding the Social Secunty Solvency Act for downturn in American historyis bad policy the earnings Last week, I met with a group of working 2000, includedeliminationof today dunng one of the best economic cycles consider toseniors in West Haven, Connecticut. One was limit, plus another provision that with more challenges and opportunities for ev- be the counterbalance to the earnings test—Mary Grabowski. Mary recently retired,but eryone. accelerating the increase in the "delayed re-she quickly realized she had to continue to Our economy is booming and unemploy- tirement credit" or DRC. work after she turned 65 because she simply It wasn't a choice.It ment is at a record low. These working older If a worker decides to continue working aftercouldn't afford not to. men and women are an important partof that 65 and defer his monthly benefit, the DRC in-wasn't so she could make a little extra moneysuccess. They should be encouragedto re- creases the size of his monthly checkhe willon the side. It was about being able to pay her Security. A main a vital part of the work force rather than ultimatelyreceive fromSocial bills. be penalized for their labors. In addition, peo- worker who turns 65 this year will see his ben- I also listened to the story of Estelle Stuart. Estelle is also a recent retiree who came to pie today are living longer and healthier lives. efits increase 6 percent for every year he de- Soon, millions of baby boomers will reach re- realize that Social Security simply isn't going fers his benefit. Current law allows a worker to tirement age. If these people wish to remain delay retirement for up to five years, workingto be enough for her to get by. In particular, Estelle is forced to work in order to pay for theproductive members of the workforce long until he reaches 70.If that retiree's monthly past their sixty-fifth birthday, their experiences, benefit was $1,000 when he turned 65, it willprescription drugs she desperate needs. Mary Grabowski,EstelteStuart. and theindustry, and productiveness should be re- be $1,300 if he puts off receiving a Social Se- warded. cunty check unthhe's 70—that's an extrathousands of other seniors like them who must March 1, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE H603 The Socia' Secunty earnings limit penalty isGillmor Luther Ryan (WI) Kilpatrick Millender- Spratt wrong, unfair, and should be scrapped. WithCilman Maloney(CT) Ryun(KS) Mica McDonald Vento Gonzalez Maloney (NY) Sabo Norwood Waters thePresidentinagreement, and my c01 Goode Manzullo Salmon leagues on both sides of the aisle in full sup- Goodlatte Markey Sanchez 1316 port, 'et's pass "The Senior Citizens Freedom (;oodling Martinez Sanders (;ordon Mastara Sandlin Mr. DIXON changed his vote from to Work Act" (H.R. 5), after so many years of (,oss Matsui Sanford 'nay' toyea.'• inaction. Graham McCarthy (MO) Sawyer So the bill was passed. Mr. SHAW.Mr.Speaker, I yield back (ranger McCarthy (NY) Saxton The result of the vote was announced the balance of my time. (;reen (TX) MtCollum Scarborough Green (WI) McCrery Schaffer as above recorded. The SPEAKER pro tempore(Mr. Greenwood McDermott Schakowsky A motion to reconsider was laid on LATOURETrE).All timefor debate hay-Gutierrez McGovern Scott the table. ing expired, pursuant to the order of(;utknecht McHugh Sensenbrenner Stated for: Hall (OH) Mclnnis Serrano the House of today, the previous ques- Hall (TX) Mcintosh Sessions Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I did not tion is ordered on the bill, as amended. Uansen Mtlntyre Shadegg hear the bells on rollcall 27. I spoke in The question is on the engrossment flastert McKeon Shaw support of the bill, H.R. 5, and I would and third reading of the bill. Hastings (FL) McKinney Shays ILastings (WA) McNulty Sherman have voted in favor of the bill had I The bill was ordered to be engrossed Hayes Meehan Sherwood been present. and read a third time, and was read thetayworth Meek (FL) Shimkus Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on roilcall No. 27, flefley Meeks (NY) Shows third time. I was unavoidab'ydetained.Had I been Herger Menendez Shuster The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Hill (IN) Metcalf Simpson present, I would have voted "yes." question is on the passage of the bill. Uill (MT) Miller (FL) Sisisky Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, on rolLcalI No. 27, The question was taken; and theUilleary Miller, Gary Sheen the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, on flilliard Miller. George Skelton Speaker pro tempore announced thatflinchey Minge Slaughter which I addressed the House, I was regretfully the ayes appeared to have it. Ilinojosa Mink Smith I) delayed on official business with a visiting del- Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I object to Hobson Moakley Smith (NJ) egation from the German Bundestag. Had I the vote on the ground that a quorum Hoeffel Mollohan Smith (TX) been present, I would have voted "yea." Hoekstra Moore Smith (WA) is not present and make the point of Holden Moran (KS) Snyder Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on ro)lcaII order that a quorum is not present. Uolt Moran (VA) Souder No. 27, I was unavoidably detained. Had I The SPEAKER pro tempore.Evi- Uooley Morella Spence been present, I would have voted "yea." Hostettler Murtha Stabenow dently a quorum is not present. ioughton Myrick Stark Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on roll- The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab- Hoyer Nadler Stearns call No. 27,I was inadvertently detained. Had sent Members. Hulshof Napolitano Stenholm I been present, I would have voted 'yea." The Chair announces that the vote on Hunter Neal Strickland Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, on roilcall No. 27, Hutchinson Nethercutt SturlW the Speaker's approval of the Journal, iyde Ney Stupak had I been present.I would have voted "yea.' if ordered, will immediately follow this Inslee Northup Sununu vote, and will be a 5-minute vote. lsakson Nussle Sweeney Istook Oberstar Talent The vote was taken by electronic de-Jackson (IL) Obey Tancredo vice, and there were—yeas 422, nays 0, Jackson-Lee Olver Tanner not voting 13, as follows: (TX) Ortiz Tauscher Jefferson Ose Tauzin [RollNo. 27) Jenkins Owens Taylor(MS) YEAS—422 John Oxley Taylor (NC) Johnson (CT) Packard Terry Abercrombie Bryant DeLay johnson. E. B. Thomas Ackerman Burr Pallone DeMint .ohnson. Sam Pascrell Thompson (CA) Aderholt Burton Deutsch .ones (NC) Pastor Thompson (MS) Allen Buyer Diaz-Balart Jones (OH) Paul Thornberry Andrews Callahan Dickey anJorski Payne Thune Archer Calvert Dicks Kaptur Pease Thurman Armey Camp Dingell Kasich Pelosi Tiahrt Baca Canady Dixon Kelly Bachus Peterson (MN) Tierney Cannon Doggett }ennedy Baird Peterson (PA) Toomey Capps Dooley Kildee Baker Petri Towns Capuano Doolittle Kind (WI) Baldacci Phelps Traflcant Cardin Doyle }ing (NY) Pickering Turner Baldwin Carson Drejer I(ingston Pickett Jdall (CO) Ballenger Castle Duncan }Ueka Pitts JdaIl (NM) Barcia Chabot Dunn Klink Pombo Upton Barr Chambliss Edwards }thollenberg Pomeroy Velazquez Barrett (NE) Chenoweth.Hage Ehlers Kolbe Porter Visclosky Barrett (WI) Clay Ehrlich Kucinich Portman Vitter Bartlett Clayton Emerson IZuykendall Price (NC) Walden Barton Clement Engel l.aFalce Pryce (OH) Walsh Bass Clyburn English l.aHoOd Quinn Wamp Bateman Coble Eshoo l.ampson Radanovich Watkins Becerra Coburri Etheridge lantos Rahall Watt (NC) Bentsen Collins Evans 1.argent Ramstad Watts (OK) Bereuter Combest Everett larson Rangel Waxman Berkley Condit Ewing l.atham Regula Weiner Berman Conyers Farr l.aTOurette Reycs Weldon (FL) Berry Cooksey Fattah l.azio Reynolds Weldon (PA) Biggert Costello Filner leach Riley Weller Bilbray Cox Fletcher lee Rivers Wexler Bilirakis Coyne Foley l.evin Rodriguez Weygand Bishop Cramer Forbes lewis (CA) Roemer Whitfield Blagojevich Crane Ford lewis (GA) Rogan Wicker Blumenauer Crowley Fossella lewis (KY) Rogers Wilson Blunt Cubin Fowler linder Rohrabacher Wise Boehiert Cummings Frank () l.ipinski Ros-Lehtinen Wolf Bochner Cunningham Franks (NJ) l.oBiondo Rothman Woolsey Bonilla Danner Frelinghuysen lofgren Roukema Wu Bonior Davis (FL) Frost l.owey Roybal-Allard Wynn Bono Davis (IL) Gallegly lucas (KY) Royce Young (AK) Borski Davis (VA) Ganske lucas (OK) Rush Young (FL) Boswell Deal GcJdenson Boucher DeFazio Gekas Boyd DeGette Gephardt NOT VOTNG—l3 Brady (PA) Delahunt Gibbons flliley Brown (OH) Cook Brown (FL) DeLauro Gilchrcst 1rady (TX) Campbel' Horn

106TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION

AN ACT To amend title II of the SocialSecurity Act to eliminate the earnings test for individuals whohave attained retirement age.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate andHouse of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of Americain Congress assembled, 2

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the "Senior Citizens' Free- 3 dom to Work Act of 2000".

4 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EARNINGS TEST FOR INDWID.

5 UALSWHO HAVE AAINED RETIREMENT

6 AGE.

7 Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 8 403) is amended—

9 (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking "the age of

10 seventy" and inserting "retirement age (as defined

11 in section 216(1))";

12 (2) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2) of subsection

13 (d), by striking "the age of seventy" each place it 14 appears and inserting "retirement age (as defined in

15 section 216(1))";

16 (3) in subsection (f)(1)(B), by striking "was 17 age seventy or over" and inserting "was at or above

18 retirement age (as defined in seétion 216(1))";

19 (4) in subsection (f)(3)— 20 (A) by striking "33'/3 percent" and all 21 that follows through "any other individual," 22 and inserting "50 percent of such individual's 23 earnings for such year in excess of the product 24 of the exempt amount as determined under 25 paragraph (8),"; and

.HR5 EH 3 70" and inserting 1 (B) by striking "age section 216(1))"; 2 "retirement age (as defined in

3 (5) in subsection (h)(l)(A),by striking "age

4 70" each place it appearsand inserting "retirement

5 age(as defined in section216(1))"; and

6 (6) in subsection (j)— striking "Age Sev- 7 (A) in the heading, by

8 enty" and inserting "RetirementAge"; and of age" and 9 (B) by striking "seventy years retirement age (as 10 inserting "having attained

11 defined in section 2 16(1))".

12 SEC. 3.CONFORMINGAMENDMENTSELIMINATINGTHE EX- WHOHAVE 13 EMPTAMOUNFFOR llmIVIDUALS

14 AT]AINED RETIREMENT AGE. AMOUNT.—Section 15 (a) UNIFORM EXEMPT 16 203(f) (8) (A)of theSocialSecurity Act(42U. S.C. 17 403(f)(8)(A)) is amendedby striking "the newexempt 18 amounts (separatelystated for individualsdescribed in 19 subparagraph (D) andfor other individuals) which areto 20 be applicable" and inserting"a new exempt amountwhich

21shall be applicable".

22 (b) CoIc1ORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 23 203(f) (8) (B)of theSocialSecurity Act (42 U.S. C. 24 403(f)(8)(B)) is amended—

'HR5 EH 4

1 (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by strik- 2 ing "Except" and all that follows through "which-

3 ever" and inserting "The exempt amount which is

4 applicable for each month of a particular taxable

5 yearshall be whichever";

6 (2) in clause (i), by striking "corresponding";

7 (3) in clause (ii), in the matter preceding sub-

8 clause (I), by striking "corresponding" and all that

9 follows through "individuals)" and inserting "ex-

10 empt amount which isin effect with respect to

11 months in the taxable year ending after 1993 and

12 before 1995 with respect to individuals who have not

13 attainedretirementage(asdefinedinsection

14 216(1))";

15 (4) in subclause (II) of clause (ii), by striking

16 "2000" and all that follows and inserting "1992,";

17 and

18 (5) in the last sentence, by striking "an exempt

19 amount" and inserting "the exempt amount". 20 (c) REPEAL OF BASIS FOR COMPUTATION OF Ex-

21 EMPT AMOUNT AFFECTING INDrVIDUALS WHO HAVE AT-

22 TAINEDRETIREMENTAGE.—Section 203(f)(8)(D) of the 23Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(D)) is repealed.

•}LR5 EH 5

1 SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

2 (a) ELIMINATION OF REDUNDANT REFERENCES TO 3 RETIREMENT AGE.—Section 203 of theSocial Security 4 Act (42 U.S.C. 403) is amended—

5 (1)in subsection (c), in the last sentence,by

6 striking "nor shall any deduction" and allthat fol-

7 lows and inserting "nor shall any deductionbe made

8 under this subsection from any widow's orwidower's

9 insurance benefit if the widow, survivingdivorced

10 wife, widower, or surviving divorcedhusband in-

11 volved became entitled to such benefit prior to at-

12 taming age 60."; and

13 (2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking clause(D)

14 and inserting the following: "(D) forwhich such in-

15 dividual is entitled to widow's or widower'sinsurance

16 benefits if such individual became so entitledprior

17 to attaining age 60,".

18 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO PROVISIONS FOR 19 DETERMINING AMOUNT OF INCREASE ONACCOUNT OF

20 DELAYED RETrnE1VIENT.—Section202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of the

21SocialSecurity Act(42U.S.C.402(w)(2)(B)(ii))is 22 amended—

23 (1) by striking "either"; and 24 (2) by striking "or suffered deductionsunder

25 section 203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal tothe

26 amount of such benefit".

sEE5 EH 6

1 (c) PROVISIONS RELATING TO EARNINGS TAKEN

2 INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING SUBSTANTIAL GAINFUL 3 ACTIviTY OF BLIND INDrvrnUALS.—The second sentence 4 of section 223(d)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(4))

5isamended by striking "if section 102 of the Senior Citi-

6zens' Right to Work Act of 1996 had not been enacted" 7 and inserting the following: "if the amendments to section 8 203 made by section 102 of the Senior Citizens' Right

9to Work Act of 1996 and by the Senior Citizens' Freedom 10 to Work Act of 2000 had not been enacted".

11SEC.5. EFFECTWEDATE.

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendments and repeals 13 made by this Act shall apply with respect to taxable years 14 ending after December 31, 1999.

15 (b)SPECIAL RULE APPLICABLE TO INDWIDUALS

16 WHO ATTAIN NORMAL RETIREMENT AGE DURING THE 17 FIRST TAXABLE YEAR ENDING AFTER DECEMBER 31, 18 1999.—Sections 202 and 203 of the Social Security Act, 19 as in effect immediately prior to the amendments and re- 20 peals made by this Act, shall apply to any individual who 21attains retirement age (as defined in section 216(1) of such 22 Act) during the first taxable year ending after December 2331, 1999 (and to any person receiving benefits under title 24 II of the Social Security Act on the basis of the wages 25 and self-employment income of such individual), but only

.}IR5 EH 7

1 with respect to earnings for so much ofsuch taxable year 2 as precedes the month in which suchindividual attains

3retirement age (as so defined). Passed the House of RepresentativesMarch 1, 2000. Attest:

Clerk.

•HR5 EH 10Gm CONGRESS 2D SESSION —•R. AN ACT To amend titleII of the Social Security Act to eliminate tile eaIning test for individuais who have attained retirement age.

Calendar No. 439

106THCONGRESS 2D SESSION

IN THESENATEOF THEUNITED STATES MARCH 2, 2000 Received; read twice and ordered placed on the calendar

AN ACT To amend title II of the Social Security Act toeliminate the earnings test for individuals who have attainedretirement age.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2tives of the United States of America in Congressassembled, 2

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 2 This Act may be cited as the "Senior Citizens' Free- 3 dom to Work Act of 2000".

4 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EARNINGSTEST FOR IND1VTD-

5 UALSWHO HAVE ATTAINEDRETIREMENT

6 AGE.

7 Section203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

8403) is amended—

9 (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking "theage of 10 seventy" and inserting "retirementage (as defined

11 in section 216(1))"; 12 (2) in paragTaphs (1)(A) and (2) of subsection 13 (d), by striking "the age of seventy" each place it 14 appears and inserting "retirement age (as defined in 15 section 216(1))"; 16 (3) in subsection (f)(1)(B), by striking "was 17 age seventy or over" and inserting "was at or above 18 retirement age (as defined in setion 216(1))"; 19 (4) in subsection (f)(3)—

20 (A) by striking "331/3percent"andall 21 that follows through "any other individual," 22 and inserting "50 percent of such individual's 23 earnings for such year in excess of the product 24 of the exempt amount as determined under 25 paragraph (8),"; and

HR5PCS 3 inserting 1 (B) by striking "age 70" and

2 "retirement age (as defined in section216(1))";

3 (5)in subsection (h)(1)(A), bystriking "age

4 70" each place it appears andinserting "retirement

5 age(as defined in section 216(1))";and

6 (6) in subsection W—

7 (A) in the heading, by striking"Age Sev-

8 enty" and inserting "RetirementAge"; and

9 (B) by striking "seventy yearsof age" and (as 10 inserting "having attained retirement age

11 defined in section 216(1))". 12 SEC. 3.CONFORMINGAMENDMENTS ELJNThATING THEEX- WHO HAVE 13 EMPT AMOUNT FOR INDiVIDUALS

14 A11AINED RETIREMENT AGE.

15 (a) UNIFORM ExEMPT AMOUNT.—Section 16 203(f)(8)(A)of theSocialSecurity Act (42U.S.C.

17403(f)(8)(A)) is amended by striking"the new exempt 18 amounts (separatelystated for individuals describedin 19 subparagraph (D) and forother individuals) which are to 20 be applicable" and inserting"a new exempt amount which

21shall be applicable". 22 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 23 203(f)(8)(B)of theSocialSecurity Act(42 U.S.C. 24 403(f)(8)(B)) is amended—

HR 5PCS 4

1 (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by strik- 2 ing "Except" and all that follows through "which-

3 ever" and inserting "The exempt amount which is 4 applicable for each month of a particular taxable

5 yearshall be whichever";

6 (2) in clause (i), by striking "corresponding";

7 (3) in clause (ii), in the matter preceding sub-

8 clause (I), by striking "corresponding" and all that

9 follows through "individuals)" and inserting "ex- 10 empt amount which isin effect with respect to

11 months in the taxable year ending after 1993 and 12 before 1995 with respect to individuals who have not

13 attainedretirementage(asdefinedinsection

14 216(1))";

15 (4) in subclause (II) of clause (ii), by striking 16 "2000" and all that follows and inserting "1992,";

17 and

18 (5) :in the last sentence, by striking "an exempt

19 amount" and inserting "the exempt amount". 20 (c) REPEAL OF BASIS FOR COMPUTATION OF Ex-

21 EMPT AMOUNT AFFECTING INDiVIDUALS WHO HAVE AT- 22 TAJNED RETI.RE1VNT AGE.—Section 203(f)(8)(D) of the 23Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(D)) is repealed.

HR 5 PCS 5

1 SEC. 4. ADDiTIONAL CONFORMINGAMENDMENTS.

2 (a) ELIIvUNATION OF REDUNDANTREFERENCES TO 3 RETIRE1VNT AGE.—Section 203of the Social Security 4 Act (42 U.S.C. 403) is amended—

5 (1)in subsection (c), in the last sentence,by

6 striking "nor shall any deduction" andall that fol-

7 lows and inserting "nor shall anydeduction be made

8 under this subsection from anywidow's or widower's

9 insurance benefit if the widow,surviving divorced

10 wife, widower, or surviving divorcedhusband in-

11 volved became entitled to suchbenefit prior to at-

12 taming age 60."; and

13 (2) in subsection (f) (1), by strikingclause (D)

14 and inserting the following: "(D)for which such in-

15 dividual is entitled to widow's orwidower's insurance

16 benefits if such individual became soentitled prior

17 to attaining age 60,".

18 (b) CONFORIVUNG AMENDMENT TOPROVISIONS FOR 19 DETERMINING AMOUNT OFINCREASE ON ACCOUNT OF

20 DELAYED RETIREMENT.—Section202(w) (2) (B) (ii) of the is 21SocialSecurity Act(42U.S.C.402(w)(2)(B)(ii)) 22 amended—

23 (1) by striking "either"; and

24 (2) by striking "or suffereddeductions under

25 section 203(b) or 203(c) in amountsequal to the 26 amount of such benefit".

KR5 PCS 6

1 (c) PRovIsIoNs RELATING TO EARNINGS TAKEN

2INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING SUBSTANTIAL GAINFUL 3 ACTIVITY OF BLIND INDrvIDuius.—The second sentence 4 of section 223(d)(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(4))

5isamended by striking "if section 102 of the Senior Citi-

6zens' Right to Work Act of 1996 had not been enacted" 7 and inserting the following: "if the amendments to section

8203 made by section 102 of the Senior Citizeis' Right 9 to Work Act of 1996 and by the Senior Citizeis' Freedom

10to Work Act of 2000 had not been enacted".

11SEC. 5. EFFECflVE DATE.

12 (a) IN GENE1.1.—The amendments and repeals 13 made by this Act shall apply with respect to taxable years 14 ending after December 31, 1999.

15 (b) SPECIAL RULE APPLICABLE TO INDIVIDUALS

16 WHO ATTAIN NORMAL RETIREMENT AGE DURING THE 17 FIRST TAXABLE YEAR ENDING AFTER DECEBER 31, 18 1999.—Sections 202 and 203 of the Social Security Act,

19as in effect immediately prior to the amendments and re- 20 peals made by this Act, shall apply to any individual who

21attains retirement age (as defined in section 216(1) of such 22 Act) during the first taxable year ending after December 2331, 1999 (and to any person receiving benefits under title 24 II of the Social Security Act on the basis of the wages 25 and self-employment income of such individual), but only

HR 5PCS 7 such taxable year 1 withrespectto earnings for so much of

2as precedes themonth in which such individualattains

3retirement age (as so defined). Passed the House of RepresentativesMarch1, 2000. Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, Cleric.

R5 PCS Calendar No. 439

106TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION R. AN ACT 'ro amend titleII of time Social Secmity Act to e!tte the egs test fe!iliid.e.els who have attained retirement age.

1\Lucit 2, 2000 Received; mead twice Rad ordered placed 00thecalendar

S1483 March 21, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE proceedto the consideration of H.R. 5. which the clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read the title as follows: A bill (HR. 5) to amend title II of the So- cial Security Act to eliminate the earnings test for individuals who have attained retirement age. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Delaware. Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, before pro- ceeding to the opening statementsI yield to Senator GREGG who will speak briefly on his proposed amendment. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator. Mr. GREGG. Mr. President. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Delaware allowing me to proceed Out of order. I very much appreciate that gen- erosity on his part.I also appreciate his courtesy as we develop this piece of legislation and congratulate the Sen- ator for bringing it to the floor. Repealing the earnings limitation is a very important step to assist people who have reached eligibility age for retirement to have a better lifestyle. It allows them to work harder, work longer, work at their option versus at the Government's option. and keep the proceeds of what they earn versus losing it because of this artificial reduction in their benefits, which is presently the law under the earnings limitation test. It is a very appropriate piece of legislation. It is one which I fully congratulate the chairman of the Finance Com- mittee for authoring and bringing forward, and it is something which I have strongly supported for many years. In fact, yesterday I spoke at some length relative to a bill that has been introduced by myself and a number of other MembersoftheSenate,including members of the Finance Committee, Senator KERREY, Senator BREAUX, Sen- ator GRASSLEY, Senator THOMPSON, and Senator Ross,along withSenator THOMAS. That piece of legislation is a comprehensive attempt to reform So- cial Security, to make it solvent for the next 100 years. As part of that comprehensive reform, we included the earnings limitation repeal which is very appropriate legislation. However, I do think if it were being done in a perfect world it would be done in a comprehensive reform of the entire Social Security system because we well know Social Security is facing disastrous consequences beginning in the year 2008 when the baby boom generation retires, followed closely by the year 2014 when the system actually starts to run a cash deficit and is ag- gravated to the point of crisis by the period 2020 to 2040 when we actually run up an absolutely massive deficit which will have to be passed on to the younger generation through tax increases or through a cut to the benefits of the older generation but it would be a deficit in the vicinity of $7 trillion SENIOR CITIZENS FREEDOM TO under the present benefit structure. WORK ACT OF 2000 We need to address that. We need to The PRESIDING OFFICER. Underaddress the whole issue of Social Secu- the previous order, the Senate will nowrity reform, in my opinion. That is why S1484 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE March 21, 2000 Ihave worked with Members of thecoming. Maybe there was some resist- Mr. GREGG. If the Senator from New Senate to draft thiscomprehensiveance because if that type of informa-York willyield.Iappreciate those bill. tion were available, people would startcomments. I know the efforts which As Isaid, one element of the com-scratching their heads, saying. 'Gee,have been made by the Senator from prehensive billisthe repealof thewe do have a big problem; maybe weNew York, trying to make the Social earnings limitation. That is a very ap-should address it." That is the goal ISecurity system solvent. I greatly ad- propriate step and one which shouldhave, obviously—to use this informa-mire them. have been taken many years ago, thattion to energize action and move this I would say, this information would will be very beneficial for our NationCongress, and especially the Whitebe in addition to the information that asourpopulationandthedemo-House. down the road of substantivelyis already available. The Senator from graphics of our population ages so peo-addressing the whole Social SecurityNew York makes the point, people are ple, as they become older but are stillissue rather than this narrow questionnow told how much they should receive living longer, will have the opportunityof the earnings limitation question. in benefits. What they are not told and to participate in the workforce. be pro- However, having stated the outline ofwhat this information would tell them ductive citizens without being penal-the amendment and having gone intois.where are we going to get the ized by the Government and havingmuch more depth yesterday.Ihavemoney and what are the shortfalls in someof theirbenefits taken awaybeen working with the chairman, andthe Federal Government that will be under Social Security. he has agreed. to try to work this typecreated by paying those benefits, and As part of the earnings limitation re-of language into some other processisn't that what you should be worried peal. I wanted to introduce an amend-where it will not complicate his life onabout as a recipient: Where isthe ment to address some of the issues ofthis bill but where it will still be lan-money going to come from? transparency, of disclosure, of tellingguage which will at some point become Mr. MOYNIHAN. A fair point. peoplein America inplain Englishlaw and which will effectively address The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- whattheSocialSecurity system'sthe issues raised by the Social Securityator from Delaware. present economic status is and what itAdvisory Board so we can get full dis- Mr. ROTH. Mr. President.I thank is going to be in the future. The pro-closure to the American people. Senator GREGG for his statement. I ex- posal I was going to offer was basically Ivery much appreciate the chair-press my appreciation to Senator May- a mirror of the proposal which cameman's commitment to work with me onNIHAN for his statement as well. I look out of the professional group whichthis. As a result. I have decided not toforward to working with the Senator oversees reviewing the Social Securityoffer this amendment. from New Hampshire as well as the Administration, the Technical Panel I believe the chairman has requestedranking member on how to provide the on Assumptions and Methods of the So-I yield to him the time which wouldinformation needed to allow a clear cial Security Advisory Board, a boardhave been available under my amend-and concise understanding of Social put together as an arm of the Socialment. Security. We look forwardtopro- Security Administration to come up The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutceeding ahead with this proposal. with ideas for how to improve the So-objection. it is so ordered. Mr. President. I ask unanimous con- cial Security Administration. The Senator from New York. sent the remaining time allotted for They came up in November of 1999 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr.President.I debate on the GREGG amendment be with a whole series of proposals as towonder if I could detain the distin-equally divided, under the control of information that should be made avail-guished Senator from New Hampshirethe two managers. able to the American public. It was notfor just a moment to say how very The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without complicated information, and in factmuch I agree, and I am sure this sideobjection. it is so ordered. they stressed it should be put forwardagrees, with the points he has made, as Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today is a in plain English terms so Americansthe chairman has indicated. great day for millions of seniors, for everywhere could understand the sta- In August of 1994, legislation reestab-their families, and for their employers. tus of the Social Security system. lished the Social Security Administra-The Senate will vote shortly to repeal But it was important information,tion as an independent agency. It hada provision in the Social Security law such as: all but got lost in the Department ofthat discourages seniors from working, What willthe program cost eachHealth and Human Services.In thethe so-called earnings limit. Repealing year? We should know thatas an Directorytherewere American people. Congressional this earnings limit is an important What is the projected cash-flow def-more than 200 names between the namestep in preparing Social Security for icit in the program? That is anotherof the Secretary and the name of thethe 21st century. very important fact we should know inSocial Security Commissioner. It was Social Security is a marvelous pro- deciding how we are going to deal withvery much an agency far down' andgram. Now and in the future, both for Social Security. with no real independence. It is now antoday's seniors and for our children, What are the benefits the system canindependent agency. It has a trusteesSocial Security is the foundation of a actually fund? I cannot think of anyreport that comes out every year—thesecure retirement for most Americans. information that would be more impor-trustees being the Secretaries of theSocialSecurity hasliftedmillions tant than that. Treasury,of Labor,of Health andfrom poverty and is especially impor- What is the impact of all of this onHuman Services, the Commissioner oftant to women. But the Social Security the overall Federal budget? That is an-Social Security and two public trust-earnings limit discourages seniors from other very important point of informa-ees. It has the Social Security Advi-working. Seniors can have their bene- tion. sory Board. fits reduced by as much as one-third as All this information should be made Now, after many years, we are send-long as they work. As a result, many available to the American public. Thating out each year to every citizen overseniors choose to cut back their hours is why the Technical Panel on Assump-25 a statement of how much they haveor stop working altogether. tions and Methods of the Social Secu-paid intO the system and what they The fact is, the earnings limit is a rity Advisory Board recommended thiscould expect to receive as a benefit atpart of a bygone era. It is the product type of disclosure occur. So my amend-the age of retirement and such like—of the Great Depression, a time when ment was going to make as part of theinformation nobody ever had before.folksbelievedthatanindividual law a commitment we would makeYou could get it, but you had to knowshould retirecompletely and make those disclosures to the American peo-where to look for it. The kind of open-room for others to work. It is anti- ple through the auspices of the Socialness Senator GREGG speaks of con-quated and antiproductive. Security Administration. It is basic in-tinues this disposition. I hope we will Although Congress has made the formation, critical information for peo-reinforce it. I certainly think we couldearnings limit less onerous over the ple making informed decisions. have languageinourreport com-years, it has worked only too well. In Regretfully. I tell the American peo-menting in this regard. I congratulatethe early 1950s, almost 50 percent of ple that we have a very big problemthe Senator for what he has said. men over age 65 were working. Today, March 21, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S1485 it is only 17 percent. These numbersamounts of benefits. Rather, we simply Repealing the earnings test, for those are even lower for women. But in theprovide seniors with greater choicereaching normal retirement, will innew economy we realize the impor-over when they receive these benefits. crease outlays by $19.4 billion over 6 tance of men and women remaining I am very proud of what the Senateyears and $20.3 billion over 11 years, productive participants in our work-Finance Committee and the Senatebut this is simply the up-front costs of force. In the new economy, we appre-itself has been able to accomplish overa long-term absolute even outcome. ciate skill and experience. the past 5 years. We have balanced theExtra benefits will not be paid because Abolishing the earnings limit is notbudget and have begun to pay down theover time it will be, as you can say, a only good for seniors, it is good forpublicdebt. We have strengthenedwash. The advantages are so much America. It is good employment andMedicare and expanded health care, es-greater to pass this now when we have economic policy. It is also good govern-pecially for children and people withsome comfort in our budgetary surplus ment. It will improve public service bydisabilities. We have provided new edu-in the Social Security trust fund. It is the Social Security Administration. cational opportunities. We have fixed athe right thing to do. Repealing theearnings limit willbroken welfare system. We have cut I say, and I think so would my re- help strengthen the retirement secu-taxes. We have reformed the IRS. Wevered chairman, that we would prefer rity of Americans by giving seniors ahaveprotected theSocial Securityto abolish all earnings tests for all re- choice of working longer and savingtrust fund. tired workers. Right now, people can more. With the passage today of the Socialretire at age 62 and receive benefits, As Americans live longer, work willSecurity earnings limit repeal, we willand there is a corresponding diminish- likely be more and more important toadd one more significant accomplish-ment thereafter. We could get rid of all the financial security of seniors, again,ment to this list. Without question,that very readily. But it is not before especially for women. Also, seniors whothere is still much to do on Social Se-us today. Sufficient unto this day is work may be better able to voluntarilycurity reform. But this legislation is athe work we will have done. delay their Social Security benefits. Asclear and vivid demonstration that we I will leave it there, sir. I have some a result, they will receive a largercan work together in a bipartisan waycomments, but I will not go much fur- check when they do elect benefits, into achieve lasting and valuable changesther. in Social Security. There are those who say: If you let effect, by banking those benefits. Inclosing,let me note that thepeople retire early at a lower level of Repealing the earnings limit is goodPresident has asked for a clean bill,benefit, they will do so. Then, later on employment and economic policy. Weone without extraneous amendments.their spouses will be deprived, and so live in a world of great new potentialWith the exception of the managers'forth. That is an argument I am not and exciting changes. The Internet—amendment, which fixes a technicalsure is appropriate to social insurance. the communications revolution—is cre-problem with the House bill, we intend It is a fact that three-quarters of all ating huge new opportunities. Break-to provide that. persons now retire before age 65, which throughsinbiotechnologypromise I urge all my colleagues to supportargues, I think—and I don't know why longer and healthier lives. this bill, to sweep away the earningswe can't learn more about this; we can Among allthischange,however,limit—a relic of the Depression—and toif we would try—that Americans are there is one constant: Our success as amove Social Security into the 21st cen-pretty well off. They are in a position nation depends on the hard work andtuy. to do so, and they opt for it. We must talent of our people. Today, we under- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-keep in mind we are talking about so- stand economic growth is a function ofator from New York. cial insurance. It is not for us to judge the number of workers and the produc- Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it isthe behavior of the citizens who have tivity of each worker. As a nation, wea special joy for this Senator, in hispaid into a system and are being paid benefit from more workers, not fewer. last months of his last term, to rise onback by it. According to Federal Reserve Chair-this subject in perfect unity with the I think the finest summation of this man Alan Greenspan, we are beginningchairman. I will make remarks out ofwas made by Winston Churchill in 1911. to suffer from a serious worker short-habit and custom perhaps, but I couldHe was then a member of Parliament age that threatens our economic ex-not say anything better than has beenfrom the Liberal Party, and it fell to pansion. In Just 5 years—in 2005—whensaid. I endorse it completely. him to manage, as we are managing baby boomers reach retirement age, we The House has done us a service inhere, a system of unemployment insur- will need more older Americans work-sending us a bill which we have beenance which we would get to in 1935 as a ingjust to maintain the Nation's laborworking on for years. Just 4 years ago.title in the Social Security Act. It took force. we increased the earnings limit tous another generation. We do not need disincentives thatwhere it would be $30,000 by the year Churchill at that time was met with discourage some of our Nation's most2002. But now this gets rid of it. It is anthe argument that if you gave unem- experiencedworkers from working.anachronism. As the chairman said,ployed workers a benefit, an insurance Abolishingtheearningslimitwillwhen we enacted Social Security, un-benefit—they would pay into the sys- allow us to protect the Nation's eco-employment was 25 percent. Sir, it istem, the employer and the workers— nomic gains of the past 17 years. It willnow 4 percent. The range of skills inthat they would spend the money on not only help to raise the standard ofour economy was wholly different then.drink. He said:Well, yes, perhaps; it's living for many of our seniors but helpCoal mines were no place for 70-year-their money." He was not one much keep the strongest economic growth inolds; computer terminals are. It is asgiven to the 'nanny state," as I think our lifetime on track. This is a win-winsimple as that. the term was in these years. situation. Anabsolutelyimportant,central It is not for us to judge how wisely Repealing the earnings limit has onepoint to make is, the repeal of thepeople will exercise their options. They other very important value: Improvingearnings test has no long-run cost. Allare their options. Today we have freed public service by the Social Securityof the foregone benefits of continuedup the system, making it more com- Administration. Administeringthework were made up later when retire-prehensible and saving a lot of admin- earnings limit is complex; itisdif-ment came, or at age 70. As the chair-istrative effort that is really, again, ficult. It costs something close to $100man has accurately said, calculatingnot productive. million per year and is the culprit inthat makeup can be fantastically com- I look forward to a good debate. I see the vast majority of Social Securityplex and has been costly. my friend from Nebraska on the floor. benefit payment errors. These payment It is the one complaint citizens haveHe has been hugely influential in the errors are a huge source of frustrationwithSocialSecurity. They believediscussion and debate about these mat- to seniors. With this legislation. wethey are not getting what is theirs. Theters in years past. I know he will be will now be avoiding that. adjudication and so forth is a needlessnow. I look forward to listening with Let me also note that there are nowaste and an expensive one. With thisclose attention to his comments. long-term costs associated with thislegislation, the problem will be behind With that, I thank the chairman once bill. No senior receives any greaterus. again and yield the floor. S1486 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE March 21, 2000 ThePRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-New York and I have a piece of legisla-mittee. It has a lot of political steam ator from Nebraska. tion that will eliminate the earningsbehind it. Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, did thetest all the way to 62. Our proposal This is a good thing to put on an add. chairman rise to speak again? brought a problem to the surface. ThisThis is a good thing to say you support. Mr. ROTH. We did have Senator KYLbill has not been heard by the FinanceIt is very difficult to be against this coming down to speak next, going backCommittee. We have not consideredproposal. and forth. some of the problems that may be cre- I point out, again, we have not done Mr. KERREY. Is he arriving here im-ated as a consequence of taking thiscomprehensive reform of Social Secu- minently? action. rity. People under the age of 40 are Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr.President,I Members should understand that thegoing to pay a terrible price for that. suggest the absence of a quorum. earnings test isn't just a deduct. It isWe haveanunprecedenteddemo- ThePRESIDINGOFFICER.Thealso an add-on to future benefits. Thatgraphic problem. It is not comparable clerk will call the roll. is why it doesn't cost us anything overto the problem the Senator from New The bill clerk proceeded to call the20. Over 10, it costs us $22 billion. OverYork faced in 1983 when Social Secu- roll. Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask10 years, this proposal costs us $22 bil-rity was fixed once before. The last unanimous consent that the order forlion. If I came down and proposed a $22time, we fixed Social Security for a the quorum call be rescinded. billion add-on for Americans under thenumber of reasons. The political envi- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutage of 5, there would be a budget pointronment has changed. I can't imagine objection, it is so ordered. of order offered against it. But becauseenacting what was enacted in1983, Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I intendit is for Americans over the age of 65,given the current political climate, to vote for this piece of legislation. Ifor some reason, there is silence onwhich is essentially: I want to fix the think it is good and needed legislation.that point. problem, but I am against any increase But I don't think anybody should be I can't quite figure it out. Maybe ain taxes or any cuts in benefits. If you deluded as to why we are taking it up.colleague will be able to tell me whycan give me a good solution for Social I remember the Boskin Commission.no budget point of order was filedSecurity that doesn't increase taxes or A number of years ago there was aagainst a proposal to spend $22 billiondoesn't cut benefits, I am for it. Other- question as to whether or not the CPImore on people over the age of 65,wise, don't sign me up for anything. was overstating the actual cost of liv-where there would be if one were to be Well, we would not have enacted the ing for seniors who were eligible eitherfiled on people under the age of 5. I am1983 reforms if that was the standard for an old age, a survivor, or a dis-sure there is an explanation for it. I amwe used to guide us. The problem we ability payment. There was a questionnot smart enough to be able to figure itface in the future is not the same as as to whether or not it was overstated.out. the problem we faced in 1983. It is a de- So we impaneled this commission to A consequence of this is going to bemographic problem thatis unprece- evaluate whether or not it was over-largely good. Under Social Security, wedented in this country—a doubling of stated. They came back and said, yes,have an old age, a survivor, a dis-the number of beneficiaries. We are it was overstated by a point. 1.1. ability, and a medical benefit calledgoing to have a very steady increase in Out of 535 Members of Congress,Medicare and Medicaid. The old agethe number of people in the workforce maybe 20 people declared they werebenefit is the one to which we are re-of 7 or 8 million people working over willing to vote for a 1.1-percentage re-ferring.I believe Americans who arethe next 30 years, 40 million new bene- duction. If Boskin had come back andover the age of 65—that is who this af-ficiaries. It is not likely that the baby said it was understated by a point,fects. Eighty percent of all new bene-boomers will come to Congress and ask there would have been 535 votes for itficiaries take Social Security benefitsfor less. They are probably going to ask just like that.Nobody would haveat 62, 63, and 64. So this affects the 20for more and say Boskin was wrong, minded messing with the Bureau ofpercent who wait until 65. They arethat the CPI should be increased by Labor Statistics. Nobody would havegoing to have to measure whether ortwo or three points because they have cited philosophy. et cetera. not this is going to be good for them.lots of things they want to buy. We are a Congress that has been talk-For most of them, it will be good. For Postponing this problem makes it ing about Social Security reform, sav-most of them, they will be able to say:difficult for us to stand before an audi- ing Social Security first. The PresidentWell, I am not likely to be living longence of people under 40 and say we care had a year's worth of discussions. Weenough to benefit from the 'add-back"about them, because they are going to have been talking about this for sev-that is going to occur later. So perhapsface a tremendous problem. I heard the eral years now. It is not rocket science.I am going to come out money ahead.Senator from New York mention this Social Security is not a difficult prob- Again, understand that the earningschange in the law that we had 2 years lem to figure out. It is not like healthtest doesn't only have- a subtract. Itago, where the Social Security Admin- care. Medicareisvery complicated.adds back in future years. istration sent out a notice that wasn't Teenage violence is very complicated, One of the interesting things is, whenaccurate. They should have sent out as is the disintegration of the family.we have proposed to eliminate theone to everybody under 40 which said There are a lot of issues which are soearnings test at 62,63, and 64, someunder current law you have a 33-per- complicated that it is hard to come uppeople have come forward and said thatcent cut in benefits heading your way. with an answer. But this one is not. that could increase the number ofThey did not disclose that. They pre- What happened is, from 1983 until ap-women who are living in poverty be-sumed in that notice that Congress was proximately 12 months or so ago, thecause they are going to calculate thatgoing to increase the taxes by 50 per- Social Security system was generatingthat add-back later on is more bene-cent. Well, I daresay if you came to the some assistance to us in reducing theficial to them than the elimination offloor of the Senate now and offered an size of our deficit. So when the Socialthe earnings test at 62, 63 and 64.Iamendment to increase the payroll tax Security transaction to purchase bondsdon't know if that is going to happenby a point, you would be lucky to get occurred and the Treasury ended upfor people age 65,66, and 67. It may.a half dozen votes. with some cash, they used the proceedsThere may be some for whom the earn- I think this is a good piece of legisla- to pay for general services of the Gov-ings test is not a benefit. The com-tion. Itis long overdue. The distin- ernment. Very few people objected tomittee hasn't heard it. guished chairman describeditaccu- that, so long as it was helping us. It is politically popular. It passed therately. I think, for the most part it is Well, now we are into a surplus. AllHouse, I believe, unanimously. It willgoing to be beneficial to people over of a sudden you can't do that anymore.pass the Senate 100-0 as well. Therethe age of 65. Though I think there will All of a sudden we find ourselves in awill be nary a dissenting vote when itunquestionablybesome,asthere position to be able to take care of thegoes through the Senate. But it has notwould be 62, 63, and 64, who, as a con- earnings test. been heard by committee. It was heardsequence of not getting that add-back I will make it clear. I am for endingby the Ways and Means Committee. Itlater on. may find themselves actually the earnings test. The Senator fromwas not heard by the Finance Com-not being helped as much as we think. March 21, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S1487 I will support the underlying legisla-have acquired, especially in todaysishesAmericans between the ages of 65 tion and look forward at a later pointcompetitive global marketplace. and 70 who want to remain productive in this debate to offering an amend- I believe repealing the earnings testafter they reach retirement age and are also affirms our commitment to theeligible to receive Social Security ben- ment. efits. Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 5values of self-help and personal respon- The Earnings Test mandates that, for minutes to the distinguished Senatorsibility. every $3 earned by a retiree over the from Arizona Mr. KYL. After working to accomplish this re- Mr. KYL. Mr. President. let me ex-peai throughout my entire time in theearnings limit, the retiree loses $1 in press my appreciationtoSenatorsCongress,I am very pleased to noteSocial Security benefits. This is clear- that we are so close to completing thely age discrimination, and it is very ROTH and MOYNIHAN, and especially to wrong. Due to this cap on earnings. our Senators BOB KERREY and JUDD GREGGjob today. Again my compliments to for their efforts. This is clearly an ideaall those people who have worked sosenior citizens. many of whom exist on where the time has come. My col-hard to make this a reality. fixed, low incomes, are burdened with a leagues are correct to emphasize that Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I suggest33.3 percent tax on their earned in- saving Social Security for the futurethe absence of a quorum. come. When this is combined with Fed- will require us to put aside the pros- ThePRESIDINGOFFICER. Theeral, State. local and other Social Se- clerk will call the roll. curity taxes,it amounts to an out- pect of partisan gain for the good of rageous 55 to 65 percent tax bite. the country and of our senior citizens. The bill clerk proceeded to call the In 1996. Congress passed and Presi- I respect the point they have made. roll. dent Clinton signed into law the Senior I hope the step we are taking today, Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unan-Citizens Right to Work Act. This legis- which could not be taken without a bi-imous consent that the order for thelation took a step in the right direc- partisan consensus, bodes well for fu-quorum call be rescinded. tion by gradually increasing the $11,250 ture reform of Social Security. I am The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutearnings limit to $30,000 by the year quite pleased to see that the Senate isobjection. it is so ordered. 2002. This year. the earnings limit is on the verge of taking this momentous Mr. ROTH. Mr. President. I yield S$17,000. But an individual who is strug- action of eliminating the earnings testminutes to the distinguished Senatorgling to make ends meet with just for those between the ages of 65 and 69.from Arizona, Mr. MCCAIN. theirSocialSecuritybenefitsplus It is a step that is long overdue. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-$17,000 a year in earned income should Many of us have been calling for theator from Arizona is recognized. not be faced with an effective marginal repeal of this test for many years. In Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President. I thanktax rate that exceeds 55 percent. fact, the occupant of the Chair and ISenator ROTH for his leadership and The Social Security Earnings Test is were part of the 100th class of Repub-stewardship of this important legisla-a relic of the Great Depression. de- licans in the House of Representativestion. signed to move older people out of the who made repealing this earnings test Obviously, I urge my colleagues toworkforce and create jobs for younger one of our projects. We have been atsupport swift passage of this muchworkers. Today's booming economy. this for a long time. When I came toneeded legislation to eliminate the un-with the lowest unemployment rate in the Senate,I joined Senator JOHNfair and discriminatory Social Securitythree decades. can support full employ- McCAIN, who has been a champion forearnings test. ment for both young and old. In addi- this cause, in introducing the Senior For over a decade,Iand a fewtion, experts are predicting a labor Citizens Freedom to Work Act in thestaunch supporters have been fightingshortage as the'baby boom" genera- opening days of the 106th Congress.to eliminate the earnings test that pe-tion ages, with our elderly population When we did that, I wondered whethernalizes senior citizens who want orgrowing much faster than the number it would fare any better than when weneed to work. We began our battle inof younger workers entering the work- had offered it in the past. Now, at long1989 and have offered legislation inforce. According to the U.S. Chamber last, we have forged a bipartisan con-each of the last six Congresses to re-of Commerce, "retaining older workers sensus for taking action which even in-peai the earnings test. In the begin-is a priority in labor intensive indus- cludes the President. and relief is fi-ning, we had only a few allies, notabletries, and will become even more crit- nally in sight for working seniors. amongst which was the National Com-ical by the year 2000." The Social Secu- I have always believed it just wasn'tmittee to Preserve Social Security andrity Earnings Test is counter-produc- right to impose steep taxes on peopleMedicare which has been at the fore-tive because it discourages these will- who tried to work after reaching re-front of this effort, as have my dearing,diligentolderAmericans from tirement age. It isn't right that underfriends JOHN KYL and MIKE DEWINE. staying in the workforce. current law seniors between the ages of I am pleased now that so many Mem- Our senior citizens can continue to 65 and 69 lose a dollar for every $3 theybers from both sides of the aisle. asmake valuable contributions to our earn above the threshold of $17,000. Inwell as President Clinton, understandeconomy. Often. their knowledge and fact, last year. 800,000 seniors lost athat senior citizens have a right toexperiencecomplimentsorexceeds portion of their benefit because of thiswork without being penalized for doingthat of younger employees. Tens of unfair tax. It isn't right that, combinedso. With this recent groundswell of sup-millions of Americans are over the age with regular income taxes, and the tax-port. we can finally eliminate this pen-of 65. and together they have over a bil- ation of Social Security benefits, thealty on our Nation's hard-working sen-lion years of cumulative work experi- earnings test subjects some workingior citizens. ence. seniors to an effective marginal tax I ask unanimous consent that a let- More importantly. many of the older rate of more than 100 percent. That ister from the National Committee toAmericans penalized by the Earnings not right. Preserve Social Security and MedicareTest need to work in order to cover We all know this earnings test wasin support of this legislation be printedtheir basic expenses. including food, created during the Depression era whenin the RECORD at the conclusion of myhousing. and medicine. Many seniors policymakers felt an urgent need toremarks. do not have significant savings or a give opportunities to young workers by The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutprivate pension. For this reason. low- encouraging seniors to leave the work-objection. it is so ordered. income workers are particularly hard- force. Today. America faces an extraor- (See Exhibit 1) hit by the Earnings Test. dinarily tight labor market and seniors Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, most In fact, wealthy seniors. who have lu- arelivinglonger,more productiveAmericans are shocked and appalledcrative investments. stocks, and sub- lives. when they discover that older Ameri-stantial savings. are not affected by In that context. a policy that penal-cans are penalized for working. Ameri-the earnings limit, Their supplemental izes our most experienced citizens forcans should never be penalized or dis- 'unearned" income is not subject to their hard work is not just unfair, it iscouraged from working. Yet that is ex-the earnings threshold. counterproductive. America needs theactly what the Social Security earn- Finally, let me stress that repealing skills and knowledge senior citizensings test does. The earnings test pun-the burdensome and unfair Earnings S1488 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE March 21, 2000 Testwill not further jeopardize the sol-as elected representatives of the Amer- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- vency of the Social Security Trustican people with a common obligationator from Arizona. Funds. Those who claim otherwise areto protect their interests. Mr. MCCAIN. Mr. President, I say to engaging in cruel scare tactics. The So- We have an obligation to ensure thatthe Senator from New York that all cial Security benefits working seniorsSocial Security benefits are paid asover in this campaign I talked about lose due to the Earnings Test penaltypromised, without putting an unfairthe leadership of Senator MOYNIHAN of are benefits they earned by contrib-burden on today's workers. ExpertsNew York, Senator KERREY of Ne- uting to the system throughout theiragree that the only way to save Socialbraska, and their proposals, which met working years. In fact, studies indicateSecurity without cutting benefits orwith some derision in some quarters. that repealing the Earnings Test wouldraising payroll taxes is to allow everyBut the fact is, when you consult the actually result in a net increase of $140American to invest a portion of theirexperts, they will tell you this is really millioninfederalrevenues becauseSocialSecurity savingsinprivate,the only way we can allow people to in- more seniors would be earning wageshigher-yielding accounts.Ibelieve avest their retirement funds in a per- and paying taxes,including payrollgood start would be to let each personsonal savings account over which they taxes that would go into the Social Se-invest about 20 percent of what theythen will have control. But we need to curity Trust Fund. pay in payroll taxes in a personal re-get money into the fund in order to Repealing the Earnings Test is verytirement account. These personal ac-allow them to do that. important to the financial security ofcounts would be controlled by the indi- I think the Senator from New York many of our nation's seniors. But letvidual, and the individual would behas made an enormous contribution. I me take this opportunity to remind myable to monitor the growth of their in-hope we can join together in a bipar- colleagues of the very precarious finan-vestment. An added benefitis thattisan fashion and enact that proposal. cial condition of the entire Social Se-each account would be a "personalIt may not be a perfect proposal; there curity system and the urgent need forlockbox" that could no longer be usedmay be some changes that need to be a serious, bipartisan effort to reformby Congress for pork-barrel projects. made on it; but the heart of it is the and revitalize this cornerstone of many In the near term, there is ,a cost tosolution to the Social Security crisis. Americans' retirement planning. moving funds out of the Trust Fundswhich we all know is coming beginning My colleagues must recognize thatinto these private accounts, and wein the year 2014. repealing this onerous tax on our na-must set aside the funds necessary to Ithank my colleague from New tion's senior citizens is an importantpay promised benefits while the per-York. step toward a fairer, flatter, simplersonal accounts of workers are matur- I yield the floor. tax code. The 44,000-page Code is a cor-ing. Simply locking up the Social Se- EXHiBITI nucopia of favors for special interestscurity surplus that comes from payroll NATIONAL COMMITrEE TO PRESERVE and a chamber of horrors for averagetaxes—a considerable accomplishment SOCIALSEcURrr' AND MEDIcARE, Americans. It penalizes people for get-in and of itself—is not enough to save Washington, DC. March 20, 2000. ting married and for wanting to passSocial Security. We will need betweenI-Ion. JoHN MCCAIN. Russell Office Building.U.S.Senate.Wash- along the fruits of their labors to their$5 and $7 trillion in additional funding ington. DC. children. It is overly complex and bur-over the next 50 years to keep the cur- DEAR SENATOR MCCAIN: On behalf of its densome. rent system running. I believe we mustmillions of members and supporters. The Na- We should act now to eliminate thestart now by reserving 62 percent of thetional Committee to Preserve Social Secu- loopholes and subsidies for corpora-non-Social Security budget surplus tority and Medicare thanks you for your lead- tions and special interests. We shouldshore up the Trust Funds while weership on earnings limit repeal. We are truly act now to eliminate the onerous mar-begin to implement a plan for personalgrateful for your committed efforts on behalf riage penalty, reduce estate and gift of senior Americans. retirement accounts. Senator McCain,Iremember when we taxes, and encourage families to save By passing this important legislationbegan the battle to eliminate the unfair So- and invest for their future priorities,to repeal the Social Security Earningscial Security earnings limit more than a dec- such as college and health care needs.Test, we have the opportunity to re-ade ago. At that time. we had just a few al- We should begin the march toward astore to our nation's seniors the rightlies in Congress. You immediately recog- fairer, flatter tax system by expandingto work without penalty to ensurenized the inherent unfairness of punishing the15 percent tax bracket to allowtheir financial security. But this isjustseniors who. either out of necessity or more Americans to pay taxes at thethe first step. We must work togetherchoice. continued to work after reaching the normal retirement age. lowest rate. Combined with the repealto develop fair and effective reforms We are quite pleased to see so many mem- of the Social Security Earnings Test,that will preserve and protect the So-bers of Congress now willing to fight for sen- these and other changes to the tax codecial Security system for current andiors freedom to work. With this newfound would provide much-needed tax relieffutureretirees,whileallowingallsupport, the egregious earnings test will to those who need it most—our na-Americans, particularly low- and mid-likely be eliminated for those who have at- tion's low- and middle-income seniordle-incomeindividuals,theoppor-tained normal retirement age. citizens and families. tunity to share in the great prosperity The members of the National Committee The only way to achieve real reform to Preserve Social Security and Medicare are that our nation enjoys today. delighted that passage of earnings limit re- of the Social Security system is to I thank the Senator from Delawarepeal now seems imminent. Thank you again. work together in a bipartisan manner.for his leadership, I especially thankSenator McCain, for your determined efforts I am speaking specifically of thethe Senator from New York for his cou-and tenacious commitment. Without your leadership of the Senator from Newrageous leadership in suggesting a via-hard work over the years. I doubt that we York. Mr. MOYNIHAN. I can think of noble and important way to save Socialwould be facing victory on this important greater gift to the American peopleSecurity, along with the Senator fromissue. than to act on this issue before SenatorNebraska. Mr. KERREY. I tell the Sen- Sincerely. MOYNIHAN leaves this body. It's time toator from New York thatItalked MARTHA A. MCSTEEN. abandontheirresponsible game ofabout it during this entire campaign. It President. playing partisan politics with Socialresonates. people want it. and we ought Mr. ROTH. Mr. President. I yield 5 Security. Democrats will have to stopto enact it. minutes to the distinguished Senator using the issue to scare seniors into I thank the Chair. from Texas. votingagainstRepublicans.Repub- Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr.President,I Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President. I licaris will have to resist using Socialyield another 15 minutes to the Sen-thank the Senator from Delaware and Security revenues to finance tax cuts.ator from Arizona. the Senator from New York for their And both parties must stop raiding the (Laughter.) leadership on this issue, finally getting Trust Funds to waste retirement dol- Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President. I wouldit to the floor in this form. I think it is lars on more government spending. Welike, if the Senator from New York willvery clear we are going to pass it and must face up to our responsibilities.allow me, 1 more minute. give the needed relief to our senior not as Republicans or Democrats, but Mr. MOYNIHAN. Of course. Please. citizens. March 21, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S1489 Hopefully. one would have the ability(b) CONFoR1flNC AiNDNT.—Section I could not go forward without men- 202(q)(9) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. tioning my colleague. Senator MCCAIN.to have savings to add to their retire-402(q)(9)) is amended by striking "early re- Senator McCAIN received a huge wel-ment security. Some people have nottirement" and Inserting 'early entitlement come back to the Senate. No one hasgotten the savings so they want tofor old-age benefits forgotten what has happened in thework. (c)EFFECrIVE DATE—The amendments last 3 months. I think a great impact There is no reason in today's goodmade by this section shall take effect on the has been made on the politics of ourtimes to severely penalize a solid work-date of enactment of this Act. country. I think the contribution madeer. someone we actually need for our Mr. KERREY. I understand under a by Senator MCCAIN will resonate for aeconomy. previous unanimous consent the vote long time to come. He has brought new I thank Senator ROTH from Delawarewill occur at 4 o'clock. Is that correct? people into the process. He has shownand Senator MOYNIHAN from New York Mr. MOYNIHAN. That isentirely what courage is. He has given people anfor bringing this bill to the floor. Sen-agreeable to us. idea of what courage and serving one'sator ASHCROFT has been a great leader, Mr. ROTH. We are happy to have the country can do. I think he has addedas well as Senator McCAIN. Many havevote at 4 o'clock. There is no unani- tremendously to the process. Our Re-worked together on this. mous consent stated. publican caucus met at noon. and he The bottom line is. this is an idea Mr. KERREY. I am not sure I will got the longest standing ovation hewhere the time has passed. It hasn'ttake a full 30 minutes on my side. Let probably ever will get. Certainly it wascome, it has gone. We should have doneme describe the amendment first and heartfelt. I think everyone is very gladthis years ago. We have chipped awaysee where it goes. at it. We are on a roll right now to My amendment is essentially a con- we are going to have him back andtake that earnings test up to $30,000forming amendment. It is an amend- working with Members to put togetherfrom $17,000. That is not good enough.ment that conforms a change we re many of the reforms about which weWe can eliminate it. This is the right have been speaking. about to make with the change in the It happens that the bill we are dis-thing to do. This is the time to do it.languagerelatingtoearnings that cussing today was originally intro-We have a burgeoning economy. Weoccur between age 65 and 69. duced by Senator MCCAIN. He was theneed the workers. We need the high- Senator MOYNIHAN and I have a pro first to introduce the bill to repeal thetech employees. We need these solidposal to eliminate the earnings test citizens in our economy. If they wantfrom 62 to 65. Some groups are opposed earnings test on Social Security bene-to be here. they should have the choice. fits. because they are concerned that for I urge our colleagues to pass this workingwomenthere In1935. when Social Security wasquickly. I hope we can pass it cleanly.low-income passed, we had a very different senior could be an increase in the number f citizen population and a very differentget it to the President, and give thesewomen who are under the poverLy people the opportunity to make theirguidelines as established by the Fed need in our country. People didn't livechoices in their senior years. as long. They were not as healthy. I yield the floor. eral Government. It is an interesting They were not as vigorous. They didn't Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President.I fact. I am not sure of the validity of want to work, by and large, after thefirst thartk the Senator from Texas forthe forecast. age of 65. Today, if people want to workher more than generous remarks to our We are changing the program from a after the age of 65, they have contrib-committee. We appreciate that. retirement program to an old-age pro- uted to Social Security all their lives, I believe now a distinguished membergram. I support that change. To change and they decide they want to takeof the committee about whom SenatorSocial Security so that it is no longer their benefits, what happens? They getMCCAIN was speaking a moment ago.a retirement-based programis very docked. For every dollar over $17,000 athe Senator from Nebraska. has animportant. Social Security recipient receives, they Since 1935. we have either said to amendment to offer. I believe there isworkers: You have to retire before you lose $3 in their Social Security bene-an hour. are eligible: or we have said: If you fits. AMENDMENT NO.2885 Today is not 1935. Today people are(Purpose: To redesignate the term for thecontinue to work. there will be a pen- vigorous. Many people want to work. age at which an Individual is eligible foralty that will occur as a consequence of Many people want to supplement their full. unreduced old-age benefits) whatever earnings you have. incomes. We also have a need for more Mr. KERREY. I send an amendment Thatiswhat we aretryingto workers in this country. We have veryto the desk. and I ask for its immediateeliminate. low unemployment. Our high-tech com-consideration. My amendment is a fairly simple. panies are asking people to come back ThePRESIDINGOFFICER.Thestraightforward amendment.Idoni to work. They need skilled workers.clerk will report. know that I need to talk a great dea Our service industry is burgeoning. It The legislative clerk read as follows:about it.It merely inserts language needs skilled workers. This group of The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. KERREY)that makes it clear that full or semi- senior citizens is among the best in ourproposes an amendment numbered 2885. retirement is no longer required to col country, and they now have a surtax Mr. KERREY. I ask unanimous con-lect benefits. that what is necessary is because they receive Social Securitysent that reading of the amendment beto merely meet a tested age—62. 63. 64. benefits. dispensed with. and on and on—and for those currently Let me give an example. If someone The PRESIDING OFFICER(Mrs.affected by the earnings test. for 65 earns $26,000 a year and they are on So-HuTCHISON). Without objection. it is sothrough 69. there will no longer be a cial Security, they lose $3,000 of theirordered. test of earnings and a deduct that will benefits, The average Social Security The amendment is as follows: occur. recipient receives $9,600 in benefits. So At the end add the following: But. in addition to eliminating the one-third of their benefits islostifSEC. .REDESIGNATIONOF TERM FOR AGE AT earnings test. we are also fundamen- WHICH AN INDIVIDTJAL IS ELIGIBLE tally changing the old-age benefit part they go to work. FOR FULL, IINBEDTJCED OLD-AGE What Senator MCCAIN said is very BENEFITS. of the Social Security program. I be- important. The people to whom this (a) IN GENERAL—Title II of the Social Se-lieve in a way that is constructive. matters most are the people who needcurityAct (42 U.S.C. 401 etseq.)isthat will change the program from a it.It is not the person who has beenamended— retirement-based program to apro- fortunate in life and has investments: (I) by strikingretirement age" each placegram based on a test of age. they are not worried about the $9,600 orit appears and insertingthe age of eligi- I am attempting with this amend- $12.000 in Social Security benefits. It isbility for full. unreduced old-age benefits" ment to merely bring the language of (2) by strikingearly retirement age" eachthe law in conformance with what we the person who is living on $26,000 orplace it appears and insertingthe age of $30,000 a year who wants to be able toearliest eligibility for old-age benefits'; andwill be doing with the underlying pro- work to add a little extra cushion. (3) by strikingdelayed retirementeachvision. which is to say you no longer That is what was intended under Socialplace it appears and insertingdelayed enti-have to retire and have little earned in- Security; that would be a baseline.tlement for old-age benefits come in order to receive benefits. All S1490 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE March 21, 2000 youhave to do under this program isof that, for all I know, but right now itin a progressive fashion to people who meet a test of age. That one dollar foris a 20-percent reduction in benefits.are eligible as a consequence of meet- three dollars—up to $17,000 of income—Mr. President, 80 percent of Americans,ing a test of age, survivorship, or dis- deferrment of benefits will no longerwhen they become eligible for the oldability. It is a progressive transfer pro- occur—from 65 to 69. age benefit, will opt to take that 20-gram. We have a trust fund that accu- I support the underlying bill. Thispercent reduction—not all of them aremulates as a reserve against contin- amendment will bring the language ofdoing itat 62—some are taking agencies but it is a pay-as-you-go pro- the law in conformance to what the un-smaller cut in benefits at 63 or 64—be-gram. It is a tax that is transferred in derlying bill does. cause they calculate the benefits willa very progressive fashion. Indeed, that The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-be greater than retiring at 65 if they12.4-percent tax today, along with the ator from Delaware. survive for 10 years. There is a lot oftax on income and the interest that is Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I sug-thinking that goes on, including withearned on the debt that is paid with in- gest the absence of a quorum. the earnings test, the calculation ofcome taxes, there is about $150 billion ThePRESIDINGOFFICER.Thewhat the deduction will mean and whatmore—$550 billion of total income com- clerk will call the roll. the add-back willprovide in futureing into the Social Security system The legislative clerk proceeded toyears. this year against about $400 billion in call the roll. I would like to spend a little timechecks that are written to pay for it. Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I askagain, until Senator R0BB gets down That reserve builds up over time. I unanimous consent that the order forhere,to talk about the underlyingwill not go into that particular prob- the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutproblem. The earnings test eliminationlem, but anytime you have to convert objection, it is so ordered. bill, the legislation we are going toany of those bonds, you have to use in- Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I askpass 100-0 tomorrow, does address onecome taxes to convert the bond. Start- unanimous consent the vote occur onof the problems, though it only ad-ing in about 2014, we will have to start or in relation to the pending Kerreydresses it partially. It addresses thedrawing the trust funds down with ad- amendment at 4 p.m. and the time be-earnings test imposed from age 65 to 69.ditional infusions of income tax into tween now and the vote be equally di-It does not address the earnings testthe program. vided in the usual form. imposed from age 62 to 64. But there What does this all mean for todays I further ask unanimous consent thatare other problems that the status quoworkers? If you are under the age of passage of H.R. 5, as amended, occur atcreatesfor futurebeneficiaries. We40—there are approximately 150 million 10 a.m. on Wednesday March 22, andneed to think about it that way. IAmericans under the age of 40—you are that paragraph 4 of rule XII be waived.would like to show my colleagues thelooking at the following problem: Con- Finally, I ask unanimous consent theways delaying reform will cause futuregress will either have to reduce your time between 9:45 a.m. and 10 a.m. onworkers and beneficiaries to suffer. benefits by 33 percent or Congress will Wednesday be equally divided between The biggest problem with delayinghave to enact a payroll tax increase of the chairman and ranking minorityreform is that it forces hard working,about 50 percent to accommodate the member of the Finance Committee forlower and middle class Americans todemand that will be there, the liability closing remarks on the Social Securitybear a disproportionate share of thethat will be there, under current law. earnings bill. burden of debt reduction—the same Obviously,a tax increaseof that The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutpeople who boreadisproportionatemagnitude seems unacceptable. But objection, it is so ordered. share of the great deficit reductions inthis is what current law calls for. So if Mr. ROTH. In light of this agree-1980s and 1990s. People being paid byyou are a Member of Congress that sup- ment. I announce on behalf of the lead-the hour are now being told we areports the do-nothing approach, you ership the 4 p.m. vote today will be thegoing to use a significant portion ofsupport a 33-percent cut in benefits or last vote of the day. their FICA taxes—which are supposeda 50-percent increase in taxes. Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I seeto be dedicated to benefit payments— The reason I mention that is that the Senator from Nebraska would liketo pay down debt. That is basicallywith the plan I have introduced with to resume his discourse. what this phrasesaving Social Secu-Senator MOYNIHAN, the plan we have ThePRESIDINGOFFICER (Mr.rity" means when you examine it moreintroducedwithSenators BREAUX, CRAIG). The Senator from Nebraska. closely. GREGG, and R0BB, I have received a lot Mr. KERREY. Mr. President,I am Itis true the debt will be nearlyof attacks. People say: You are reduc- going to speak until Senator R0BB getseliminated by 2013 if we use all of theing benefits out in the future. How dare down to the floor. surpluses to pay down debt—but then ityou reduce benefits out in the future As I said earlier, I support the elimi-goes right back up again in the 2020s tolet alone suggest we need some addi- nation of the earnings test from 65 tofund Social Security benefits for thetional revenue with tax increases? 69. and believe the amendment I havebaby boomers. So, if you are under the None of the proposals out there have offered would be a positive conformingage of 15 today, when you become eligi-called for massive tax increases. Our change that will make it clear, regard-ble you are looking at debt levels thatproposal has a 2-percent reduction in ing Social Security at age 65, there iswill be somewhere between two andthe payroll tax, but it is funded with no longer a requirement to be retired.three times what they are today. Sooffsets in benefits out in the future as That is what the current law says, youthe do-nothing plan, taking no actionwell as increased benefits coming from have to be retired.Retirement benefitat all—there are still 500 Members ofthe individual accounts— at normal retirement age" is how it isCongress who have not signed onto a Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the Senator described in the statute. My amend-specific piece of legislation—results inyield? ment would conform the changes wea substantial increase in the debt out Mr. KERREY. Yes. are making in H.R. 5 to alter the pro-into the future. Mr. MOYNIHAN. Twopercentage gram that reduces benefits according The other thing that could happen inpoints? to income from one that would nothe future a consequence of this huge Mr. KERREY. Two percentage longer offer that reduction to bene-demographic bulge of baby boomers ispoints, that is correct. Not 2 percent of ficiaries. a massive payroll tax increase or a cutthe 12.4; but 2 percentage points over- Beneficiaries evaluate their incomein benefits. The baby boom generationall, from 12.4 to 10.4 percent. Under cur- versus what Social Security is going towill start retiring in 2010. There will berent law, a substantial increase in the do all the time. One of the interestinga40-million-personincreaseinthepublicly-held debt will occur. things about the program is to observenumber of beneficiaries from 37 to 77, In addition, there is a problem with that nearly 80 percent of beneficiariesbut only a 7 or 8 million person in-the existing program in that low-rn- take an early benefit. They have a 20-crease in the number of people who arecome-earning beneficiaries do not have percent reduction in benefits. working. enough of their income replaced by the The baby boomers may come in here Social Security is essentially a taxcurrent benefit formulas. The Social 15 years from now and want to get ridon people who are working, transferredSecurity reform proposal that I have March 21, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S1491 introduced with a bipartisan group ofnothing caucus is dangerous. What wegram,we will have to either cut bene- Senators increases benefits for low in-need is a comprehensive reform plan—fits or increase payroll taxes—or both. come workers by changing these ben-that is bipartisan in nature—to finallyWe cannot afford to let that happen. efit formulas. fix the problems in the Social Security. Even worse. from my perspective, the I hear lots of my colleagues, espe- Obviouslythe elimination of thebills would have to be paid by our chil- cially on this side of the aisle, talk aearnings test is a very popular Socialdren and grandchildren. They deserve a lot about the rich getting richer andSecurity reform measure. The otherbetter legacy from us than a mountain the poor getting poorer. It is true thatones are unpopular but require difficultof debt. the gap is widening, but if you want tovotes in order to make the changes. I The good news is, slowly but surely, solve the problem, you cannot do ithope that we. at some point. are ablewe are making progress. In the past just by increasing the minimum wageto come together to solve the largerseveral years, we have been able to re- or increasing the earned-income taxproblem of Social Security that existsmove the Social Security trust fund credit. You have to change the law soin all these different ways. surplus from the calculation of the people of all incomes have the oppor- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-onbudget surplus. While I am pleased tunity to generate wealth. The currentator from New York. we have taken this first step toward Social Security program does not offer Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Senatorfiscalresponsibility, we need to do that opportunity. Our proposal would. from Nebraska once again and say I re-much more. Setting aside the surplus Finally,thereisgrowinginter-gret he was necessarily away from thein the Social Security trust fund is generational inequity in our Federalfloor when the Senator from Arizonaprudent. but it does not take care of budget. We may not be spending toospoke almost precisely in your terms.the underlying and very fundamental much on people over age 65 today. Butand spoke about the legislation youproblems. by the time I am eligible for Social Se-have offered, and said, yes,it would Now is the time to act. We need to curity. and the cohort coming right be-often produce derision when you talkedstrengthen the Social Security pro- hind me—the baby boomers—in myabout it on the campaign trail—wegram so today's senior citizens get the view, we will be. know a little bit about derision. bothbenefits they have been promised. We So colleagues understand, today ifof us do—but he said a bipartisan solu-need to strengthen the Social Security you take all Federal and State fundingtion is necessary and possible. If weprogram so our children and grand- on people over the age of 65 and thecannot see it coming, we will be re-children are not unfairly burdened with people under the age of 18—that ismembered for not having done so. our debt. We need to do more. I support State and Federal spending—we spend Isee that my friend,the distin-what we are doing today, but we need three times as much on people over ageguished Senator from Virginia, is onto do more. 65 as we do on people under the age ofthe floor. I conclude my remarks by thanking 18. Would the Senator like 5 minutes? the distinguished senior Senator from Again. I do not think it is too much I yield 5 minutes to the Senator fromNew York, who is, regrettably. in the today. I do not think we are spendingVirginia—more if he requires it. judgment of many of us. going to be re- an excessive amount today. But spend- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-tiring from this institution, and the ing on seniors continues to increase.ator from Virginia. distinguished senior Senator from Ne- The year-to-year spending increases Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank thebraska, who. equally regrettably.is aregettinglarger.Againnobodydistinguished Senator from New York.going to be retiring from this institu- should suffer the illusion of where thisI am delighted to join, as I just men-tion. Both will be sorely missed. money comes from. It comes from a taxtioned to him, the 'amen" chorus. With that. I yield the floor. on wages on today's workers. I rise to support my friend from Ne- Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Senator If we underinvest in the skills andbraskainhis continuingefforttomost sincerely. the training and the education of thesestrengthen Social Security for the long Mr. ROTH. Mr. President. I yield 5 kids, which in my view we are, in favorterm. I commend him for his tirelessminutes to Senator HAGEL. of politically popular moves that spendwork on behalf of the seniors of this The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- more and more money on people overcountry, as well as their children andator from Nebraska. the age of 65—and understand, theregrandchildren. as he fights to both Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I add my are 50 percent more Americans understrengthen Social Security and lessenthanks to the distinguished chairman the age of 18 than over the age of 65—the burden of debt we leave to futureof the Finance Committee and the if we continue to do that for very long. ranking member, Mr. MOYNIHAN. And I when we get to the year 2030 there willgenerations. Ishare Senator KERREY's frustra-tag on to what my friend and col- only be two workers per retiree. If I get league, Senator ROBS, said regarding to pick Warren Buffett and Bill Gates,tions over the failure of this body to strengthenSocialSecurity. I amthe loss to this body and to America as I am in good shape. But I don't. I pickpleased we can now afford to repeal thewe findSenators MOYNIHAN arid an average. One of the things we needearnings test. I fully support this bill.KERREY serving their last year in the to consider, as well, is the do-nothingBut this is only one of many steps thatSenate. In a narrow, parochial sense, plan is heading in a direction of cre-need to be taken. We cannot continueMr. KERREY's impending retirement ating, in my view, substantialto deal with a program as large and asmakes me the new senior Senator from intergenerational inequities in the So- Nebraska. However, I would have glad- cial Security program itself. vital as Social Security on a piecemeal Social Security and Medicare arebasis. We owe both our seniors and ourly put that aside for the interest of our popular because they currently havechildren so much more. senior Senator from Nebraska staying some semblance of generational equity. The facts are simple. By the yearon. as well as Mr. MOYNIHAN, who adds People of all ages support Social Secu-2013, payroll taxes we collect will notthe kind of enlightenment, enhance- rity and Medicare because they seebe sufficient to pay for Social Securityment, and leadership to an issue that is them as a fair social contract. But in 10payments. By the year 2034, the pro-so critical to this country and to our or 15 years from now, my view is. look-gram will only be able to pay for 72future. ing at the numbers, and with therecents Out of every dollar of benefits we With that, I, too. rise in support of likely to be a decreasing number ofhave promised senior citizens in Amer-H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to young people, they are not going toica. Worst ofall.these figures areWork Act of 2000. I am also a cosponsor have to be told by politicians, they arebased on our economy continuing toof the Senate companion bill, 5. 2074, going to look at the contract and say:click along at the same pace it is righttheSocialSecurityEarnings Test Wait a minute. this deal is not verynow. If we have a sudden downturn orElimination Act. good for me. They are not going to likeperiod of stagnation, we will be in trou- I think it is appropriate this after- it and will rise up and get angry aboutble much sooner. noon to acknowledge our friend and it. It is time to start telling the Amer-colleague. Senator McCAIN, who has re- For these reasons, I would argue thatican people the truth. If we do notcently rejoined the Senate after his od- the status quo plan offered by the do-strengthen our Social Security pro-yssey throughout America over the S1492 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —SENATE March 21, 2000 lastfew months. Senator MCCAIN was10 years. But we do know that if,inor above retirement age (as defined in sec- an early sponsor of repealing the Socialfact, we are to reform Social Security,tion 216(1)); (4) in subsection (0(3). by striking age 70' Security earnings test and fought hardwhateverprojectedsurplusoccursand insertingretirement age (as defined in and provided essential leadership earlymust remain in Social Security. Sec-section 216(1))"; on. I acknowledge Mr. MCCAIN's earlyond, we must reform Social Security in (5) in subsection (h) (1) (A) by striking 'age leadership on this issue. a way that starts to develop personal70" each place it appears and insertingre- We have heard today how this legis-wealth. Personal retirement accountstirement age (as defined in section 216(1))"; lation will repeal the Social Securitywould harness the power of privateand earnings test, which is a disincentivemarkets and compounding interest, (6) in subsection (j)— (A) in the heading. by strikingAge Sev- for seniors to work by reducing seniors'providing a much higher rate of returnenty' and inserting• Retirement Age'•; and Social Security benefits according toon each individual's investment. This (B) by striking seventy years of age' and the amount of income they earn. Wealsogives ownership to eachindi-insertinghaving attained retirement age know this legislation will allow seniorsvidual, meaning choices and more re-(as defined in section 216(1))'. between the ages of 65 and 70 to gosponsibility for their own economicSEC. 3. NONAPPLICATION OF RULES FOR COM- back to work or continue to work andfuture. PUTATION OF 1T AMOUNT FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ATFMND not worry about being penalized for The changes we make to Social Secu- RETIREMENT AGE. their productivity or losing their So-rity should not affect current or soon- (a)IN GENERAL—Section 203(0(8) of the cial Security benefits. to-be beneficiaries. We can create aSocial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(0(8)) is As America moves into the new cen-system that still provides a safety netamended by adding at the end the following tury, it will need more workers in thefor those who are most vulnerable innew subparagraph: workforce, not less. Productive capac-society but offers younger workers the (E) Notwithstanding subparagraph (D). no deductions in benefits shall be made under ity is the engine that drives economicopportunity to create wealth and savesubsection (b) with respect to the earnings of growth. That means we must havefor their futures. any individual in any month beginning with skilled workers and managers and ex- Finally, the Social Security systemthe month in which the individual attains perienced workers and managers. Thewe now have affects all Americans. Itretirementage(asdefinedinsection passage of this bill helps America withwill continue to affect all Americans.216(1)).''. this great challenge. It will help Amer-The decisions we make today will pro- (b) CONFORMJNC AMENDMENT—Section ica retain this vital resource of skilledfoundly affect the lives of all Ameri-203(0(9) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(0 (9)) is amended by striking and (8)(D)' and experienced workers and managers.cans. We must not squander the timeand inserting(8)(D). and (8)(E),". However, this legislation will not fixwe now have to deal with the solvency SEC.4.ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMEND- Social Security. It will not fix ourof Social Security. MENTS. long-term workforcechallenge. The I strongly urge my colleagues to vote (a) ELIMINATION OF REDuNDftwrREF- solvency of Social Security is one ofin favor of the passage of this relevant,ERENcES TO RETIRBMEr'fl' ACE—Section 203 of the great challenges facing Americaimportant, and timely legislation. the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403)is amended— today. We must reform Social Security I thank the Chair and yield the floor. (1) in subsection (c), in the last sentence. or it will not be there for future gen- The PRESIDING OFFICE}. The Sen-by strikingnor shall any deduction" and erations. We know the figures. ator from Delaware. all that follows and insertingnor shall any In 1999. there were 35 million Ameri- Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unan-deduction be made under this subsection cans, 13 percent of total population. 65imous consent that the pending amend-from any widows or widower's insurance years of age or older. By the year 2030,ment be set aside so I may offer anbenefit if the widow, surviving divorced wife, there will be 70 million Americans, 20amendment. widower, or surviving divorced husband in- percent of the total population. who The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutvolved became entitled to such benefit prior will be 65 years of age or older. In 2010, to attaining age 60.': and objection, it is so ordered. (2) in subsection (t)(1). by striking clause the first group of the 76 million baby AMENDMENT NO. 2S86 (D) and inserting the following: (D)for boomers will become eligible for Social Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I submit awhich such individual is entitled to widow's Securitybenefits, And in2030,themanagers' amendment on behalf of my-or widower's insurance benefits if such indi- number of workers paying into Socialself and Senator MOYNIHAN and ask forvidual became so entitled prior to attaining Security per beneficiary. as Senatorits immediate consideration. age 60.". KERREY has acknowledged, will drop to ThePRESIDINGOFFICER.The (b) CoNFoRraNc ANNDPNT TO PROVIsIONs 2 from the present 3.3. FOR DETERIvnNINC AMOUNT OF INcREAsE ON clerk will report. AccOUNT OF DELAYED RETmEMEWr.—Section With this increasing number of bene- The legislative clerk read as follows:202(w) (2) (3) (ii) of the Social Security Act (42 ficiaries and a smaller workforce con- The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Rom], forU.S.C. 402(w)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended by strik- tributing to the Social Security sys-himself and Mr. MOYNIHAN, proposes aning or suffered deductions under section tem, if Congress does not enact reform, amendment numbered 2886. 203(b)or203(c)in amounts equal to the Social Security benefit payments will Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unan-amount of such benefit" and insertingor, if begin to exceed the taxes collected in so entitled, did not receive benefits pursuant imous consent that readingof theto a request by such individual that benefits the year 2014. My colleagues who haveamendment be dispensed with. not be paid". spoken before me on the floor this The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. afternoon have pointed out in ratherobjection, it is so ordered. The amendments made by this Act shall significant clarity the consequences of The amendment is as follows: apply with respect to taxable years ending that. Strike all after the first word and insertafter December 31, 1999. I don't have all the answers to whatthe following: Mr. ROTH. Mr. President. let me we must do, but I am sure of one 1.SHORTTITLE. briefly describe the managers' amend- thing—this Congress needs to act soon- This Act may be cited as theSenior Citi-ment. This amendment would fixa er rather than later. We must reformzens Freedom to Work Act of 2000". technical problem with the House bill Social Security and improve it for fu-SEC. 2. ELThfflATION OF EARNINGS TEST FOR IN-that would inadvertently imposea ture generations. D1VIEUALS WHO HAVE ATTAINEDmore stringent earnings limit on cer- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- REL1REMENT AGE. tain Social Security beneficiaries age ator's 5 minutes have expired. Section 203 of the Social Security Act (4264 than provided under current law. Mr. HAGEL. I ask for an additional 1U.S.C. 403) is amended— I ask unanimous consent that a de- minute. (1) in subsection (c)(1), by strikingthe agescription of the amendment be printed Mr. ROTH. One minute. of seventy'S and inserting'retirementagein the RECORD, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- (as defined In section 216(1))"; There being no objection, the mate- (2)in paragraphs (1)(A) and(2)of sub- ator from Nebraska. section (d), by strikingthe age of seventy' rial was ordered to be printed in the Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. each place it appears and inserting 'retire-RECORD, as follows: We know there is an anticipated pro-ment age (as defined in section 216(1))"; DEScRIPTION oF THE MANAGERS' AMENDMENT jection of a $2.3 trillion surplus in So- (3) in subsection (1) (1) (B), by strikingwas The Managers' amendment would make a cial Security trust funds over the nextage seventy or over" and insertingwas attechnical correction to HR. 5, theSenior March 21, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S1493 Citizens Freedom to Work Act, that abol- Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I seesurprised that someone whose courage ishes the Social Security earnings limit forthe distinguished Senator from Indianahas been tested on the field of battle Social Security beneficiaries ages 65-69. Ashas risen. Does he wish to speak? also has the courage to address one of written, the House bill would impose a more Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I was goingthe foremost challenges of our time—a stringent earnings limit on certain Socialto make a statement first. challenge that is important to the fu- Security beneficiaries who are age 64 than Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Senator fromture of our country, yet escapes the provided under current law after 2000. Delaware will speak and then 5 min-ability of many politicians to address. CURRENT LAW I salute Senator KERREY for his leader- Under current law, there are two earningsutes, or such as remains, will be yield- limits, one that applies to Social Securityed to the Senator from Indiana. ship on this very important issue. beneficiaries ages 62—64. the other to bene- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- I. too, rise in support of the cause of ficiaries ages 65—69. In 2000, under the earn-ator from Delaware. repealing the earnings test limit on the ings limit for beneficiaries 62—64,a bene- Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I begin bySocial Security benefits. It is the right ficiary has his or her Social Security bene-recognizing the important contribu-thing to do at this time with unem- fits reduced by $1 for every $2 in earningstions of Senator KERREY, both to theployment being so low and the econ- over $10,080. For beneficiaries 65 to 69, bene-Finance Committee and to the Senate.omy so strong. This will inject much fits are reduced by $1 for every $3 in earningsIn particular, he is a unique and impor-needed talent on the part of senior over $17,000: this threshold rises to $25,000 in 2001 and $30,000 in 2002. There is no earningstant voice in the national debate onworkers into the economy. It is only limit for beneficiaries over age 70. Social Security and Medicare reform.right that if people are living longer, Eligibility for the 65—69 earnings limit isHe has taken thoughtful but not al-we should enable them to earn more to determined by the calendar year in whichways popular positions on how thesesupport themselves. Since it doesn't that beneficiary turns 65. regardless of theprograms should be reshaped, both tohave a long-term fiscal impact. it is month in which the beneficiary actuallybetter serve our Nation's seniors and tothe right thing to do from that stand- turns 65. Thus, for example. in 2000 a bene-ensure that these programs can be sus-point. ficiary who turns 65 in December would have On this particular bill and on this the 65-69 earnings limit apply to him or hertained. throughout the entire calendar year of 2000. Indeed, much of the current debateparticular vote, no profiles in courage Eligibility for the age 62-64 earnings limit,over Social Security reform dates towill be written on the floor of the Sen- and for no limit at age 70, begins with the1993, when Senator KERREY conceivedate today. I am concerned and I add my month a beneficiary turns 62 or 70. and then later chaired the Bipartisanvoice to others—a growing chorus—in HOUSE BILL Commission on Entitlement and Taxcalling for meaningful reform in the HR. 5 would abolish the earnings limit forReform. On the Finance Committee,Social Security system and to ensure beneficiaries above thenormal retirementhis energy and expertise are highly re-its long-term financial viability. age" (currently age 65). However, effectivegarded by his colleagues. The trends are disturbing. Over the 2001, under HR. 5, a beneficiary would not be Having said that. I must oppose thislast 40 years. the percentage of our eligible for the age 65 earnings limit (i.e.. noamendment. I understand why SenatorFederal budget that has now gone to earnings limit) until the month in whichKERREY has offered it. And on a moreentitlement expenditures has doubled that person reaches age 65. Otherwise, the from about a third of Federal expendi- age 62-64 earnings limit would apply. Thus, aappropriate bill,I might support it. beneficiary who turned 65 in December 2001Certainly, as a nation, we need totures to two-thirds. Some projections would have an earnings limit for most of 2001rethink carefully what we mean by re-are accurate. In the coming decades. of $10,440, which is substantially less thantirement. However, I believe instead wefully 100 percent of Federal expendi- current law ($25,000). should act to move this legislation totures may be comprised of entitle- SENATE MANAGERS' ANDMENT the President as quickly as possible.ments, leaving nothing left for things The manager's amendment would make aThat means noother amendmentssuch as education. the environment, technical correction to H.R. 5 to continueother than the managers' amendment,children's issues. health care, or na- permanently the current law practice thatwhich fixes a technical problem of thetional defense—literally nothing but for the year in which a Social Security bene-House bill. entitlements,asimportant as they ficiary reaches the normal retirement age I have received a letter from Chair-may be. (currently age 65), the current law age 65—69 Clearly, this is a course that we can- earnings limit applies until the month inman ARCHER and Congressman RANGEL which the beneficiary reaches the normal re-sayingthatanyotherextraneousnot sustain forever. Likewise, I note tirement age (age 65). When the beneficiaryamendments will require a conference.that the percentage of Federal reve- reaches the normal retirement age, the earn-Needless to say, other issues might benues raised through taxes funding enti- ings limit would no longer apply. raised in the conference. tlements has also doubled over the last Mr. ROTH. Mr. President,Iyield Mr. President, I trust my friend from20 years. from 16 percent to fully one- back all time on this side. Nebraska will understand why I opposethird of Federal revenues now raised The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-this amendment. I hope he will acceptfrom payroll taxes. These taxes are re- ator from New York. my pledge to cdntinue to work withgressive in nature and fall heavily and Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, mayhim on these important issues. disproportionately on the middle class. I express the gratitude I have, and I am I yield the floor. I believe in the importance of invest- sure our revered chairman has, for our Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr.President,Iment in education. science, research, staff who worked this out. It was notyield 5 minutes to the Senator from In-and other important areas of our na- easy. It was a weekend's work at adiana. tional budget. and it is because I be- minimum, which sounds simple when The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-lieve in the importance of tax relief for so described, to try to get it into legis-ator from Indiana is recognized for 5the middle class that I believe very lative language. But it was necessary.minutes. strongly we must embrace the cause of It is understood on the House side that, Mr. BAYH. Mr. President.I thankmeaningful reform of entitlements in yes, that was a mistake we had not re-the Senator for his indulgence. This isgeneral. and particularly Social Secu- alized or we had not taken care of. Somy first opportunity to point to therity. if we are going to enable ourselves we now have done so. fact that Senator MOYNIHAN 's motherto meet these other important chal- I yield the floor. was a longtime resident of our State.lenges as well. The PRESIDING OFFICER. WithoutWe are very proud of that fact, and I This is something that should unite objection. the amendment is agreed to.am pleased to note it today. Our col-the right and the left. Those on the The amendment (No. 2886) was agreedleague. Senator GREGG. is not with us,right should be concerned about a re- to. but I thank him for his leadership onturn to the days of debt and deficit AMENDNr NO. 2885 this issue. It is not surprising to mespending and the corresponding slow- Mr. ROTH. Mr. President. what is thethat a former Governor is leading thedown in economic growth that would order of business? way on a matter of such importance ininevitably result. Those on the right The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thereterms of fiscalresponsibility.Like-should be concerned about an increas- are 12 minutesremainingonthewise. I commend our colleague. Sen-ing percentage of our Federal budget Kerrey amendment. ator KERREY. I am not the least bitbasically being put on fiscal autopilot. S1494 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —SENATE March 21, 2000 Thoseon the left should be concernedpolicy when we consider why it was im-cial Security from a retirement pro- about shoring up and preserving notposed in the first instance. The Socialgram to a program that simply has a just temporarily, but in the long run, aSecurity earnings test was a Depres-test of age as opposed to a status of fundamental part of our Social safetysion-era policy, originating nearly 70work. I urge colleagues to make this net, the Social Security system, a leg-years ago as a mechanism to cope withchange. It will make it a lot easier to acy of which we can rightfully bethe high levels of unemployment. Ourdo reform in the future. It has nothing proud. And those on the left shouldcountry now faces a very different di-to do with moving the eligibility age: also be concerned about maintaininglemma—a tight labor market in manythat stays the same. The amendment the discretionary ability to invest inareas. including my own State of Ne-substitutes the words "old age" and the other important things that willvada. which makes it difficult to re- age test" for the word "retirement. make our country a more prosperouscruit qualified employees. So they will no longer be required to and decent place in the years to come. It is simply illogical to prevent thoseretire in order to be eligible for this Despite this seeming ground for com-who are willing and able to do so frombenefit. promise between the left and right, toojoining the economy by working in The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GOR- often a consensus evades us. It is dif-areas that desperately need their tal-TON).Thequestion is on agreeing to ficult in a democracy to make hardents. While many people choose to re-the Kerrey amendment. choices. Yet our constituents have atire from their jobs at the traditional Mr. ROTH. Mr. President,I would right to expect no less from us. It takesage of 65. or earlier, more and morelike to expedite the consideration of wisdom and courage on the part ofworkers want to continue working wellthis amendment. But it is important those proposing this reform, forbear-into their late sixties and into theirthat we move ahead with the legisla- ance uponourpoliticalopponents'seventies. tion so that it can be referred expedi- part, and ultimately wisdom and un- One of the incentives, of course, fortiously to the President. For that rea- derstanding on the part of the Amer-working beyond retirement age is theson, I move to table the amendment. I ican people. greater financial security that theirask for the yeas and nays. I wish to close my remarks by com-additional income provides. However, The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a mending those who have risen to speakfor people between the ages of 65 andsufficient second? Out in favor of the cause of meaningful70, the financial benefits of staying in There is a sufficient second. entitlement reform. It is essential notthe workforce are diminished by the The question is on agreeing to the only topreserving thebenefitsforunjustified earnings limit. Too manymotion. The clerk will call the roll. those we claim to champion today: it isseniors,especially those with high The legislative clerk called the roll. also important for proving the efficacymedical bills, struggle on their very Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the of our democratic institutions on thelimited incomes. The last thing theySenator from New Hampshire(Mr. threshold of the 21st century. I thankneed is a Government-imposed penalty.GREGG) is necessarily absent. my colleagues for their courage in tak- Currently. for every $3 a worker aged The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there ing up this issue. Senator KERREY'S65 to 70'earns above $17,000, the work-any other Senators in the Chamber voice will be missed in the years toer's Social Security benefit check is re-who desire to vote? come. I hope to add mine in my ownduced by $1. That is quite a disincen- The result was announced—yeas 55. humble way, and ultimately we willtive to working. At a time when we putnays 44. as follows: achieve this objective. I thank Senatorgreat emphasis on all Americans join- [RollcaU Vote No. 41 Leg. MOYNIHAN and yield the floor. ing the workforce, it makes little sense YEAS—55 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President. theto discourage employment for a large, Abraham Enzi Nickles chairman has very generously agreed Allard Fitzgerald Roberts to allow the Senator from Nevada toexperienced, and valuable segment ofAshcro(t Fnst Roth our population. Bennett Gorton 5antorum speak for 5 minutes. That would per- It is also important to note that theBingaman Gramm sessions haps run us over the 4 o'clock time setrepeal does not adversely affect the Bond Crams shelby for the vote. I ask unanimous consent Brownback Grassley smith (NH) for an extra 2 minutes in that regard. long-term financial health of the So- Bunning Hatch smith (OR) The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutcial Security trust fund. Eventually. Burns Helms 5nowe theSocialSecurity Administration Campbell Hutchinson 5pecter objection it is so ordered. Cha(ee. L. Hutchison 5tevens The Senator from Nevada is recog-would actually save money because it Cochran tnho(e Thomas nized. would not have to administer the com-Collins Jeffords Thompson plicated earnings test. Conrad Kyl Thurmond Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President. I express Coverdell Lott voinovich my appreciationtoaverydistin- This. then. is a win-win situation for Craig Lugar Warner guished and fair chairman and theall involved. Seniors can continue toCrapo Mack Weflstone ranking member for accommodatingwork and earn income without their DeWine McConnell this Senator. previously earned Social Security ben- Domenici Murkowski I rise in strong support of the Seniorefits being unfairly reduced while the NAYS—44 Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, bipar-Government is minimally affected. Akaka Feinstein Lieberman tisan legislation to repeal the Social Our colleagues in the House of Rep- Baucus Graham Lincoln resentatives have recently voted unani- Boyh Hagel McCain Security earnings limit. Biden Harkin Mikulski For a number of years. I have joinedmously to pass this legislation. It is Boxer Hollings Moynihan with my colleague. Senator MCCAIN. innow our turn to do so, and I hope the Breaux Inouye Murray efforts to repeal this unfair penalty. InSenate will act swiftly to enact this Bryan Johnson Reed Byrd Kennedy Reid my judgment. this legislation is longlegislation to repeal this unfair pen- Ckland Kerrey Robb overdue. The earnings limit has un-alty. Daschle Kerry Rocke(eller fairly penalized Social Security recipi- I yield the floor. Dodd Kohl sarbones Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield 30 seconds to Dorgan Landrieu schumer ents who have chosen to continue to Durbin Lautenberg Torricelli work and discouraged others from re-the Senator from Nebraska. Edwards Leahy Wyden maining in the workforce and contrib- Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask Feingold Levin utingtoourcountry'seconomicfor the yeas and nays on the amend- growth. ment. It is confusing to beneficiaries and it The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a Gregg is difficult to administer. It is time tosufficient second? The motion was agreed to. repealthe earnings limit and thus There is a sufficient second. Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President,I allow Social Security recipients who The yeas and nays were ordered. move to reconsider the vote. continue to work to do so without a re- Mr. KERREY. Mr.President. my Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that duction in their benefits. amendment is merely a conformingmotion on the table. It becomes very clear that the timeamendment. If you support the under- The motion to lay on the table was has come to revoke this unjustifiedlying amendment, which changes So-agreed to. March 21, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S1495 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-job. We can walk down any street inyounger workers. And many seniors ator from Georgia. America today and see: 'Now hiring. need the income that comes from these Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, fol-'Now hiring.' Company after companyjobs to help make ends meet. The earn- lowing my brief remarks and the re-in our country cannot find sufficientings test especially hurts senior citi- marks of Senators BAUCUS. BUNNING.workers. zens who face heavy medical bills or and GRAHAM,inthat order. I ask unan- We also don't have to spend muchother expenses in caring for a spouse or imous consent that all time be yieldedtime in an audience anywhere in Amer-other family members. Yet over 630,000 back on the pending Social Securityica that we do not hear a senior objectseniors today are receiving reduced So- bill and there then be a period for theto the fact that if he or she believescial Security benefits simply because transaction of morning business withthey must continue to work or want tothey want or need to work. And there Senators permitted to speak for up towork, they are so deeply penalized byis no way to know how many more only 10 minutes each. Federal tax law. By repealing the earn-work part of the year because they The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withoutings limit, we will be providing tax re-don't want to earn more than the objection, it is so ordered. lief to about 1.2million seniors in$17,000 limit. Mr. COVERDELL. I encourage anyAmerica between the ages of 65 and 69. We should recognize that enacting Members who wish to speak on the So-It will amount to about $23 billion—notthislegislationisnot withoutits cial Security issue to do so in morninga small number—over 10 years. tradeoffs. Those who have their bene- business following the unanimous-con- This is the right thing to do, and it isfits reduced because of the earnings sent agreementjust propounded. the right time to do it. test today receive higher lifetime bene- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- I yield the floor. fits after they turn 70. For some retir- ator from New York. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ees. this tradeoff could cost them in Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President,I ator from Montana. the long run. But for seniors who are join in the request of the Senator from Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise inhavingtroublemakingends meet Georgia. Other fair matters have arisensupport of HR. 5. the Senior Citizen'stoday, the promise of higher benefits that require our chairman and rankingFreedom to Work Act. I am a cospon-after they turn 70 seems hollow indeed. member to be, in effect, in a meeting.sor of the Senate version of this bill. So I am glad that we are finally at Therefore, we are leaving the floor5. 2074. least taking this first step toward re- open and encourage all who wish to The earnings test, to remind my col-structuring the Social Security system speak to come and do so. leagues. is a Depression-era holdoverto face the realities of our workforce in Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Sen-which reduces Social Security benefitsthe 21st century. I am also glad, that ator from New York. for working retirees. When Social Se-even in this highly charged political The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-curity began 65 years ago, its creatorsclimate, Democrats and Republicans ator from Georgia. hoped older workers would withdrawcan still find some issues that we can Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, itfrom the work force and make moreagree on. is interesting that so much of our laborroom for younger workers. This was I hope we can continue to look for law dates back to the mid-1930s. HR. 5back in the 1930s, in the Depression. more issues like this as the session is a measure that deals with modern- So they reduced retiree's Social Se-continues. Putting aside our political izing attitudes about work habits andcurity benefits according to a formula,differences for the good of the Amer- workers and bringing them into thewhich today causes the loss of $1 inican people, after all, is what the pub- new century. benefits for every $3 earned over $17,000lic wants. It was in 1935, during the Great De-for those between the ages of 65 and 69. I yield the floor. pression. that it was decided to dis- While this might have made sense The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- courage people who were 65 and olderduring the Great Depression which atator from Kentucky is recognized. from working. That was done by say-its peak saw one Out of every four Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise ing: If you do work, we can't keep youAmericans without jobs, driving olderin strong support of H.R. 5. the Senior from working. but for every $3 youworkers Out of the workforce simplyCitizens Freedom to Work Act, and the earn, we are going to take $1 of it. ordoes not reflect the needs of todaysrepeal of the Social Security earnings charge you a surtax of 33 percent. ItAmerica. Americans today are retiringlimit. was a very arduous and imposing taxsooner, and the number of employed This is a day that many of us have on individuals on Social Security. males over the age of 65 has fallen fromworked toward for a long time, and the There are a number of major changes47 percent 50 years ago to less than 17sooner we can pass this bill and send it that have occurred in the workplace.percent today. In addition, we all knowin to the President. the better. Our seniors deserve it. but twoIemphasize have becomethe solvency of the Social Security uniquely significant for this group ofTrust Funds is threatened because our I think by now we all know how the workers, age 65 to 69. society is aging. In 1950, there were 17earnings limit works. It penalizes sen- No. 1, the United States is effectivelypeople in the workforce for every per-iors between 65 and 70 who receive So- unable to fillits workplace. We dealson drawing Social Security benefits.cial Security benefits but also continue with that issue on a daily basis. WeBy 1999, this number had dropped toworking. For every $3 they earn over need workers. We need people who areless than 4 people working for everythe earnings limit, they lose $1 in bene- highly trained, who have developed anone person drawing benefits. And underfits. Under current law, in 2000 the expertise, as senior workers have done.the intermediate projections of the So-limit is $17,000. It rises to $25,000 next And we need them to stay in the work-cial Security trustees, this number willyear. $30,000 in 2002, and with inflation place, if we are going to fill the Amer-drop even further, to less than 2 peopleafter that. ican workplace. working for every one beneficiary by The earnings limit is a Depression The second issue that has created a2075. era relic whose time has come and long very serious and significant change is In today's era of low unemployment,gone. It first became law back in the that many of these workers must do soit simply makes no sense to penalize1930's when Social Security was start- in order to keep up with the financialretirees who want to continue working.ed, and was passed by Congress as a pressures of this time, with the in-And as we look at the continuedway to encourage seniors to retire 50 crease in costs of medicine and othergraying of our society throughout thethattheir jobs could be taken by matters dealing with senior years. 21st century, it will become even moreyounger, unemployed workers. It is inherently unfair to tax thesecritical to eliminate disincentives to At a time when our economy was earnings over $17000 and to punish peo-work for this growing segment of ourfighting for its life, and unemployment ple for entering the workplace when,population. was close to 25 percent, an earnings indeed, we want them to enter the Working seniors are a vital employeelimit might have seemed like a good workplace; we want them to stay inpool for America's businesses. We needidea.Now when unemploymentis the workplace. They are no longerthe experience they bring from a life-threatening to dip below 4 percent and keeping somebody else from getting atime of learning to help train ourmany of our nation's employers are S1496 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE March 21, 2000 clamoringfor more workers, it's clearAnd in 1995, as part of the Contracttween the ages of 65 and 69 who con- that the earnings limit has outlivedwith America, we passed legislation totinue to work will no longer have a whatever usefulness it once might havelift the earnings limit to its currentportion of their Social Security bene- had. annual level of $30,000. This was one offits withheld. The "earnings test" in From time to time over the years,the most popular bills we passed thatcurrent law reduces the Social Sew- Congress has looked at changing theyear, and I was proud to be the leadrity benefits of those in the 65 to 69 age earnings limit. In fact, several timessponsor. group by $1 for every $3 they earn anwe did tweak it here and there by rais- But. we still weren't finished becausenually over $17,000. It affects nearly ing the income level. But, like a vam-this proposal was part of larger legisla-eighthundredthousandmen and pire, the earning limit has been hard totion that was vetoed by President Clin-women each year. It unfairly denies kill altogether—it continued to threat-ton as part of his government shut-them a portion of the Social Security en seniors and their livelihoods. down strategy. He said he liked thebenefits which they have earned by a Now we have the opportunity to getearnings limit repeal, but he vetoed thelifetime of hard work. Once this bill is rid of the earnings limit altogether. Ibill anyway. signed into law. these seniors will re- say that it's time to drive a stake So we were back at Square One. But,ceive the full benefits to which they through the heart of the earnings limitwe took the President at his word thatare entitled whether or not they choose he liked the earnings limit repeal, soto remain in the workforce alter age 65. once and for all. President Clinton has urged Congress Mr. President,I was privileged toafter the veto we quickly passed ato repeal the earnings limit, and he serve in the other body as the chair-stand-alone bill in the House to in-will sign the bill as soon as it reaches man oftheSocialSecuritySub-crease the earnings limit in late 1995.his desk. Repeal of the earnings limit committee for 4 years, and before thatThe next March, we includeditinis the right thing for us to do, and now as the Ranking Member for 4 years. Itmust-pass legislation to lift the Fed--is the time for us to do it. was my bill that we passed in the 104theral Government's debt ceiling, and it The concept of an earnings limit goes Congress that lifted the earnings limitwas signed into law. back to the Depression era when Social to its current level of $30,000 from what In all.it took almost 10 years toSecurity was first enacted. At that was then $11,250. raise the earnings limit, so I hope mytime. unemployment was high and it If we could have repealed it alto-colleagues keep this in mind now thatwas hoped that the creation of Social gether, we would have. But the budgetwe have a chance to act quickly to getSecurity would encourage older work- landscape was different back then. Werid of the limit altogether. ers to retire and create openings for were still looking at huge deficits, and Mr.President,peoplearelivingyounger men and women who des- we were using Social Security sur-longer and longer. And many of themperately needed jobs. The employment pluses to finance general governmentwant to work alter they turn 65. Theypicture today is dramatically different. programs. want to work longer, and they can doWe face a shortage of skilled workers Now things are different. We havemore. Why on earth should we penalizeand our economy can benefit from the budget surpluses across the board, andthem—by taking benefits they have al-continued participation of older work- we can focus on doing the right thingready paid for—for doing that?! It justers in the workforce. Their experience for seniors irrespective of other spend-doesn't make sense to pay them withand sound judgment is a national re- ing and tax needs. Our economic pros-one hand. and to rob them with thesource. Men and women in their late perity has handed us a golden oppor-other. sixties are healthier than in genera- tunity to repeal the earnings limit. Theaveragelifeexpectancyfortions past and the majority of jobs no Times have changed for the better. women in America is almost 80 now.longer involve physical exertion. Those I know there are others in SenateFor men, it's getting close to 75. That'swho choose to work beyond age 65 who have worked on this issue fora big increase from must a few decadesshouldnothavefinancialbarriers years. But, for my colleagues who haveago when we passed Social Securityerected in their paths. The earnings not lived with legislation to repeal theand the earnings limit. limit in current law is such a barrier earnings limit as long as some of us, Now. many seniors want. and need, toand it should be removed without fur- let me just briefly describe for themwork for income after they officiallyther delay. what it has been like over the past 14retire.Social Security and pensions The most important aspect of repeal- years for those of us who have beensometimes aren't enough, and if sen-ing the earnings limit is that it will in- trying to pass legislation. iors want to feather their nests with acrease the freedom of senior citizens to In 1987, those of us who had just beensalary, more power to them. work or retire as they choose. When to elected to the House for the 100th Con- I urge my colleagues to vote for thisretire is an intensely personal deci- gress adopted as a project the repeal ofbill. Not only will seniors thank us, wesion—influencedby theindividual's the earnings limit. And at least 11 billscan take heart in knowing that thehealth. the financial needs of their were introduced in Congress to lift orCongressional Budget Office tellsusfamily. their career interests. and the repeal the limit altogether, and wethat we will even save $700 million innature of the work that is available to worked the issue hard. But, nothingSocial Security administrative coststhem. The rules of Social Security happened. It was like banging yourby repealing the earnings limit. Thereshould not restrict a senior's range of head against a wall. are 800 employees at SSA who help ad-choice. Those who decide to continue Then during the 101st Congress then-minister the earnings limit. After thisworking alter age 65 and those who de- Congressman Denny Hastert. and an-bill becomes law. they will be freed tocide to retire should be treated equi- other 100th congressional class mem-perform other tasks for the Social Se-tably. Both groups should be eligible to ber, introduced a bill to repeal thecurity Administration. receive the full Social Security bene- limit and got 267 cosponsors in the We have the opportunity to do awayfits they have earned. House. Again, nothing happened. with the earnings limit altogether, and In 1996, I was pleased to join with my In the 102d Congress, we managed toI say the sooner the better." I cantSenate colleagues in voting to raise the get 278 supporters in the House to sup-think o one good reason not to passearnings limit gradually over the suc- port our bill to lift the earnings limit.this bill immediately, and get it downceeding five years. Because of that We talked up the issue constantly.to the White House as soon as possible.amendment. the financial burden on Still, nothing. It's good policy, it's good politics aridthousands of senior citizens has al- So we kept plugging along, and onceit's the right thing to do for our seniorsready been reduced. With enactment of again in the 103d Congress, we intro-and our country. thislegislation,which I whole- duced a bill and signed up over a ma- Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today,heartedly support, the burden of the jority of the House—225 Members—onthe Senate is making an important re-earningslimitwillbecompletely our legislation. But, guess what? Noth-form in Social Security which will ben-eliminated, so that all seniors receive ing happened. efit hundreds of thousands of seniorfull Social Security benefits, whether Then something did happen. In 1994,citizens each year. Because of the ac-or not they remain in the workforce Republicans took control of Congress.tion we are taking today, those be-after age 65. They have earned it. S1497 March 21, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE a way which keeps faith with thehis- 65-69,compared to $1 for each $2 of Several of my colleagues have used earnings over $10,080 for those age 62— this legislation as an opportunity totoric mission of the program—to provide senior citizens with a guaranteed.64—and lowering the age at which an voice their perspective on the future of individual can work without suffering Social Security and they have paintedinflation adjusted benefit which will enable them to live in security and dig-a benefit reduction to age 70from age a bleak picture.I strongly disagree 72. It is time now to further lower that with their characterizations. nity. age to the Social Security retirement SocialSecurityisfundamentally I urge all my colleagues to support reaches that sound. It has sufficient resources tothe Senior Citizens Freedom to Workage so that once a worker Act. Repeai of the earnings limit willage—currently 65—the worker's Social fully fund current benefits for 35 years. Security benefit will not be reduced, no Due to the graduai aging of the Amer-enable those who remain in the work- ican population Sociai Security willforce beyond age 65 to receive the fullmatter how much the worker earns. Securitybenefits they have We have beforeuslegislationto begin to experience a revenue shortfailSocial eliminate the earnings test for individ- after 2035. However, if we plan for theearned. It will greatly help these work- future by addressing this problem ining seniors and it will strengthen ouruais at Social Security retirement age. the near term, that revenueshortfalloverail economy. It is the right thingI have cosponsored Senator ASHCROFT's withrelativelyto do. bill, 5. 2074, and we have the House- canbeeliminated Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President. I risepassed bill, H.R. 5. These bills would minor adjustments to the system. Thetoday to support elimination of the So-free the approximately 800,000 Social benefit expectations of future recipi- Security benefit recipients currently ents can be preserved and the solvencycial Security earnings test for individuais who have attained Sociai Securityages 65 through 69 from the currentlaw of Social Security insured for futureretirement age—currently age 65. Cur-that reduces, and in some cases elimi- generations. benefits if We need to preserve the program asrently, if these retirees work, their So-nates, their Social Security $1 they work and earn above the earnings an inflation adjustedguaranteed ben-cial Security benefits are reduced quick- efit for those who depend on it to payfor every $3 of earnings above $17,000test. I urge my colleagues to act for the basic necessities of life. Forper year. This is an unfairresult forly to make this legislative change for many older Americans who arereceiv-older working Americans. two-thirds of America's senior citizens,ing Social Security benefits after a Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this SocialSecurity retirementbenefits morning I spoke in morning business provide more than haif their annual in-lifetime of work but who must con- Security it con-tinue to work to supplement their re-on the repeal of the Sociai come. For 42 percent of them, tirement income. In my own state ofEarnings Limit, an onerous tax burden stitutes more than three-quartersof on seniors who want to continuework- their income. Social Security enablesVermont. many people work beyond age 65. They should not have togive uping. This afternoon, while we aredis- millions of elderly to spend their re- hard-earned Socialcussing the bill, I would like to re-em- tirement years in security and dignity.a portion of their phasize my support for repealing this Without Social Security, half the na-Security benefit because they need to take ajob. unfair test. tion's elderly would be living in pov- The earnings test can aiso be a prob- Earnings test is a misguided and out- erty. Converting a portion ofSocial Se- dated relic of the Great Depression— curityintoprivate investment ac-lem for employers. Older workers are wouldoften in demand by employers becausewhen jobs were scarce, unemployment counts, as some have suggested, of their expertise and an overail tighthigh, and people did not live as long be much too risky for elderly men andlabor market. The reduction in Socialand healthy lives as they do today. women who have no other sourceof fi-Security benefits can be a barrier to By limiting the amount a person 65- nancial security. older workers reentering the work-69 can earn, it provides adisincentive The major proposais which would di- for seniors to work. For everydollar a rect a portion of each workerspayrollforce. would all The earnings test presents a specialsenior aged 65-69 earns over $17,000. the taxes into private accounts problem for small business owners re-government reduces benefits by $1for reduce the level of guaranteed Socialceiving Social Security benefits. Smalleach $3 of earnings. Security benefits substantially. Wheth- This test penalizes 1.2 million work- those lostbusiness owners are subject to both the er or not a retiree made up dollar earnings test and a self-employ-ingseniorsnationwide,and 17,523 dollars would depend on factors largelyment test that can involve anexten-working seniors in Missouri suffer. The beyond his or her control. Workers whosive audit to establish their levelofactual number of seniors affected is far reach retirement age during an eco-earnings. Eliminating the earnings testgreater. though, as millions ofseniors nomic downturn cannot simply delay choose not to work, or limit their earn- their retirement indefinitely until thewill also eliminate the need for these audits. And removing the incentive forings because of the penaity. market goes up. Private accounts, sub-older small business owners to retire The effect of this test is to keep sen- ject to the ups and downs of the stock iors out of the workforce, and ithas se- market, are fine as a supplement to So-could mean continued employment op-rious consequences. More workers cre- cial Security. But, they are no sub-portunitiesintheirbusinessesfor With our other older workers. ate more jobs not fewer jobs. stitute for Sociai Security. There has been an earnings test forcurrent unemployment rateof 4 per- President Clinton's budget proposalSocial Security benefits since the So-cent—we need skilled andexperienced would use the debt service savings workers. which will result from paying down thecial Security Act was passed in 1935. limit during the Great Depression. The earn- Unfortunatelytheearnings national debt over the next fifteenings test originally was a way to en-keeps too many qualified,experienced years to extend the life of theSociai freeseniors out of the workforce. Seniors Security Trust Fund. Since the currentcourage older workers to retire, to have the skills, integrity workethic, Social Security surplus is being used toupjobs for younger workers. and experience that make them highly appropriate for The earnings test has always been pay down the debt, it is unpopular, especiaily with those age 65vaiuable members of the workforce. the Social Security Trust Fund to re-and older. In response. Congress hasTheir continuing contributions are cru- ceive the resulting savings. More thanchanged the earnings test provisionscial. The only limit to what theyhave haif of the projected shortfail in theseveral times over the years—increas-to offer is the earnings limit. Trust Fund over the next 75 years Recently.Ispent some time with ing the amount a benefit recipient can found could be eliminated by adopting thisearn without a benefitreduction. Theconstituents in Missouri, and policy. If we dedicated all of the sav- andmany seniors in my home Stateof Mis- ings in debt service costs to the Socialearnings limit for those age 65 souri are harmed by the earnings test. ofolder currently is $17000 and rises to who Security Trust Fund, the solvency $25,000 in 2001 and to $30,000 beginningBeverlyPaxtonfromBelton, the system would be extended to be-in 2002. It provides a higher earningsworks with'Green Thumb" to find yond 2050. fully providing for the re-limit and smailer reduction for olderjobs for seniors. told me thathundreds tirement of the baby boom generation.benefit recipients—Si for each $3 of an-of seniors would be eager to work with- We need to address the long term fi- out the earnings test.Furthermore, nancial problems of Social Security innuai earnings over $17,000 for those age S1498 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —SENATE March 21, 2000 somedon't try to work for fear thatTax Limitation Committee, and thehalf of those helped by this legislation theSocialSecurityAdministrationUnited Seniors Association. have incomes under $45,000 per year, in- might take their benefits away. Sen- It is time to eliminate this counter-cluding Social Security—both of these iors don't want to Visit a CPA to findproductive and unfairpenalty. Thechoices leave them financially out if they will lose benefits. House has already acted. The Presidentsqueezed. For women. who are twice as In addition, many more seniors limitis prepared to sign this. Thanks to thelikely as men to retire in poverty, this their hours to avoid the test. A manu-hard work of Chairman ROTH, who isis an especially important issue. facturer in Belton told me that somemanaging this bill, the Senate is now This legislation offers a third choice: seniors work until they reach eligi-ready to pass the earnings test repealContinue to work and continue to re- bility, then tell the employer:'I won'tas well. I urge my colleagues to join usceive those Social Security benefits. be here next week, I'll see you nextin support of this measure, and grant Moreover, I believe that elimination January." This leaves employers in theseniors the opportunity to earn freelyof the Social Security earnings test is lurch, having to absorb training costsin their golden years. warranted because the original logic of or heavy overtime costs. These deci- Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President,Ithe earnings test no longer holds. Con- sions based on the earnings test imposerise today in support of the Social Se-gress imposed the earnings test to pro- productivity costs on the economy. curity Earnings Test Elimination Actvide adisincentive" to older workers Even when seniors work around theof 2000, which I have cosponsored. to continue to work, so as to make test, they suffer unexpected costs. C.D. The earnings limit is the amount ofroom for younger workers during the Clark, from Florissant, Missouri. andmoney a Social Security recipient canGreat Depression. In our new, twenty- who has since moved to Kentucky, hadearn without having a portion of his orfirst century economy, unemployment earned $25,000 before trying to limither benefits deferred. Currently, thatis at historic lows and firms are nearly earnings to protect himself from thelimit is $17,000 per year for retirees be-desperate for workers. test. This year, he planned to onlytween the ages of 65 and 69. For every I do not believe that passage of this work 8 months so that his Social Secu-$3 in earnings above that limit, theselegislation willaddress many long- rity benefits would not be cut. seniors have $1 in benefits deferred. term problems regarding the solvency The Social Security Administration, I believe that this is grossly unfair.of the Social Security system. We have however, assumed he would earn theLast year, my colleague from Iowa,much work remaining on that score. same amount, and withheld his SocialSenator GRASSLEY. and I proposed lift-But for the hundreds of thousands of Security checks from January throughing the Social Security earnings testseniors who either need or want to con- March of this year. When Mr. Clarkon retirees between the ages of 65 andtinue to work past age 65, this legisla- complained to the SSA that he had not69. We did not propose outright elimi-tion represents an important step in yet earned $17,000, he was told, "Wenation because we did not think, atcreating a fairer and more secure re- like to get our money up front." that time, that the surplus would betirement. I urge my colleagues to sup- I recently received a letter from Loislarge enough to sustain elimination.port passage of the Social Security Murphy of St. Louis, who is65, andNow, a year later—and thanks to ourEarnings Test Elimination Act of 2000. works part time as an RN in the oper-continued economic boom—I believe it Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. ating room at St. John's Mercy Med-is possible to eliminate the earningsPresident, as a cosponsor of this impor- ical Center. The hospital suffers from atest outright, and still adhere to a re-tant legislation, I believe the time has labor shortage, and needs help fromsponsible and fiscally sound budget. come for us to put an end to the Social women like Mrs. Murphy. who are ex- Security earnings test. Over 1 million seniors nationwide Our seniors have worked hard to perienced and willing to work. But sheface this earnings test. My own state.build a life for their families and have limits her hours because of the earn-California, has more seniors affectedgiven up a great deal to provide a fu- ings limit, taking a skilled, experi-by the earnings test than any otherture for all of us. They have made sac- enced—and needed—worker Out of thestate: 161,000, according to the Bureaurifices far beyond what has been re- hospital. of the Census. quired of most of us. In her letter. Mrs. Murphy wrote: For these161,000 Californians—and And yet, many in Washington and in The $17,000 limit a person could earnhundreds of thousands of others allthe White House have sought to reward plus the small Social Security check isacrossthis country—this legislationseniors by snatching more and more of not enough to live comfortably andrepresents an important step in remov-their hard-earned dollars. enjoy your senior years." Mrs. Murphying the unfair burden that the earnings Unfortunately, staying in the work neatly summarized this issue in onetest places on them simply becauseforce is often not a choice, but a neces- simple sentence:'I think if a seniorthey wish to continue working. Assity. Many seniors are forced to work citizen at age 65is willing to work,President Clinton said in his Februaryeither for survivalor because they they should be able to earn a lot more29 letter to House leaders: must supplement their meager month- or not have a limit."Ibelieve that We should reward every American wholy Social Security check. Mrs. Murphy is right. Seniors shouldwants toand can stay active and productive. Seniors should not be punished for have the freedomtoearnif they For example, a letter I received fromsimply trying to make it to the end of choose. But the problem is that theythe American Health Care Associationthe month. don't have that choice. We must sendholds: This bill represents the first step in the earnings test into retirement. The nursing facilities we represent make areversing many of the punitive taxes I have been working on this since Iconcerted effort to employ senior citizens towe have levied on both seniors and came to the Senate. In 1995, I voted tocare for their peers. They're reliable andworking families across America. substantially increase thelimit.Inhonest workers, who have compassion for I ask my colleagues to vote in favor 1997, I called for the elimination of thethose in their care. We have had difficultyof this monumental legislation. test and cosponsored legislation thathiring or retaining these employees because Every year, about 800,000 seniors suf- would get rid of it. This year, I have in-of the threat of losing Social Security bene-fer the affects of the Social Security troduced legislation that would elimi-fits after their annual earnings have passedearnings test—many of whom can bare- nate the test. My bipartisan legislation $17,000. ly afford the month's rent or proper has 43 cosponsors, including the entire Elimination of the earnings test ismeals. majority leadership. important not just to those retirees Under the current law, recipients of Organizations that support me onwho want to continue to work. but toSocial Security between the ages of 65 this include: Green Thumb, 60+, thethose who need to continue to workand 69 can only earn up to $17,000 with- Seniors Coalition,NationalAssocia-and who are currently faced with anout penalty. tion of Home Builders, National Tax-Hobson's choice: Continue to work and However, any income in excess of payers Union, the U.S. Air Force Ser-have Social Security benefits reduced,$17,000 would have the Federal Govern- geants Association, CapitolWatch,or stop working and rely only on Socialment taking $1 for every $3 they earn. Americans for Tax Reform, the U.S.Security for retirement security. For This means that the Federal Govern- Chamber of Commerce, the Nationalall too many of these retirees—overment is imposing a marginal tax rate S1499 March 21, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE of 33 percent on the poorest segment offor those who may wish to work. ThisCitizens'Freedom to Work Act. This our society. But it does not stop there.disincentive effect is magnified whenbill,which unanimously passed the Andrew Quinlan. executive directorviewed on an after-tax basis. House of Representatives on March 1, of Capital Watch correctly states: Senior citizens who work stand towould end the practice of withholding a To further add insult to injury, workerslose a substantial percentage of theirportion of Social Security benefits sim- must also pay a host of taxes on the originalSocial Security benefits due to the So-ply because a beneficiary chooses to dollar, which may raise their marginal in-cial Security earnings test. work beyond the statutory retirement come tax rate to greater than that of sports In addition to the earning test tax,ag. stars and Wall Street high rollers. they must also continue to pay Social The Social Security earnings test has Sandra Butler, president of UnitedSecurity taxes, and, most likely, otheralways been one of the most illogical Seniors Association echoes thatFederal and State income taxes asaspects of the Social Security system. thought: well. Under current law, a beneficiary be- The punitive nature of the Earnings Limit The Social Security earnings testtween the ages of 65 and 69 may only is obvious; By itself, the Earnings Limit im-forces senior citizens to avoid work.earn up to $17,000 without losing bene- poses a 33 percent marginal tax rate on sen-seek lower paying work, or get wagesfits. After that amount, $1 of Social Se- iors. "under the table." turning honest folkscurity benefit is lost for every $3 of Ms. Butler continues; who are just trying to get by into com-earnings. In combination with federal income andmon criminals. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I payroll taxes, the Earnings Limit forces sen- The Social Security earnings test ishave supported efforts to minimize the iors to pay higher marginal tax rates thanunfair and inappropriate. It imposes aeffect of the earnings test. For exam- millionaires. This is unconscionable. form of'meanstest" on retirementple, in 1998, I supported the Taxpayer I must agree. Some seniors could bebenefits. Relief Act which would have raised the looking at a marginal tax rate of 59 Social Security benefits have beenlevel of exempt income to $39,750 in percent. This taxisunconscionable.earned by a lifetime of contributions to2008. Unfortunately, the 105th Congress But as Machiavellianasthat maythe program. American workers haveadjourned before the Senate could con- sound, it gets worse for seniors who arebeen led to regard Social Security as asider this legislation. While raising the forced or choose to retire early. government-run savings plan. earnings limit would have been a step Seniors who retire between the ages Indeed, their acceptance of the nearin the right direction. a total elimi- of 62—65 have $1 for every $2 they earn15-percent Social Security payroll taxnation of the earning test is clearly the in excess of $10,080 confiscated fromhas been predicated on the belief thatright thing to do. their check. Translation: Uncle Sam isthey will get their money back at re- The Social Security Administration taking half of every dollar earned fromtirement. estimates that 800,000 beneficiaries are those who can least afford it. Thus, most Americans do not acceptaffected by the earnings test. People Established during the depression ofthe rationale that the return of theirspend a lifetime putting that money the 1930's. the earnings test was meantmoney should be decreased just be-into their Social Security accounts and to discourage older workers from re-en-cause they continue to work. they ought to have full access to it tering the labor force and taking jobs Additionally,theSocialSecuritywithout limiting their other opportuni- from younger workers. earningstestdiscriminatesagainstties for making an income. The present However, with the extremely tightsenior citizens who must work in ordersystem is holding them down, itis laborpoolavailabletoemployersto supplement their benefits. holding the economy down, andit today, it makes sense to access the ex- Clearly, the Social Security earningsshould be changed. It is wrong to with- perienced.productive,andvaluabletest is inequitable to our Nation's sen-hold any portion of a benefit that was work force seniors represent. ior citizens who are in the greatestduly earned by years of work and con- Gerald Howard senior vice presidentneed of extra income. tributions to the system. Social Secu- with the National Association of Home In addition to being complicated andrity was not meant as a single source Builders agrees. difficult for folks to understand, theof retirement income. Why then does He says: Social Security earnings test is com-the government penalize those seniors Because the skills of decades ago are noplex and costly for the Government to longer taughtincurrent education and who choose to earn additional income training programs, home builders recognizeadminister. through work? This is especially con- the special need to keep and utilize the For example the test is responsiblefusing in a time of low unemployment for more than one-half of retirementwhen companies are desperately look- unique talents of retirees. and survivor program overpayments. For our nations home builders, retaining testing for skilled and experienced employ- skilled retirees is important in meeting our Eliminationof the earnings ees. Government should encourageself- workforce needs. would help minimize administration expenses, and recipients would be lesssufficiency, not penalize it. AccordingtotheDepartment of I am pleased that H.R. 5 will be Labor, 240,000 new workers must be re-confused and less tempted to cheat onbrought to a vote shortly. I am a co- cruited and trained each year to meetreporting their earnings. sponsor of a similar bill introduced by the Nation's growing demands in the Finally, repealing the Social Secu-Senator ASHCROFT. These bills would buildingindustryalone.However,rity earnings test would greatly aidcompletely eliminate the earnings test these requirements are not being met.our country's economy. Our seniorfor Social Security recipients who have And it is not limited to the buildingwould be likely to work more and thereached retirement age, allowing them industry. All sectors are feeling theAmerican economy would benefit fromto earn outside income without a re- pinch. their experience and skills. duction in benefits. What we have now Dr. Charles Roadman. president and Thecombinedincreaseintheis a disincentive for people to work CEO of American Health Care Associa-amounts that they would pay in Socialwho want to continue to contribute to tion has urged the President and theSecurity and other taxes, as well as the additional contribution to our grossour growing economy. Anymeaningful Vice President to'takebold action to reform of Social Security should pre- ease the shortage of skilled nursingdomestic product would largely offsetserve the system and allow those who professionalsthat hasreachedepi-the increase in benefit payments. want to work to continue to do so. This demic levels" by supporting the Con- For decades, our senior citizens havemeasure is the right thing to do and is gress in their effort to eliminate theworked and dutifully. They have paid their share into the Social Security re-long overdue. earning penalty. Icongratulate the House of Rep- If we wish to continue growing thetirement account and it is only fairresentatives on its unanimous passage economy, we must free up those withthat they receive their Social Security the experience and know-how to meetbenefits in full when they retire. of this bill and am encouraged that I ask my colleagues to join me inPresident Clinton has voiced his sup- countries employment needs—our sen- port for the bill.I would also like to iors. passing this legislation. Unfortunately, the Social Security Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President.Irisethank Senator ASHCROFF for his leader- earnings test serves as a disincentivetoday in support of H.R. 5. the Seniorship on this issue. I urge my colleagues S1500 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE March 21, 2000 tojoin me in passing this bill and re- I wish to use this opportunity to talkjobs. Most of those new jobs have come storing a measure of fairness for seniorabout another dinosaur that is occu-from businesses that employ less than citizens. pying too much space. That is the dino-25 people. In fact, over 70 percent of the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-saur of an excessive focus on Social Se-new jobs in America are from small ator from Florida is recognized. curity as we think about the retire-businesses with less than 25 employees. Mr.GRAHAM. Thankyou.Mr.ment lives of older Americans. In fact,Itis exactly those small businesses President. Social Security is becoming a decliningthat are the least likely to have an em- Mr. President. in 1991. I spent one ofportion of the total revenue of retiredployer-sponsored retirement plan. my monthly workdays at a Winn-DixieAmericans, and will continue to de- I believe—andsodoesSenator grocery store in Santa Rosa County.cline as a portion of their income forGRASSLEY of Iowa. with whom I have FL. I worked as a bagger standing atthe foreseeable future. worked closely on these matters—that the end of the checkout line putting RetirementinAmericaistodaythe principal focus of our attention the groceries of the customers of thatbased on a three-legged stool. Thoseneeds to be to encourage small busi- store into a paper or plastic bag theythree legs are employer-sponsored re-nesses to provide pension benefits for had selected and then taking it out totirement plans, individual savings, andtheir employees. We introduced legisla- their car. Social Security. tiontothisend.Thatlegislation, The man I worked with throughout I believe, rather than talking aboutstyled as 5. 741. contains the following that day was Jim Young. Jim has a his-the issue of Social Security reform,components: tory that is typical of many retiredwhat we should be talking about is the It expands coverage by providing in- Americans. He had worked both in aissue of retirement security reform socentives for small businesses to begin military and a civilian capacity. Hewe can focus on allof the relevantoffering pension coverage. had looked forward to his retirementcomponents of the retirement package As an example, it will assist small time in a place of paradise and came toupon which most Americans rely. Webusinesses in paying some of the start- a place where he thought he could findneed to add a fourth component to thisup costs in the establishment of a pen- paradise. Unfortunately. Jim had a fewdiscussion; that is,a much more in-sionplan.Itincreasesportability. difficulties that had the effect of neces-tense effort at encouraging Americansmaking it easier for employees to move sitating he seek employment in orderto plan for their retirement. retirement money from one plan to an- to supplement his retirement income. It has been said—and not only inother as they change jobs. We know It was then that he encountered the re-jest—that most Americans spend moretoday the average American will work strictions on earnings after retirementtime planning a 2-week summer vaca-at seven jobs during the course of their and the impact that this was about totion than they do the 15, or 25, or moreworking lifetime. They need to be able have onhisSocialSecurity.Jim.years they will live in retirement. Thatto carry their pension benefits from therefore, had to go through an elabo-may have been a practice that was ac-one job to the next. rateprocess of adjusting his workceptable when retirement was not as 5. 749 strengthens pension security schedule so as to minimize the adversecomplex as it is today. when retire-and enforcement. It reduces red tape effect of the earnings limit on his totalment did not involve as much self-re-associated with pension plans and has income and to be able to fashion hissponsibility as it does today. when re-its own encouragement for retirement way through what he found to be an in-tirement did not include as many fac-education. explicable restriction on his capacityets, from long-term care to providing The second thing we need to do is to to work, make a contribution, and sup-for your physicalhealth and well-assist Americans with their retirement plement his income. being. savings. Again, the focus is on Ameri- It was that experience with Jim as I believe these four components—em-cans who work for smaller businesses much as anything that caused me to beployer-sponsored retirement plan re-where most of the new jobs are being interestedintheissuesbeforeusform. encouragement of individual sav-created, and Americans who have not today. I am pleased to have played aings.strengthening Social Security.had a tradition of saving as part of role in the 1996 action which was de-and the promotion of preretirementtheir retirement security. scribed by our colleague from Ken-planning—are the basis of an American The President has proposed a pro- tucky. which substantially raised thenational effort at enhanced retirementgram in which the Federal Government cap on earnings to its current $17,000security. The goal of that enhanced re-provides matching contributionsfor and gave significant relief to peopletirement security should be to place alllower and moderate-income families such as Jim Young. Americans in a position to be able to,who save for retirement. The structure Today. we are finishing the job. Withwith reasonable assurance, anticipateof this utilizes existing savings vehi- the passage of this legislation, we willthat they will have in retirement a sig-cles such as IRA5, or individual retire- eliminate any earnings restraint on So-nificant percentage of their preretire-ment accounts.and401(k)s.Rather cial Security retirement income. Wement income. Many have suggestedthan creating new government-run ac- will no longer be shackled by a 1930sthat the appropriate goal would be 75counts, we utilize the structurein concept that we have to discouragepercent of preretirement income as thewhich many Americans already have older workers from continuing theirreasonable attainable goal of America.started the process of saving for retire- productive lives in order to open up po- What do we need to do in order toment. sitions for younger workers. If therereach a 75-percent goal? Soon I will be There would be economic incentives ever was a time in our Nation's historyintroducing legislation that will en-provided to lower income families to where that concept has been renderedcompass the subjects of employer-spon-encouragetheir employerstooffer an anachronism, it is at the beginningsored retirement plans, individual sav-these plans. Employers are finding in of the 21st century. We need the pro-ings.strengthening Social Security,this very tight job market that they ductive talent of Americans such asand the promotion of preretirementneed to provide incentives to retain Jim Young. We need to encourage peo-plans. their current workforce and attract ple to think they will be able to extend This afternoon, in the context of thenew workers. It is hoped by encour- their period of working and contrib-elimination of one old attitude fromaging more employers to provide re- uting to our Nation's economy as longour Social Security system; that is, thetirementsavingsaccountssuchas as it is in their interest to do so. andnecessity to cap the earnings of retir-IRAs and 401(k)s that it will make it not by applying arbitrary restraints toees,Iwill lay out a few commentsmore attractive for persons to work for their earnings in the form of a penaltyabout the elimination of another oldthose employers. against their Social Security income. attitude, that the only thing we need We are suggesting there should be I will be very pleased tomorrow whento focus on is Social Security reform.some modifications of the current IRAs we vote on what I anticipate will be anWe need to focus on employer-spon-and 401(k)s. particularly in two areas. overwhelming majorityinfavorofsored retirement plans, particularly asOne. we propose to restrict the ability eliminating this 1930s dinosaur whichthey relate to small businesses. to withdraw funds from the 401(k)s or still occupies too big a space in the liv- In my State, in the last 5-plus years.IRAs. There are many important. le- ing room of Social Security. we have added well over 1 million newgitimate, credible reasons why a person S1501 March 21, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE physical. emotional, and mental would want to withdraw money fromthe concept that we ought to allocate atheir their retirement accounts—to buy aportion of the non-Social Security sur-health in their retirement years as well new home, finance education, ordealplus to help meet this pending shortfallas decisions which affect their finances with an unexpected health emergency.in the Social Security trust fund. inretirement. However, if too many of those allow- What is the justification for using So these are the four components of non-Social Security surplus toa 21st century approach to Americans ances for withdrawal are legalized westrengthen Social Security? Almostin retirement. I look forward to soon could end up with many Americansevery Member of Congress has now ac-returning to the Senate floor to intro having a hollowed-out retirement ac- duce this legislation and to speak on it count. They have a retirement accountcepted enthusiastically the principle in substance, but the resources havethat all of the Social Security surplusin somewhat greater detail. I encour- been withdrawn for purposes earlier inshould be used to pay down the na-age my colleagues to take an interest their lifetime. We want to give thetional debt as a means of strengtheningin this important subject. and I invite our ability to meet our SocialSecuritythem to join me. maximum assurance that if the Federal those Again. I am enthusiastic about the Government is going to beobligations. I certainly join accounts,strong supporters of that fiscally pru-action we are about to take in which supplementingretirement dent practice and principle. It is esti-we eliminate an anachronismfrom the the funds will end up financing retire- 1930s which continues to be part of our ment. mated we will have approximately $2 We also propose to restrict the in-trillion of Social Security surplus overSocial Security system in the 21st cen- vestment options in order to maximizethe next 15 to 20 years. If we maintaintury. I hope we will soon be prepared to the fund safety. Retirement accountsour discipline and use thosefunds totake strong action to deal with some of pay down that portion of thenationalthe old attitudes that retirement was are not intended to be casinos.They only Social Security, an attitude which are accounts with substantial emphasisdebt which is held by the public, when on security and predictability so thatfully reduced we will find an annual in-also is an anachronism of the 1930s that people will have a sense of confidenceterest savings—assuming interest ratescontinues to have too much saliency in in their retirement years. areapproximately whattheyarethe 21st century. The third element is Social Security,today—of about $120 billion a year that The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- its solvency and safety. In my opinion,we will not have to pay in interestbe-ator from Iowa. cause we have used that SocialSecu- Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President. I rise Social Security should be thought of as in support of the legislation being dis- the safety net underneath individualrity surplus to pay down the debt cur-cussed today to be more fair to our sen- savingsand employer-based pensionrently held by the public. to encourage them to systems. It is the ultimate and final I believe all or a substantial portioniorcitizens, source of retirement security. For thatof that $120 billion of interest savingswork. I hope final passage will be voted shouldought to go into the Social Securityon tomorrow. reason, I believe Social Security Security I always like to follow the Senator continue to be what it has been sincetrust fund. It was the Social from Florida because it gives me an op- its inception—a defined benefit plan.trust fund and its surpluses. theaddi- tional amount paid by working Amer-portunity to thank him for the co- That is a plan in which Americans willican men and women, which made itoperation he has given me in our work have a high degree of confidence as to on some of the other legs of theretire- what that check will be every monthpossible to use the Social Security to Social pay down the national debt. Whyisn'tment income stool. We think of from Social Security. Social Securityit justified, why isn't it both legallySecurity as one of those, another is is not the place to be encouraging ex- savings, and the other one is pensions. cessive speculation. There are other op-and morally appropriate to then have savings—IHe and I have worked closely together portunities where people can engage ina portion of those interest in a bipartisan way to formulate pen- speculation if they wish to use their re-personally advocate all of those inter- thenbeusedtosion legislation to encourage savings, tirement as a means of attempting toestsavings—to to encourage employers to haveestab- expand their net worth. I do not believestrengthen the very Social Security system which has made that debt re-lished pension systems. and particu- Social Security is the place to do so. larly to encourage the self-employed Social Security provides 67 percent ofduction possible? and smaller corporations to set up pen- households The fourth component of a national America'ssingle-person program of retirement securityis tosion systems. So I thank him for that. with one-half or more of their income; This legislation might not be consid- Social Security provides 44 percent ofpromote greater preretirement planning. There is going to be much greaterered part of the three-legged stool we the multiperson households with one-individual responsibility for prepara-always talk about of income security half or more of their income. tion for retirement for this and futurefor retirement—Social Securitypen- However, Social Security is facing sions. and private savings—but it is an serious challenges. We are all familiargenerations of Americans. They need to be encouraged and given the meansopportunity for people who want to with the demographics. Over the next work, to work without penalty. That 20 or 30 years, the number of personsby which to make intelligent decisions. drawing Social Security will approxi-intelligent decisions occurring almostobviously is a very strong component, immediately as they enter the work-and heretofore there has been adis- mately double from its current 40 mil- incentive to that activity. This elimi- lion. The 1999 Social Security trusteesforce so they will be as well prepared as possiblefortheir retirement years.nates that disincentive. report stated that the Social SecurityThese decisions are going to be com- If I could sum up, I see at least two program lacks the resources necessary perspectives to this legislation. to meet itscontractual obligationsplex. They will require changes in atti- One, as a matter of public policy in Usingtude, in lifestyle. They will particu- over the next three generations. larly require a greater focus on savingsAmerica, we should not have disincen- the trustees' immediate forecast, So- tives to productivity. Obviously,when cial Security revenue will fall short ofrather than consumption. I believe, for instance, we should con-you earn over a certainamount of the amount needed to fund existing money as a senior citizen drawingSo- committed benefits by as much as 15sider using the Social Security notices. which are now going to be provided oncial Security and you have to pay back percent. $1 out of every $3. that is a disincentive I believe there are a number of re-an annual basis to all futureSocial Se- that forms we need to make in the Socialcurity recipients, as a window so Amer-to work. We ought to eliminate Security system in order to strengthenicans can see the kind of informationdisincentive. they will need to make good choices on A second factor is to judge people in it andtoassure that the contract affectAmerican society on the basis of their which exists between the Governmenta whole array of issues that will competence and their merit and not on of the United States of America andtheir status in retirement, from pur- based the citizens of the United States ofchasinglong-termcareinsurance—the basis of some arbitrary age, which I hope we will soon make moreon a policy that was thoughtgood for America can and will be honored. One the 1930s. Today we would not thinkit proposal which has been made by theaffordable by changes in the tax law— does not President which I strongly support isto steps they should take to assurewas good even for the 1930s. It S1502 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE March 21, 2000 considerpeople's competence because Then we have Sherman and NancyBy removing the disincentive to work. this the policy that was set up 65 years agoSorem of Marshalltown, IA. They werelegislation allows seniors to apply their lifetime of valuable knowledge and experience was, when you got to be 65, you wereaffected by the earnings limitlastto the business world and fill some of these shoved out into the street to makeyear. positions. room for younger people to come into Sherman worked for35yearsfor the workforce. That was wrong. Fisher Controls, a major corporation in Recognizing the need to encourage The third thing about this legislationMarshalltown, IA. When that corpora-seniors to remain in the workforce is is the high rate of taxation. People whotion downsized, he retired from his po-not a new idea. In fact, a report on Fu- earn over this amount of money havesition as office manager of the ac-ture Directions for Aging Policy was to pay back $1 out of every $3 they earncountingdepartment.However,be-published in May of 1980 by the House over a certain amount. That is a verycause of his expertise. he was calledof Representatives Select Committee high marginal tax rate, maybe theback each year to help out and to ad-on Aging, the Subcommittee on Human highest marginal tax rate of any Amer-vise and consult with the department. Services. At that time, I happened to ican. Last year, Fisher Controls needed hisserve as ranking Republican on that Consider, if you earn over $17000, youexpertise for a longer period of timesubcommittee when I was a Member of pay back $1 out of every $3. Considerthan ever before. Unfortunately. Mr.the other body. also that you are already reporting, ifSorem could not continue working be- I would like to read from the Future you are earning over a certain income,cause he would have workedlongDirections for Aging Policy from 21 85 percent of your Social Security to beenough to earn above the earningsyears ago. I refer to page 3 of the re- taxed a second time. It was taxed whenlimit. He and Nancy were frustrated.port summary: you earned it in your working years;He could not justify losing his Social At the base of such a service approach then consider that you pay income tax;Securitybenefits byhiscontinuedmust lie an economic strategy. We have sketched such an economic base in Appendix then, last, you pay the same payrollwork. 5. It is designed to coalesce around work and tax everybody else pays. You can get Ron Ballinger. a third person I haveincome. Tomorrow's seniors will want to such high marginal tax rates that it isheard from. works for a financial proc-work (trends toward early retirement are al- almost a laugh to call it taxation. Youessing company in Cedar Rapids, IA. Heready reversing according to a recent Lou should callit confiscation. Confisca-worked full time last year and was in-Harris poll), will be capable of working, and tion of resources in our system of gov-terestedin working part time thiswill need to work, ernment is not legitimate. It is a dis-year. However. he will have to offi- I remind you, this was 20 years ago incentive to productivity. cially retire in April because he willthat Congress said this. At a time in our Nation's historyhave earned up to the cap on earnings. Inflations effect on fixed incomes will see when we areexperiencing unprece- According to the Social Security Ad-to that. Public policy will have to create op- dented prosperity, we are also experi-ministration,almost 800,000 olderportunities to work, both by removing bar- encing a shortage of experienced labor.Americans nationwide have their bene-riers of age discrimination and by stimu- The national unemployment rate is 4.1fits cut because of the earnings limit.lating private sector employment of seniors. percent, the lowest level in 30 years. InMr. President, 800,000 people face theMoreover, income earned will have to be pre- my home State of Iowa,itis evensame issue as the three Iowans toserved for much longer than ever before, ne- lower. Iowa's unemployment rate is 2.2whom I have referred. Keep in mind,cessitating major reforms of America's pen- percent. The legislation we are debat-that statistic does not reveal anythingsion systems. ing would help alleviate some of theabout how many of our older citizens That is something I have referred to skilled labor shortage by removing ado not remain in or go back to thethat the Senator from Florida and I disincentive for older Americans to re-workforce at all because they cannothave been working on, as well. main in the workforce if they, of theirafford a cut in benefits. Social Security and Supplemental Secu- own free will, want to stay in the Ihave received letters and phonerity Income, because these are the backbone workforce. calls from all over Iowa and all overof our present economic strategy, will prob- The bill before us would eliminatethe country because in my position asably have to be restructured in the future. the cap on earnings for Social Securitychairman of the Senate Aging Com- I think we have known for a long beneficiaries between the ages of 65 andmittee, they write to me about theirtime that what we are finally about to 69.Under currentlaw,those bene-concerns even though I am not theirdo must be done. I am glad it is being ficiaries have their benefits cut by $1Senator. These letters and phone callsdone. The earnings test,enacted as for every $3 they earn over that $17,000.are from older people discouraged bypart of the original Social Security Act I have already referred to that, the earnings limit. passed in 1935. is outdated. This benefit cut applies, of course, Their hard-earned Social Security Sixty years ago, our country was in only to earned income. An individualbenefits are cut by $1 for every $3 theythe midst of a depression. One in five could stillhave savings, or incomeearn. They see it as a tax on their con-people eligibleto work was unem- from pensions, totaling any amounttinued productivity. I see it as unfairployed. The original law meant to dis- and continue to collect full Social Se-and, if I might say. even un-American.courage older Americans who were eli- curity benefits. The difference betweenThis very country of ours, particularlygible to collect benefits from taking earned and so-called unearned incomeat this time of low unemployment, andjobs younger people could fill. But that does not detract from the injustice ofparticularly when you consider thesituation has changed—as unjustified the current Social Security and taxglobalization of our economy. needsas it was at the time—so our public policy. That is why this law must beskilled labor. skilled workers, peoplepolicy today needs to be changed. repealed.It sends a wrong messagewho are skilled because of a lifetime of Because of my position as chairman that productivity among our older citi-work in a certain profession. of the Aging Committee. more acutely zens should be discouraged. What happens if we do not fill thatthan others, I recognize the changing I would like to give some examples ofskilled labor void? We lose produc-role of senior citizens in our society. people from whom I have heard in mytivity. Then we lose our global com-This generation of older Americans has own State who are hurt by this earn-petitive edge. Where can we look fordifferent responsibilities than past gen- ings limit. skilled labor? We have qualified peopleerations. We have seen a sharp rise in A person by the name of Delainewho want to work, our older citizens.the number of grandparents who are Jones is working in Glenwood. IA. HeWe cannot afford to lose their expertiseraising their grandchildren. Further- is 65 years old. He understands he mayand skills. more, it is far more common for people live for another couple of decades and A letterIreceived from the U.S.to live into their eighties and nineties. may not always be able to work. HeChamber of Commerce states: Some of these very old Americans de- would like to earn as much as he can American business is facing a severe work-pend on their children who are often in while he is able to, so he can finan-er shortage in many sectors and areas of thetheir sixties to help care for them and cially prepare for a high quality of lifecountry. Jobs are going unfilled, especiallypay for their at-home expenses. med- later in his life. those positions that require skilled workers.ical bills, groceries, and a host of other — SENATE S1503 March 21, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD workforce expenses. Eliminating theSocial Secu-Americansstayinthe thelonger. It should be their choice, not rity earnings limit will help raise deter- standard of living for these families. the Government's coercion, that While fixing this inequity in the re-mines whether they stay in thatwork- tirement system will give fair treat-force a longer period of time. ment to those ages 65 to 69who have They have spent a lifetime paying paid into the program duringtheirinto the Social Security trustfund. It working years, I do not stand hereandis simply not fair to deprivethem of address Socialtheir Social Security benefitssimply say that it is going to the Security's long-term demographicbecause they choose to stay in challenges. workforce longer or choose to begin When thebaby boom generationworking again after retirement. That comes on board, the revenueand ben-is common sense to me. and thatis efit structure will not be able to sus-why this bill has so much appeal. tain the obligations under currentlaw. Particularly at a time when the cost That is why I have worked withsix ofof living is increasing, it is important my Senatecolleagues—Senators JUDDto allow our seniors whochoose to GREGG BOB KERREY. JOHNBREAUX, work or those who are forced towork FRED THOMPSON, CRAIGTHOMAS. andbecause of rising prices to do so with- CHUCK Ross—to craft bipartisanSen-out being penalized. ate reform legislation. I will talk about a particularindi- Our bill, the Bipartisan SocialSecu-vidual in Kansas whom I had theprivi- rity Act, which happens to be5. 1383, islege of meeting a month ago. His name the only reform legislationwhich hasis Ron Frampton, from KingmanKS. been put forth in the SenatewhichHe has farmed with his family mostof would make the Social Security trusthis life. I met him when I wastouring fund permanently solvent—meaning, asthe Mize Manufacturing Company a you have to look out 75 years,undersmall manufacturer in Kingman.KS. existing law, to project its solvency,Mr. Frampton came up to me asI was our legislation has beendeclared to ac-walking through the productionline complish that by the General Account-and asked me if we were going toelimi- ing Office. In fact, it is theonly one be-nate the Social Securityearnings test. fore the Congress that does that. I said I thought we were going toget I will continue to pressahead andthe bill through. He said: Good;I need work to build a consensus among ourit.. colleagues to save Social Securityand Then he related to me his situation. achieve long-term solvency for genera-He had worked on a familyfarm, was tions to come. born on the farm and worked thereall We, as a Congress must recognizehis life. Then in the 1980s, when wehad that even in this era ofsurpluses—a hard financial downturnfor agri- meaning budget surpluses—there areculture, he got caught in thatdown- serious long-term financialproblemsturn. His savings for hisentire family facing Social Security. Theseproblemswere wrapped up in thisfarm. That is do not go away because wehave a sur-where he plowed all of his income,all plus and a good economy. Thelongerof his savings, back into thefarm. we wait to addressreform of Social Se-When the economy moved againsthim curity, the more difficult theproblemsin the 1980s. he lost the farmand,thus, will be to address, and the less timethea big part of his life, abig part of his baby boom generation willhave to pre-family, a big part of his senseof being. pare. He also lost his retirementsecurity As a nation, we have an evolvingdef-that he had outside of SocialSecurity. inition of what it means to beold.His retirement savings were thatfarm. Americans are living longer and inbet- Now he has to work. He doesn'thave ter health. The traditionalretirementthe savings on which he hadcounted. age comes too soonfor older peopleHe has to be able to work, and heneeds who want to or need to work pastagethe Social Security income aswell. 65. Some people want to retire; someThis bill helps Ron Framptonand his people want to leave the workforce.Ob-family in Kingman KS. Itaddresses viously, this legislation does notaffectthat need. It says if heneeds to work. that decision of theirs. They canstillhe wants to work, let himwork, and do it. But if you want to contribute,ifdon't penalize him for doing it. you want to remainproductive if you This bill allows people olderthan 65 want to be in the workforce,by golly,and younger than 70 to earnincome through this legislation. we say wewithout losing their SocialSecurity would love to have you do that. We re- It is yourbenefits. That is as it should be. move economic disincentives to an important bipartisanmeasure that doing that that are presently inthepassed overwhelmingly in theHouse law. and. I expect. will passoverwhelmingly I yield the floor. President, Iin the Senate. It sends animportant Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. and positive signal to America'sretired rise to address the body on theSocialworkers who have spent theirlives Security Earnings Test Eliminationworking to make this country better. Act. seniors. This is a good time. We arefinallyWe need this for America's Amer- I am delighted we are going to pass going to do something good for this bill for all the seniors in the coun- ica's senior citizens. Americansshould Mr. Frampton be free to work if they choose.Withtry but particularly for passage of this bill, we willhelp elderlyand for his family. ;1526 CONGRESSIONALRECORD—SENATE March 21, 2000

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

SENIOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 1999

KERREY AMENDMENT NO. 2885 Mr. KERREY proposed an amendment to the bill (H.R. 5) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the earnings test for individuals who have attained retirement age; as follows: S1527 March 21, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE is At the endadd the following: the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) amended— SEC. .REDESIGNATIONOF TERM FOR AGE AT WHICH A UDIV1DUI.L IS EUGIBLE (1)in subsection(c),in thelastsentence, FOR FULL, UNBEDUCED OLD-AGEbystrikingnorshall any deduction' and BENEFITS. allthatfollowsand inserting 'nor shallany (a) IN GENERAL—Title II of the Social Se-deductionbe made under this subsection curityAct (42 U.S.C. 401 etseq.)isfromany widow's or widower's insurance amended— benefit ifthewidow,surviving divorcedwife, (1) by strikingretirementage' each placewidower, or surviving divorcedhusband in- itappearsandinsertingthe ageof eligi-volved became entitled to such benefit prior bility for fuil,unreducedold-age benefits'; toattaining age60."; and (2) by strikingearly retirement age' each (2)insubsection (f)(l),by striking clause place it appears and insertingthe age of(D) and insertingthefollowing: (D)for earliest eligibility for old-age benefits': andwhichsuchindividualisentitledtowidows (3) by strikingdelayed retirement' eachor widower's insurance benefitsifsuch indi- place it appears and insertingdelayed enti-vidual becameso entitledpriorto attaining tlement for old-age benefits'. age 60,". (b) CONFORIING AiENDMENT.—Section (b) CONFORMINGAMENDMENT TO PRovisIoNs 202(q)(9) oftheSocial Security Act(42 U.S.C.FOR DETERMINING AMOUt'fl OF INCREASE ON early re- 402(q)(9))is amended by striking ACCOUNT OF DELAYED njir'r.—Section tirement' and inserting 'early entitlement202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 for old-age benefits". U.S.C. 402(w)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended by strik- (c) EFFECTIVEDATE—Theamendments 'or suffered deductions under section made by this section shall take effect on theing 203(b)or 203(c)in amounts equal to the date ofenactmentof this Act. amount of such benefit" and inserting 'or,if so entitled, did not receive benefits pursuant ROTh(AND MOYNIHAN) to a request by such individual thatbenefits AMENDMENT NO. 2886 not bepaid". Mr. ROTh (for himself andMr.Moy- SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.' NIHAN) proposed an amendment to the Theamendmentsmade bythis Actshall bill, HR. 5, supra; as follows: apply with respect to taxable years ending Strike all after the first word and insertafter December 31, 1999. the following: SEC.1.SHORT TITLE. This Act maybecited as the'SeniorCiti- zens Freedom toWork Act of 2000'. SEC.2,ELIMINATION OF £ABNGS TEST FOR D- DIVmUALS WHO RAVEATThINED RI1REMENT AGE. Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) is amended— (1) insubsection (c)(1) bystrikingtheage of seventy'and insertingretirement age (as defined insection216(1))'; (2)in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)of subsection (d), by strikingtheage of seventy" each place itappearsand insertingretirement age (as defined in section 216(1))"; (3)insubsection (f)(1)(B),by striking 'was age seventyorover" and inserting'wasat or above retirement age(asdefined in section 216(1))"; (4)insubsection (f)(3) by striking 'age 70" andinserting 'retirement age (as defined in section216(1))"; (5) in subsection (h) (1)(A). bystrikingage 70" each place itappearsand insertingretirement age (as defined in section216(1))": and (6)in subsection (j)— (A)in the heading, by striking'AgeSev- enty" and inserting Retirement Ag&'and (B)by strikingseventy years of age" and insertinghaving attained retirement age (asdefined insection216(l)). SEC. 3.NONAPPLICATION OF RULES FOR COM- PUTATION OF EXEMPT AMOUNT FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE A1A1NED RETIBEMENT AGE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 203(f)(8) of the SocialSecurity Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8))is amendedby adding at the end the following new subparagraph: (E)Notwithstanding subparagraph(D), no deductions in benefits shallbemade under subsection (b)with respecttothe earnings of anyindividual in any month beginning with themonth inwhichtheindividualattains retirement age (as definedinsection 216(1)).". (b) CONFORNG AMENDMENT—Section 203(f)(9)oftheSocialSecurity Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f) (9)) isamended by striking"and (8)(D).' and inserting(8)(D). and (8)(E),". SEC.4.AI)DrrIONALMF CONFORMING AMEND- (a) ELIMINATION OF REDUNDANTREF- ERENCESTO RETIREMENT AGE—Section203of I zonguzzionaliRcord United States CONGRESS,SECOND SESSION of America PROCEEDINGSAND DEBATES OF THE106

22, 2000 No. 33 Vol. 146 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH Senate ceed to a vote on final passageof theresume consideration of H.R.5, which bill at approximately 10 a.m. Followingthe clerk will report by title. the vote, the Senate will begin aperiod The legislative clerk read as follows: of morning business of 2 hours with the A bill (H.R. 5) to amend title II of the So- cial Security Act to eliminate the earnings timecontrolled bySenators BYRD MURKOWSKI, and DURBIN. For the re-test on individuals who have attained retirement age. mainder of the time, the Senate is ex- The PRESIDING OFFICER.Under pected to begin debate on the crop in-the previous order, there will nowbe 15 surance legislation. However,negotia- for tions regarding amendmentsand de-minutes of debate equally divided bate time are ongoing. and if no agree-closing remarks. ment can be made, the Senate may The Senator from New York is recog- Executivenized. turn to any Legislative or Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President.it Calendar items available for action. has been agreed that I will beginthese I thank my colleagues for their at-brief remarks in order that ourchair- tention. man might conclude thedebate and proceed to the vote which I think has every prospect of beingprodigious in its majority. We have heard the compelling argu- ments to eliminate theso-called earnings penalty for persons 65 yearsand older. There is a short-term costthat is followed by a long-termpayback. if you like, such that in a20- to 30-year period the Social Security trust funds will not in any way be affected.The present practice is to decreasebenefits to persons who continueworking after theirtechnicalretirementageis reached, and then to compensate them after they reach age 70 or stop working. It is a complicatedcalculation. It is a cause of much distress, if youlike. within the Social Security Administra- tion—about $100 million a year just in sorting Out the claims. It is notunder- stood. There is the elemental factthat, although at 65 if you continue towork you know you will get back yourbenefits. that is in actuarial terms.For the cohort of several million persons,it will all be evened out. You may notbe. So why not get rid of this archaic com- plexity? It is a remnant of Depression legislation of the 1930s. SCHEDULE In that regard, however, we dohave Mr- ROTH. Mr. President, today the SENIOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO the question attending thelong-term Senate willimmediately begin the deficit of the Social Security system. final 15 minutes of debate on HR. 5, WORK ACT OF 2000 The PRESIDING OFFICER. UnderYesterday ourfriend from Arizona, the Social Security earnings bill. By SenatorMCCAIN, spokeeloquently previous consent, the Senate will pro-the previous order, the Senate will now of the Senate on the floor. • This "bullet" symbol identifies statements orinsertions which are not spoken by a Member S 1533

Printed on recycled paper. S1534 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE March 22, 2000 aboutthat matter, having raiseditrevered chairman, who is going to have These are senior citizens, not par- during his primary campaign on hisa historic triumph this morning. ticularly wealthy people. You can be a side of the aisle. Senator KERREY spoke The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-senior citizen and have, as an indi- with equal eloquence. Senator MCCAINator from Delaware. vidual, an earned income of $30,000. was kind enough to note legislation Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first let meYou are in the 28-percent tax bracket. that Senator KERREY and I have intro-thank and congratulate my distin-Because of the earnings penalty on So- duced in this matter. guished colleague, the senior Senatorcial Security, that is an additional 33- In very short order, I would simplyfrom New York,forhisleadershippercent tax bracket. Add those two to- like to recapitulate the four simplethroughout the years on this most im-gether and you are at 61 percent. You steps which put Social Security on anportant domestic program, Social Se-have to pay Social Security tax. If you actuarially sound basis for the next 75curity. There is no program of greaterare self-employed, you add 15 percent years. They are: importance and interest to the Amer-to that. That is 76 percent, and you No. 1, provide for an accurate cost-of-ican people than Social Security. Thehave not even paid taxes to the State. living adjustment. In 1996, the Boskindistinguished Senator, Mr. MOYNIHAN,For most States, that is 6 or 7 percent. Commission originally estimated thatasIsaid, throughout his career has You can have a marginal tax rate of the CPI overstates changes in the cost-played a critical role in the develop-80 percent; you work four times more of-living by 1.1 percentage points; nowment, the preserving, and the strength-for the Government than you do for they say it is 0.8 of a percentage point.ening of this important program.Iyourself. That is way too high. This 33- No. 2, normal taxation of benefits. thank him and congratulate him. percent penalty for seniors between the No. 3, extend coverage to all newly As Senator MOYNIHAN pointed Out.ages of 65 and 70 who want to have hired State and local workers. the Senate is now turning to the voteearned income—maybe need to have I might interject, if ever there was ato repeal the Social Security earningsearned income—is long past overdue holdover from the 1930s, it was this. Itlimit, an important step in preparingfor repeal. was not clear at that time whether theSocial Security for the 21st century. I am delighted that today we are Federal Government could tax a StateThis repeal is good for seniors, it isgoing to fulfill what the House has entity, so they were left untaxed. Agood for America, and it is good gov-done. I compliment Chairman ARCHER great many workers in civil service po-ernment. As we have heard, the Socialin the House. I compliment Chairman sitions pay no taxes on their principalSecurity earnings limit was enacted 65ROTH and Senator MOYNIHAN. I remem- jobs,but qualifyforbenefits fromyears ago to encourage older persons tober Senator MCCAIN speaking on this 'side" jobs, and it is just not fair. Weretire during the Great Depression. Butissue for years.I remember Senator are not taking away anything, but justtoday, with Americans living longer,ASHCROFT making tirelessspeeches. covering newly hired workers like ev-and the tightest labor market in 30saying we need to repeal the earnings eryone else. years, this rule is not only outdated,penalty. No. 4, increase the length of the com-but it harms both our senior citizens Over the years, we have raised the putation period from 35 to 38 years. and the economy. amount people can save before the pen- We now have a 75-year. long-term ac- Repealing theearningslimit willalty takes effect, but the penalty still tuarial deficit of 2.07percent. Thishelp improve the retirement securitytakeseffectfor any income above would bring that down by 2.05 percent,of seniors by giving them the choice to$17,000. The real solution is to repeal it. leaving an inconsequential .02 percent That is what we are going to do today. over the 75-year period. work longer and to save more. Abol- These are data based on actuarialishing the earnings limit will allow usWe are going to open up economic op- calculations and they are clearly with-to protect the Nation's economic gainsportunity for millions of Americans in our capacity. Let us hope one day weof the past 17 years by encouraging ourwho are at age 65 and maybe do not do it before it becomes too late. ThatNation's most experienced workers towant to retire. They might be a STROM time will come sooner than you maycontinue working, not only for todayTHURMOND; they who may have another think. but into the future. 50 years of very energetic hard work Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- Finally, repealing the earnings limitahead of them and they don't want to sent the table be printed in the RECORDis just plain good government. It willsay they want to retire. We should not at the conclusion of my remarks. save the Social Security Administra-force them to retire. There being no objection, the mate-tion money and reduce very common, The earnings penalty forces many of rial was ordered to be printed in thefrustratingmistakesincalculatingthese people to retire—some of our RECORD, as follows: benefits. So let me say, I urge eachmost productive citizens in America. I ELIMINATING SOCIAL SECURITY'S LONG-Senator to support this bill. think it is wrong. This tax penalty is TERMDEFICIT I am happy to yield the remainingwrong. We are going to repeal it today. INumbersexpressed as a pcrcent of payroll] time to thedistinguishedassistantWe are repealingit with bipartisan Long-term(75 year) actuarial deficit 2.07 leader of the majority. support. It is going to become the law The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-of the land. Reduction in deficit due to: ator from Oklahoma. Again, I compliment our leader for 0.8 percentage point cost of living Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, howproving we can get some good things correction —1.16 much time remains on our side? done that will have a positive impact Normal taxation of benefits 2_0.43 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- Extendcoverage to all newly hired on millions—frankly, on all of us, be- State arid local workers —0.2Iator has 4½ minutes. cause a lot of us want to work beyond Increase length of computation pe- Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I com-the age of 65. Now we are telling sen- riod from 35 to 38 years —0.25 pliment my colleagues, Senator ROTHiors they can do so. and Senator MOYNIHAN because they Again, my congratulations to the Total reduction in deficit —2.05 work so well together. leaders for making this happen. I think Estimates arebased on the intermcdiate assumptions of the 1999 Trustees Report and ignore inter- To4ay, we are going to pass some-this will make Social Security policy actions among theprovisions. thing that will have a positive impactbetter and, frankly, it will make eco- 2Social Sccurity bencfits would bc trcatcd likc in-on millions of Americans. I say mil-nomic policy better for all Americans. come from a private pension so that bcnefits thatlions—some people say there are only Mr. President, I yield the floor and areattributedto employercontributionsand intcr- est earnings would be subjcct taxed, while bcncflts800,000 people who are currently payingurge my colleagues to vote yes on this attributcd to employee contributions would not bethe Social Security earnings penalty.bill. taxcd. Currently, benefitsaretaxcdonlyif incomcThere are millions of people who want Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President,Irise exceeds ccrtain thresholds and, depending on some today in support of HR. 5, the Senior complex formula, only up to 50 or upto85 pcrcentto work, maybe have to work, but basi- of the bcncfit is subject to taxation. cally their taxes are so punitive thatCitizens' Freedom to Work Act. The This is the rule that applied to newly hircd Fcd-they cannot work; it does not makepassage of this legislation is long over- eral workers in 1984andthercafter. sense to work. Their taxes are so highdue. The Social Security earnings test Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr.President,Ithey have to work more for govern-is bad for our economy and bad for in- look forward to the statement of ourment than they work for themselves. dividual senior Americans who wish to March 22, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S1535 continue in the workiorce.I am ex-specific tax and benefit changes that In South Dakota this year, 2000 peo- tremely pleased that the Senateiswould reward seniors who choose tople have seen their Social Security moving to eliminate the earnings test.work. benefits reduced because they chose to I am hopeful, however, that passage Among other provisions, both billscontinue working when they reached of this bill will not mark the end ofwould phase in a formula allowing in-the age of 65. All told, Social Security thoughtful policy regarding the role ofcome earned after the retirement agewithheld about $8 million in Social Se- seniorsin the American workiorce.to be counted in the calculation of ancurity payments last year from those Senior workers are an invaluable re-individual's Social Security benefits.South Dakotans. That works Out to a source for our nation. As the number ofCurrently, Social Security benefits forloss of about $4000 in Social Security Americans of retirement age increases,most people are based on the average ofbenefits for each of those 2000 South the economy's need for senior workersthe top 35 earning years prior to age 62.Dakotans. That is not right. Let's not will inevitably increase as well. WeAllowing income earned after age 62 topenalize them for staying in the work should encourage those seniors whobeincludedinbenefitcalculationsforce to achieve a better standard of wish to continue working by makingwould increase the benefits of thoseliving. I know many Americans over 65 certain that they are treated fairly byseniors who choose to continue work-in my state who could use that money tax and retirement laws. ing. to pay for health insurance, prescrip- Too often, government policy toward The two bills offer alternative meth-tion drugs, and electric bills. retirees has assumed that all seniorsods to reduce the taxes of working sen- H.R. 5 will not only help these 2000 have the same needs, goals, and de-iors. RARE I would cut the FICA tax ofworkers who are not receiving their sires. Mr. President, each individual isseniors by 10 percent when they reachSocial Security benefits, but also en- different. Many seniors look forward tofull retirement age. As a result, retir-courage those who want to work, but aleisurelyretirementthatallowsees would see their FICA tax reducedare not doing so now because they fear them to pursue activities for whichfrom 7.65 percent of their paycheck tothe earnings limit would consume most they did not have time when they were6.885 percent. Because taxes are leviedor all of their earned benefits. As baby working. American seniors have earnedon the first dollar of wages earned thisboomers begin to retire, it is especially this option, and trends over the lasttax reduction would benefit all incomeimportant that these older Americans several decades that demonstrate thelevels of retirees, including those whowho want to work be encouraged to do average senior is enjoying a healthierchoose to work part-time. so. Our nation is celebrating record low RARE II would provide individualsunemployment. Let us seize this oppor- and more prosperous retirement are ex-who have reached the full retirement tremely encouraging. tunity to recognize the skills, knowl- But other senior Americans wish toage with a tax credit equal to 10 per-edge, and experience that people over delay retirement for as long as pos-cent of the lesser of the amount of in-65 have to offer. I am pleased that Con- sible. Many seniors who have commu-come tax owed or the earned income ofgress is on the verge of removing the nicated with me about this subjectthe individual. This provision would ef-earnings limit to encourage citizens in simply enjoy the stimulation that afectively reward older Americans whomy state and across the country to continue to earn and to pay taxes aftercontinue making an important con- workplace provides on a daily basis.reaching retirement age. Others are not ready to leave busi- Mr. President, in closing, I want totribution to the American economy. nesses or farms that they have spentreiterate my strong support for the un- Mr. President, I urge my colleagues their entire lives building. Still others to build on the momentum created by derlying bill being discussed today. Thethis bipartisan bill to work toward So- wish to continue to contribute to theeliminationof theSocialSecurity income of their familieschildren, orearnings test would be a huge step to-cial Security reform. We can pass legis- grandchildren. Regardless of their rea-ward ending the disincentives for sen-lation this year that will extend the sons for wanting to stay in the work-iors to work if they choose. But I hopesolvency of Social Security for 50 years place. no senior should find that gov-this is only a first step in adjustingby using the interest savings earned by ernment policy is a disincentive or bar-policy governing seniors in the work-paying down the debt. We should take rier to work. place. Other changes contained in thethat simple step this year on a bipar- In addition to ensuring basic fairnessRARE bills, which I have described, astisan basis, just as we are passing this to individuals, providing further incen-well as the repeal of the Clinton Ad-bill today. tives to senior workers makes goodministration's 1993 tax on Social Secu- Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to sense for our economy. Seniors whority benefits, would reaffirm the im-strongly support HR 5, the Senior Citi- stay in the workforce continue to payportance of seniors in our society. Thezens' Freedom to Work Act. This very taxes on their earnings and continue tohealth of our economy and even our na-important legislation would help mil- provide much-needed experience to thetional strength will increasingly de-lions of American seniors who choose American economy. As our economypend on retaining the services of pro-to, or must work after retirement. grows and the baby-boom generationductive seniors. We should begin con- Under current law, the Social Secu- approaches retirement age, we may ex-structing these policies now. rity benefits of those seniors ages 5 perience more frequent labor short- Thank you, Mr. President. though 69 who continue to work will be ages. Ultimately. a declining number Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, thereduced by $1 for each $3 of earnings of qualified workers could be detri-time is right to repeal the Social Secu-over $17,000. In other words, they will mental to the economy. Adding incen-rity earnings test. I ask my colleaguesbe taxed at 33.3 percent of their earn- tives that reward older Americans forto join with me today in support of theings above the threshold. staying in the workiorce could help al-passage of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' However, the onerous tax burden on leviatesuchshortageswhilecon-Freedom to Work Act of 1999. our seniors does not stop there. These tinuing to improve our economy and We all know that reaching retire-seniors are also subject to a 15.3 per- standard of living. ment age does not necessarily mean acent payroll tax, and a 15 percent in- Last month, with the support of Sen-person is ready to retire. It is goodcome tax. Combined with the earnings ators BREAUX and GREGG. I introducednews that Americans are now livingtest, these seniors are paying taxes of two pieces of legislation that would en-longer and healthier lives, and I believeover 60 percent on their earnings from courage American seniors to stay inthat the Social Security system shouldworking.If their earnings bump up the workiorce. These bills, entitled thenot penalize those who want to worktheir income,theirSocial Security Retired Americans Right of Employ-longer. I understand that many olderbenefits are then taxed. The tax bite ment Acts (RARE I and RARE II), areworkers choose to remain in the work-could take 68 to 91 percent of their ad- based on the premise that many sen-force because they need additional in-ditional earnings. iors want to work and their labor is in-come or have no desire to stop work- Mr. President,thisisabsurd. We valuable to our economy and society.ing. I fully support this choice, and Imust correct this unfair tax burden on Both bills would repeal the earningsbelieve that no one should face finan-our seniors. test, as we are seeking to do today. Butcial penalties for that personal deci- When Social Security was set up 65 they would go further by implementingsion. years ago during the Great Depression. S1536 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —SENATE March 22, 2000 jobswere scarce, workers were youngertributing to the system throughoutgovernment to provide information on and many could not find work to sup-their working years before retiring.the financial status of the program. port their families. One of the mten-These are benefits they should not beThis amendment is along the same line tions of the Social Security programlosing just because they are trying toof my legislation. 5.1104, the Social was to encourage older workers to re-survive by supplementing their SocialSecurity Information Act. Reliable in- tire,so that younger workers couldSecurity income. Reducing Social Se-formation on Social Security is crucial find a job. curity benefits upon additional earn-to enable Americans to better under- Today. our situation is dramaticallyin;s is just double taxation. stand the value of their Social Security different. The economic and demo- As health care and other costs con-investment and to help them determine graphic conditions in the U.S. are nottinue to grow. the incomes of more andexactly how much they should supple- what they were when Social Securitymore senior citizens are falling alongment their expected Social Security was established. Our strong economywith their standard of living. Thisbenefits with other savings in order to earnings test hurts seniors who choose.have a certain level of retirement secu- has created a tight labor market. After rity. filling over 20 million new jobs duringor must work after retirement to main- Mr. President. let me close by saying this economic expansion. we still havetain their standard of living or to payit is critical that we repeal the earn- a jobshortage.particularlyskilledfof costly health insurance premiums, medical care, prescriptions and manyings test penalty. We owe our seniors workers. It is projected that this short- nothing less than to remove this sense- age will continue for the next 5 to 10other expenses which increase in re-less provision and give them the oppor- years. tirement years. Thisisparticularlytunity to sustain and hopefully im- Lower birth rates and a longer lifetrue for seniors with lower-incomesprove their standard of living by allow- expectancy mean that the number andwho must work and depend on theiring them to work without additional relative size of the older population isearned income for survival. tax penalties. It is equally important growing rapidly. The number of Ameri- Mr. President. we cannot let thisthat. by continuing to pay into the So- cans over age 65 has grown from 8 per-practice continue. cial Security system our seniors will cent in 1950 to 14 percent in 1990 and is Eliminating the earnings test on So-actually give us more time to reform projected to reach 22 percent in 2030. cial Security benefits would reverse this trend, and help responsible seniorit—which ultimately benefits every- This demographic change has trig- one. gered a serious Social Security crisis.citizens. The federal government has Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President.I am In 1940 there were 100 workers to sup-entered into a sacred covenant with the American people to provide retire-pleased the Senate is taking action on port 1 retiree. Today that ratio has the H.R. 5, the Senior Citizen's Free- dropped to 3 workers supporting 1re-ment benefits once contribution com-dom to Work Act of 2000. This legisla- tiree. In less than 20 years. that ratiomitments are made. It is the govern-tion eliminates the earnings test for will decrease to 2 to 1. As a result, wement's contractual duty to honor thatSocial Security recipients between the have a $20 trillion unfunded Social Se-commitment. The government cannotfull retirement age (currently 65) and curity liability. and should not take money from sen-age 69. The measure will be retroactive The earnings test penalty has wors-iors that is rightfully theirs. to January 1. 2000. ened this situation. It discourages sen- Mr. President I'd like to briefly dis- I have long supported changing the iors from working, even though theircuss the health of our Social SecuritySocial Security earnings test, which skills are much needed in the laborsystem. Social Security benefits willthe amount of income recipients may market. If allowed to work withoutexceed payroll taxes by 2014 or soon. earn before their benefits are reduced. penalty. they will continue to pay pay- President Clinton claims he is savingUnder current law, recipients aged 65 roll taxes into the Social Security sys-Social Security by using the interestthrough 69 can earn up to $17,000 per tem which will help us work towardsavings that will result from payingyear without penalty. But beyond that. solvency of the system. down the government debt held by thebenefits are reduced by $1 for each $3 of Another important reason we mustpublic. However, his proposal does notearnings.Thisyear.approximately get rid of the earnings test is that So-push back the date that Social Secu-800,000 seniors will lose benefits. Re- cial Security is a very poor investmentrity will run a deficit by a single year,pealing the earnings test will allow for Americans. Americans pay a sig-and the transfer from the general fundolder Americans who have skills and nificantamountofpayrolltaxesto Social Security does not cover aexpertisetocontinue workingand through their working life but face lowfraction of the shortfall. making a contribution to society and and declining returns from Social Se- Mr. President. without reform, theto our economy. curity. and some receive less in bene-unfunded liability of Social Security I am concerned about the Social Se- fits than they have paid in payrollwill crowd out all of our discretionarycurity earnings test and realize the dif- taxes. Their Social Security benefitsspending. It will create financial hard-ficulties that many older Americans cannot even begin to meet their pre-re-ship for millions of baby boomers andexperience because of it. For many sen- tirement standard of living. Many sen-impose a heavy burden on future gen-iors, working beyond the age of 65 is iors have no choice but to continue toerations. We must address this vitallynecessary just to make ends meet. work—and others want to work for theimportant issue as quickly as we can. Changing the earnings limit will allow joy of it. I believe the best way to fix Socialthem to earn extra income without los- Over the past 15 years. goods pur-Security is to move it from the currenting hard-earned Social Security bene- chased mainly by seniors increased 6pay-as-you-go system to a fully fundedfits. They have spent a lifetime work- percentage points more than goods pur-one, and the immediate step we shoulding for these benefits and they should chased by the general public. Theirtake is to lock in every penny of theget them, whether they choose to con- medical costs skyrocketed 156 percent.Social Security surplus safe from gov-tinue to work or not. As inflation on medical and pharma-rnment spending and put it toward I have supported past legislation to ceutical goods continues to rise, olderAmericans'retirement. My lockboxraise the earnings test limit. Today. I Americans' hard-earned Social Secu-would sequester spendingifre-esti-fully support this legislation to elimi- rity benefits are worth less and less.mates result in spending any of our So-nate the earnings test for all individ- Their purchasing power will continuecial Security surplus. uals who have reached full retirement to diminish. In addition, we need to tell Ameri-age. I believe the earnings test on Socialcans the whole truth about Social Se- This bill is especially important to Security benefits is wrong and unfaircurity since payroll taxes are the larg-North Dakota because we have one of because Social Security benefits areest tax that many families will everthe highest rates of seniors receiving earned benefits for many senior citi-pay. accounting for up to one-eighth ofSocial Security benefits. zens.The SocialSecuritybenefitsthe total lifetime income they will I am also pleased because this bill is which working seniors are losing duemake. fiscally responsible. In the long term, to the earnings test penalty are bene- That's why I also support the Greggit will not have any financial impact fits they have rightfully earned by con-amendment which would require theon our Social Security trust fund. March 22, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —SENATE S1537 I urge my colleagues to join me in Today marks a strong vote for olderzens Freedom to Work Act is a sensible supporting this important piece of leg-Americans. Seniors are one of our na-measure. It will correct an injustice in islation. tions most valuable resources and weour Social Security program, infuse Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, todayshould honor and respect them by pro-our tight labor market with experi- isa particularly important day forviding the means necessary to liveenced workers, and most importantly. American seniors. With a unanimouslong, fulfilling lives without worryinghelp hundreds of thousands of seniors vote, the Senate passed H.R. 5. the Sen-about whether or not they can afford tobecome more financially secure. ior Citizens' Freedom To Work Actpay their rent, heating bill, and other Currently,retirees drawing Social which will abolish a Depression-era So-necessities. As we move forward withSecurity benefits are subject to an cial Security restriction that lowersthe 106th Congress, I look forward toearnings test. This means that for sen- benefits paid to seniors ages 65 to 69working with my fellow colleagues toiors ages 65 to 69, benefits are deferred who earn more than a specified amountimplement further programs andaby $1 for every $3 that their earnings each year.Earlierthis month thestrong legislative agenda whichexceed $17,000. In my state, nearly 2.500 House passed H.R. 5 by a vote of 422 tostrengthens crucial programs such asseniors are hurt by the Social Security 0. As a proud cosponsor of the SenateSocial Security and Medicare. and es-earnings test. According to the Social version of this bill,I am elated thattablishes prescription drug coverage.Security Administration, the average Congress moved swiftly to pass thisnursing home reforms. new efforts onamount of benefits lost per recipient in long overdue legislation. long-term care. tools to fight crimes1995 was $3,596. My state benefits from Presently, the Social Security earn-against seniors. new plans to secure re-the contributions of these employees. ings test reduces benefits $1 for everytirements and protect pensions. andsubstantively and economically; yet $3 over earnings of $17,000 for retireesother initiatives that meet the needs ofthese individuals are being penalized age 65 to 69. Due to the cap on earn-our growing population of seniors. for their efforts. ings, older Americans, many of whom Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for too It is now time for Congress to bring live on fixed, modest-incomes, are bur-many years I have worked in support ofthe Social Security program into a new dened with a 33.3 percent tax on theirrepealing the unfair Annual Earningsera. Retiring the earnings test, not our earned income. When this is combinedTest on Social Security. Incredibly,seniors, is a first step. with Federal. State, local and otherworking seniors currently forfeit one In 1935. when the Social Security pro- Social Security taxes, it amounts to andollar of Social Security benefits forgram wasestablished,theUnited atrocious 55—65 percent tax or evenevery $3 they earn over the earningsStates had a crowded labor field. The higher. Such a policy defies the prm-limit of $17,000. earnings test was designed to encour- cipals of self-reliance and personal re- If an American spends a lifetime pay-age seniors to leave the work force to sponsibility on which America wasing into the Social Security systemopen their jobs to younger people. But founded. Seniors who have substantialwith the guarantee that he or she willtoday the rationale for the test has outside income from investments haveget their money when he or she turnsfaded. It's about time we replaced this never had a similar tax penalty to pay.62 or 65 years old. no one should be ableantiquated provision. By eliminating the retirement earn-to take those benefits away simply be- Indeed, no one today would seriously ings test, older Americans can now de-cause the beneficiary wants to keepconsider structuring the program to cide whether and how much they wantworking. Why should the federal gov-discourage older workers. Our unem- to work without a reduction in theirernment be discouraging those seniorsployment rate is at an historic low. current Social Security benefits. who want to keep on working fromAnd our country is enjoying unprece- An estimated 800.000 Americans lostdoing so? As our country faces increas-dented economic prosperity.Seniors all or part of their Social Security ben-ing demands for labor. we can ill affordbring years of experience to the work efitsin1999 because they were em-to deprive ourselves of the skills andforce—knowledge and judgment that ployed and earned more than the limit.experience America's seniors have tocannot be obtained from a textbook, Even a part-time job can put someoneoffer. The federal governmentbut only from first-hand experience. over the earnings limit. According toshouldn't be in the position of discour-Employers today are seeking skilled. the U.S. Bureau of the Census, theaging anyone from working: seniorsdependable.andhonestemployees. elimination of the earnings test will af-should be allowed to make their ownMany older Americans would be willing fectapproximately1,153.000retireesdecisions. to fill this need if they were not faced and auxiliary retirees nationwide, in- Over the past few weeks, I have lis-with decreased Social Security bene- cluding 3.462 seniors throughout Southtened to and read the comments of nu-fits. The government should not tell Dakota. merous Washington state seniors whopeople whO want to work that they Ibelieve older Americans ages 65lose a portion of their hard-earned So-cannot. but this is exactly the message through 69 should be able to work andcial Security benefits simply becausethe earnings test sends to many sen- supplement their Social Security with-they do not wish to retire or stop work-iors. This message is discriminatory out a benefit reduction, just as othering. I have been listening to these sameand fundamentally wrong. beneficiaries can supplement withoutcomments for many years. and I can Moreover. at a time when we are ex- restriction, their Social Security withhonestly say that today it looks as ifperiencing such phenomenal economic pensions and unearned income. common sense will finally prevail andgrowth, many of our senior citizens are At a time when labor shortages looma solution will pass the House and thestruggling to pay for everyday needs. on the horizon and people are livingSenate. Importantly, President ClintonThis measure will help them. I have longer. we should encourage. not penal-recently changed his position on thisheard from hundreds of seniors from ize, older workers. issue and now says he will sign thisNorth Carolina who are struggling to Faced with serious health care ex-legislationtoabolishthe Earningspay their medical bills and daily living penses,escalatingprescription drugTest. costs. By now. they have been working prices, long term care needs, and other I will cast my vote for abolishing thisand paying Social Security taxes for expenses in caring for a spouse or otherunfair tax. Repeal of the Social Secu-decades. These same seniors are the family members, older Americans arerity Earnings Test is a victory for sen-ones who start to lose benefits because choosing to stay in the job marketiors and every generation of Ameri-they continue to work. simply because longer. By eliminating the earningscans. they earn a salary that the government test today we have just improved the Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President. I ambelieves is too high for them. personal and financial well-being ofproud to join my colleagues today—Re- It must be said that this legislation thousands of seniors throughout Southpublicans and Democrats alike—in vot-is a patch to one problem in the Social Dakota and our nation. ing to repeal the Social security earn-Security system that is currently rid- I am very pleased that Presidentings test. For 75 years now. Congressdled with holes. If Congress does not Clinton is supportive of the legislationhas kept a provision in the Social Se-start considering overall Social Secu- and has indicated that he will sign thecurity program that hurts our seniorsrity reform. we will eventually have a bill into law immediately. who continue to work. The Senior Citi-hole too big to fix. It is my hope that S1538 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE March 22, 2000 thecurrent momentum to fixsmalllongerlifeexpectanciesandbetter And seniors must usually make these holes in the system will lead to a larg-medical care, a 65-year-old today iswithdrawals in annual amounts large er dialogue on how to save the Socialhealthier than a 40-year-old was beforeenough to deplete the entire IRA by Security program. World War II. the time they reach age 85. But until then, the Senior Citizens This has the effect of forcing able Failure to follow these rules earns a Freedom to Work Act is a win-winworkers out of the work force. In 1948,whopping 50 percent penalty. measure. It lets seniors earn a higher 47percent of men over 65 worked. This withdrawalrequirementcan salary without retribution.It keepsToday, it's one-third of that with aboutonly be viewed as a punishment for skilled employees in the workplace. It16 percent continuing to work. those who plan and save forretire- helps maintain a strong economy. It And if they do work, they limit howment. Even worse, seniors who live helps our seniors to afford today's costmuch they work because of the earn-past 85 may find themselves short on of living. And finally its the rightings test. In fact, 65 percent of thosefunds because the Federal Government thing to do. $eniors that work, keep their totalforced them to spend their own sav- This bill has a lot of benefits, and itearnings under the earnings test limitings. That's not right, and it must be costs the government nothing. I lookn order to avoid the penalties. stopped. forward to its quick passage in the But if we repealed the earnings test, To remedy all of these gross disincen- we could unleash the economic powertives to seniors planning and saving for Senate and to the positive effects that their retirement, and staying active in it will have for our country. of our seniors. Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President. in my The National Bureau of Economicthe work force, I introduced the Senior State of Michigan. we currently haveResearch estimates that repealing theCitizens' Financial Freedom Act,S. earnings test on workers age 65 to 69 2180. less than a 3 percent rate of unemploy-would increase the annual number of This legislation would accomplish ment. three objectives: We used to think that just the peoplehours worked throughout the economy First, it would repeal the Social Se- entering and leaving the job market, asby 5.3 percent. That may not seem to be much, butcurity earnings test working penalty well as those switching jobs, wouldit actually represents 63 million moreon seniors, just as the legislation be- keep unemployment to a minimum of 5 fore us today would. percent. hours worked per year, or the equiva- lent of almost 31.500 jobs. Second, it would roll back the Clin- But our economy isexceptionally Because seniors would have moreton administration's 1993 tax increase strong, and the demand for labor is on Social Security benefits. through the roof. In fact, some compa-money to save, invest, and spend. it's Finally,it would increase the age nies in Michigan have threatened toestimated that overall gross domesticwhen minimum IRk distributions must leave the State because they can't findproduct would rise by $19.5 billion, in-begin, from 70½ to 85. enough people to work. creasing the projected growth in dis- passage of H.R. 5 is vitally important Yet throughout the United States, weposable personal income by more thanto the financial well being of our sen- encourage our seniors between the ages5 percent. iors who chose to remain in the work of 65 and 69 to not work because of the And this would ripple throughout theforce. earnings test on their Social Securityeconomy, adding $6.8billion to the And I hope we will continue to work benefits. stock of U.S. capital invested in newtoward truly protecting the financial At the very time that we need experi-jobs. well-being of America's seniors by also enced workers in the labor market, the Finally, the extra growth that wouldaddressing this year the other issues of government makes it uneconomical forbe brought about by this repeal wouldSocial Security benefits taxation and our most experienced workers to staygenerate enough new tax collections toforced IRA withdrawals. in the work force. totally offset the higher Social Secu- With these two important pieces of Under the current earnings test. So-rity benefit payments within 10 years.legislation, we can really strengthen cial Security beneficiaries under the That is why I was proud to join Sen-Social Security for our seniors in the age of 65 lose $1 of social Security bene-ator MCCAIN last year in cosponsoringmost important place possible—their fits for every $2 they earn over $10,0005. 279 to repeal this antiquated testwallets. per year. and allow our seniors to keep all of Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Sen- And those under 70 lose $1 for everytheirSocialSecurity benefits. Andate is going to take an important and $3 earned over $17,000 of annual income.that is why I will also support passagelong overdue step to stop penalizing Not until they reach 70 years of ageof H.R. 5. older workers in our Nation—elimi- are seniors free to work again on their But I think we need to look at thenating the Social Security earnings own terms. broader issues of retirement security.penalty. This is a change I have advo- Seniors are being penalized by doubleincluding the taxation of Social Secu-cated for many years. So I am very taxation—and in this case, simply forrity benefits, and the forced depletionspleased we are taking this important working. of individual retirement accounts. step. I find it incredible that we force our In 1993, the President forced through This legislation, H.R. 5. is an impor- seniors to forego over $3.9 billion aan increase on the amount of Socialtant step fora number of reasons. year in Social Security benefits simplySecurity benefits subject to taxationFirst, it is simply the right thing to do. because they make more than $10,800 iffrom 50 to 85 percent for those singlesThere should not be a penalty for they are under 65 and $17,000 if they aremaking more than $34,000 and thoseworking. between 65 and 69 years of age. couples making over $44,000. Second, we are now facing and will But what is not seen is the income When coupled with the earnings test,continue to face tight labor markets. foregone by those seniors for whom thethese benefits taxes can punish someIn my State of Iowa, this is an acute earnings test makes it uneconomical tocouples with a 103 percent marginal taxproblem in some areas. By eliminating work. rate. These couples actually lose moretheearningspenalty, experienced A recent study by the Institute forthan a dollar for making another dol-workers who were discouraged from Policy Innovation shows that your typ-lar. Not only is this grossly unfair, itscontinuing in or rejoining the work ical 67-year-old married senior, makingalso an even further disincentive forforce will have a new incentive to let'ssay the American averageofsavings and work. work. The emergence of the Internet $37,000, could have a marginal tax rate But the government's raid on senior'sand home computers offers tremendous of over 80 percent. retirements assets doesn't even stopopportunities for seniors to work at This is a huge disincentive to con-there. It also levies a 50 percent tax onhome. Marrying these new job opportu- tinue working, even though we needIRAsavingswhen seniors fail to with-nities with a repeal of the earnings these experienced seniors in our workdraw when Washington wants thempenalty will become even more impor- force, many of them want to work, andwithdrawn. tant as the Baby Boomers retire. they are able to do so. Current law requires seniors to start Third. a large number of older Ameri- In fact, a recent study by the Urbanwithdrawing their IRA savings begin-cans need the income. Over half of to- Instituteindicatedthat because ofning at age 70½. days workers have no pension plans March 22, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S1539 outside of Social Security. They arethese seniors and their employers willcurity.and providing an increase in befreeto developstable,life-longskilled workers during this tight labor going to need additional sources of in- market. come to maintain their standard of liv-working relationships. Removing the earnings limit will ing. The Congressional Budget Office has Some critics have expressed concernestimated that thislegislationwillprovide seniors with greater independ- that this change would have a negativecost $22.7 billion over the next 10 years.ence and financial security. Today, too budgetary impact. I believe that by at-I understand that actuaries from themanyAmericansstrugglethrough tracting more Americans back into theSocial Security Administration havetheir retirement years trying to make work force, either on a full-time orreported that this cost will be neg-ends meet. The steps we take today part-time basis, it will strengthen So-ligible over the long term. I mentionwill allow seniors to work longer, and cial Security and the federal budget.this solely in the context that as wedepend on their savings less, giving pass this legislation we recognize thatthem more security into their later And I believe they will add to the pro- it ductivity of our nation. this measure is associated with a cost.years.In our modem workplace I am pleased that the Senate hasCongress must budget appropriately inmakes no sense to penalize workers for been able to come together on a strongresponse to this cost. Repealing thestaying in the workforce longer. Con- bipartisan basis to pass this bill. Theearnings limit is an idea whose timegress works hard to encourage people President has indicated his support andhas come, whose time came years ago.to plan their retirement years thought.. so it should become the law of thelandPart of constructing good public policyfully, and removing the earnings limit in the next few weeks. That would be ais making hard choices. I hope that mywill give working families one more good step forward for our Nation. colleagues will recognize that if we aretool for planning their financial future. Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise tonot willing to assume the responsibil- This move is especially timely in our make a few comments on the Socialities of these costs in other areas of thetight labor market and booming econ- Security earnings test elimination bill.budget we run the risk of continued fis-omy. Removing the earnings limit will Today I join my Senate colleagues incal irresponsibility that threatens So-allow experienced workers to be able to supporting important legislation thatcial Security and a balanced Federalstay in the workforce.I have heard will benefit millions of American sen-budget. from several business owners in Wis- iors who want to remain working after Like many of my colleagues in theconsin who are desperate for skilled age 65 without facing a reduction inSenate today I had the good fortune toworkers in a number of industries. their Social Security benefits. work on a precursor to this legislationWhile the long term answer to thc In America today there are roughlywhen Iserved in the House of Rep-skilled worker shortage isincreased 800,000 Social Security recipients be-resentatives. During the 104th Congressworker training and education, encour- tween the ages of 65 and 70. Under cur-I voted in favor of H.R. 2491, the budgetaging older workers to remain in the rent law if you are one of those 800,000reconciliation bill that carried a num-workforce will certainly help meet the Americans and you earn more thanber of provisions outlined in the Con-current demand. Proven, experienced $17,000 this year you will begin to see atract with America. One of these provi-mature workers will help our economy reduction, $1 in loss for every $3 earnedsions was the gradual increase of themaintain its momentum. over $17,000 in Social Security benefits.Social Security earnings limit. In De- We should not feel too jubilant. how- I think itis important to recognizecember 1995, President Clinton vetoedever, about today's accomplishment. that those being penalized are thosethis legislation.I am thankful thatComprehensive Social Security Reform who have been paying into Social Sec.i-today the Senate will pass this legisla-is still necessary. Today's changes will rity their entire working lives. I havetion overwhelmingly, insuring reliefdo nothing to hold off the coming crisis long disapproved of this punitive sys-and increased economic freedom forthat will begin when we start drawing tem that places restrictions on a per-America's seniors. down the Social Security Trust fund in son's right to work, and an employer's Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, when the2014. Congress needs to deal with this ability to hire the right person for theSocialSecurity system wasestab-soon, otherwise we are shirking our job.ToooftenSocialSecurityislished, a retirement test, also referredduty to the American people. viewed as a handout, but for the vastto as an earnings test, was made part Mr. BURNS. Mr. President,Irise majorityof Americansthisisanof the criteria for determining an indi-today to urge all my colleagues to join earned benefit that should not be sub-vidual's benefits. This criterion was es-me in supporting the SeniorCitizens' tablished because Social Security bene-Freedom to Work Act. It is high time ject to Depression-era work restric- we eliminated this Depression-era pro- tions. fits are intended to replace, in part. The Members of this body are famil-earnings lost by an individual or fam-vision which penalizes motivated sen- iar with the numerous obstacles facingily because of retirement, disability orior citizens for working to augment employers, particularly small businessdeath. Therefore, benefits are withheldtheir Social Security income. from individuals who show by their As the law currently stands, if a per- owners, in these times of near full em- son between the ages of 65 and69 earns ployment. In my home State of Colo-substantial earnings from work that Social rado, our small businesses, hospitalitythey are not in fact 'retired". more than $17,000 per year, their and tourism employers are struggling What this means today is that recipi-Security benefits are reduced by $1 for to find experienced, qualified individ-ents aged 62—65 could earn up to $10,080every $3 they earn above $17,000. That uals even in these times of prosperity.annually without having their benefitsjust isn't right. Ours is a society which Here in the Senate we have looked ataffected, and those between 65-69 couldvalues hard work; only our Govern- increasing the number of guest workersearn up to $17,000 a year. For earningsment would devise a scheme to penal- above these limits, recipients aged 62—ize people for working. visas and streamlining the visa process Before too long, in 2025, Montana will in an effort to provide employers with65 lose $1 in benefits for each $2 of earn- employees.ings while those between 65 and 69 losehave the third largest proportion of an opportunity to reach seniorcitizensin the Nation. This While we will still consider these ef-$1 in benefits for each $3 in earnings. nationwide, however. forts, the passage of the Social Secu-The earnings test does not apply to re-growth rateis rity earnings test elimination bill willcipients age 70 and over, and the ex-Our country is aging and the programs empt limits increase each year at thewhich our parents relied on in their allow employers to tap an eager and golden years need to change if they are rich population of employees alreadysame rate as average wages in the face of oureconomy. Currently.itis estimatedto keep pace with the changing livinginevery community in American society. State.Importantlythislegislationthat there are approximately 600.000 re- Most of the senior citizens affected will put an end to a depressing practicecipients age 65-69 affected by the earn-by this unfair provision are those who that has forced working seniors toings limit test. can afford it the least. These arethe leave their jobs mid-year once their Today we are repealing the earnings ends earnings threshold has been reached.limit for people between the full retire-very people who struggle to make rnent age and age 69, giving them themeet every month. Many may facethe Not only will America's working sen- impossible decision of putting food on iors be spared unnecessary grief, butopportunity for increased financial se- S1540 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE March 22, 2000 theirtables or prescriptions in theirearnings test restrictions.It's lowerquestion is, Shall the bill pass? The drug cabinets. We expect retirees toand moderate income Seniors who needclerk will call the roll. augment their Social Security incomesome relief from their government to The assistant legislative clerk called with money from outside resources butsimply survive. In Florida, we are talk-the roll. then turn around and penalize them foring about grandparents who live on So- The result was announced—yeas 100, working. Isn't it about time to bringcial Security plus any outside worknays 0, as follows: consistencyinto SocialSecurity?they can get. And if you have grandma [Roilcall Vote No. 42 Leg.] Eliminating the Sociai Security earn-in the hospitai or a nursing home fight- YEAS—100 ings limit is one important step in re-ing Alzheimer's Disease, and grandpa Abraham Fengold Mack forming the laws which affect our sen-has go find some work to pay the bills, Akaka Fenstein Mccain ior citizens. Allard Ftzgcrald McConnell the Social Security Earnings Test is Ashcroft Frist Mkulsk I urge the Senate to follow the Housesimply another hurdle they have to Baucus Gorton Moynthan of Representatives by expediting pas-overcome. Bayh Graham Murkowski sageof thisimportant legislation. Several years ago, I was visiting a Bennett Gramm Murray Working seniors deserve no less. Bden Grams Nckles worksiteinSafety Harbor,Florida Bingarnan Grassley Reed Mr. President,I yield back the re-where I met with a group of working Bond Gregg Reid mainder of my time. Seniors. I asked them why they were Boxer Hagel Robb Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I riseworking past the traditional retire- Breaux Harkn Roberts today to express my support for H.R. 5, Brownback Hatch Rockefeller ment age. Some said they simply want- Bryan Helms Roth the Senior Citizens Freedom to Worked to have a reason to get Out of the Bunnng Hollings 5antorum Act. This bill will do away with the So-house and do something productive. Burns Hutchnson 5arbanes cial Security earnings test for those in- Byrd Hutchson 5chumer Others said they needed the additional campbell Inhofe 5essons dividuals between the ages of 65 to 69.income to take care of a loved one. chafee. L. lnouye shelby The earnings test has proved to be aStill others said they wanted to main- Cleland Jeffords 5mth (NH) disincentive for able and healthy seniortain a certain lifestyle without Federal Cochran Johnson 5mth (OR) citizens to be a productive part of the Collins Kennedy 5nowe interference. conrad Kerrey specter workforce. On March 1, the House of But I was most struck by one gen- Coverdell Kerry 5tevens Representatives approved H.R. 5 by atleman who said to me,'Senator, we craig Kohl Thomas vote of 422—0. Moreover, the adminis- crapo Kyl Thompson live in a throw away society. Don't let Daschlc Landreu Thurmond tration has expressed its support forthem throw us away.What this gen- DeWine Lautenberg Torrkelli the bill. While I believe the amendmenttleman was saying was that the mes- Dodd Leahy Vonovkh offered by Senator KERREY had merit.sage the Earnings Test sends is that so- Domenic Levn Warner attaching it to this bill would have de- Dorgan Lieberman Weflstone ciety no longer needs you. How can we, Durbin Ldncoln Wyden layed enactment of this important leg-as a society. say such a thing? Clearly, Edwards Lott islation. Therefore, it is my belief thatwe shouldn't. Enz Lugar we should pass this bill immediately Finally, consider this thought. Base- Thebill(H.R.5),as amended, was and send it to the President for his ap-ball fans might remember my grand-passed. proval. father, Connie Mack. who spent many Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want toyears in major league baseball. In 1929,reconsider the vote. express my strong support for repeal-hemanagedtheWorldChampion Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that ing the Social Security Earnings TestPhiladelphia Athletics. In 1929. he wasmotion on the table. for working seniors. Many of my col-66 years old. Suppose he had succumbed The motion to lay on the table was leagues and I have been working to-to the idea that, at that age, there wasagreed to. gether for the past 12 years to pass thisno purpose for pursuing ones ideas, Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President. I ask legislation. At long last, the Senate isone's dreams in life. Suppose he hadunanimous consent that the previous going to retiretheSocial Securitybeen told by our nation that he was noorder be postponed for 3 minutes. Earnings Test. longer of value to society. He might The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without The Social Security Earnings Test isnothave hadtheopportunitytoobjection, it is so ordered. a 70 year old dinosaur of a law whichproduce that great team. Fortunately, Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this was initiated to insure that Social Se-we didn't have a law which could haveis a moment of high achievement. Is curity benefits were granted specifi-forced him into retirement. there anybody about who can remem- cally to retired persons. Today, unfor- The Federal government is sending aber when a substantive piece of legisla- tunately, economic reality dictates themessage to working Seniors that theytion affecting millions of Americans need for many senior citizens to con- and dealing with the Social Security tinue working in order to achieve aare over the hill. The only thing that isAct would pass this Chamber 100-0? I over the hill is the Earnings Test. Wecan't in my 24 years. basic standard of living. The Social Se-need to retire the Earnings Test, not In my 24 years. I have not seen the curity Earnings Test stands as a road-our Seniors. like. block to independence for tens of thou- Mr. ROTH. Mr. President. I ask for I congratulate the chairman who had sands of seniors throughout the Unitedthe yeas and nays. the wisdom to bring up the matter. States. Furthermore, Americas seniors ThePRESIDINGOFFICER (Mr.hold it at the desk, and do it this way. represent a weaith of talent and skill.FRIST). Is there a sufficient second? When the President gets back. I am A national policy which discourages There appears to be a sufficient sec-sure the first thing he will do is sign it. them from working is simply counter-ond. or we can put it on a plane and send it productive. Who seeks time? to meet him halfway in Geneva. Clearly. few other states have been as Mr. ROTH. Mr. President. we yield But congratulations. impacted by the unfair Social Securityback any remaining time. Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I thank the Earnings Test as the people in my Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President. wedistinguished ranking member. Sen- home state of Florida. I've seen first-yield back any remaining time. ator MOYNIHAN, for his kind and gra- hand the impact upon Seniors of laws The PRESIDING OFFICER. All timecious but too generous remarks. I know which limit income. We have alreadyhaving been yielded back, under thewe were able to get this accomplished seen the impact caused by Presidentprevious order, the clerk will read thethrough his leadership. As I said ear- Clintons1993tax hike on Seniors,bill for the third time. lier. I do not only want to congratulate when he raised the Social Security ben- The amendment was ordered to behim for his role today, but for his con- efit tax from 50% up to 85%. When areengrossed and the bill to be read atinuing role in his many years of serv- we, as a nation, going to stop penal-third time. ice in the Senate. I thank him for his izing success? The bill was read a third time. leadership, for his contribution, and for Its not a group of greedy million- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The billhis steadiness on this most important aires who are being impacted by thehaving been read the third time, thematter. March 22, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S1541 Ialso say to my distinguished colleague that it is important we recognize the staff who worked so hard on this historic measure on the majority side. I thank Frank Polk, Alec Vachon of the majority staff; on the minority side, David Podoff and Jon Resnick. I also thank David Koitz of the Congres- sional Research Service, Ruth Ernst of the Senate Legislative Counsel, and Kathy Ruffing of the Congressional Budget Office. Franklyif it had not been for their hours of long staff work, this historic bill would not have been possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

In the Senate of theUnited States, March 22, 2000. Resolved, That the bill from theHouse of Representa- tives (H.R. 5) entitled "An Act toamend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the earningstest for individuals who have attained retirementage.", do pass with the following AMENDMENT:

after "SECTION" over 1 Page 2, line 1, strike out all 2 to and including line 3 on page7 and insert:

31. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the"Senior Citizens' Free- 5 dom to Work Act of 2000".

6 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EARNINGSTEST FOR INDIVIDUALS RETIREMENT AGE. 7 WHO HAVE ATTAINED

8 Section 203 of the Social SecurityAct (42 U.S.C. 403)

9is amended—

10 (1) in subsection (c)(1), bystriking "the age of

11 seventy" and inserting "retirement age(as defined in

12 section 216(1))"; 2

1 (2)in paragraphs (1) (A) and (2) of subsection

2 (d),by striking "the age of seventy" each place it ap-

3 pearsand inserting "retirement age (as defined in

4 section216(7,))";

5 ('3,) in subsection (1)(1)(B), by striking "was age

6 seventy or over" and inserting "was at or above re-

7 tirement age (as defined in section 216(l))";

8 (4)in subsection (f)(3),by striking "age 70" and

9 inserting"retirementage(asdefinedinsection

10 216(7))";

11 5,)in subsection (h,)1)A,), by striking "age 70"

12 eachplace it appears and inserting "retirement age

13 (asdefined in section 216(7,))", and

14 (6) insubsection @)—

15 CA,)in the heading, by striking "Age 5ev-

16 enty"and inserting "Retirement Age"; and

17 (B)by striking "seventy years of age" and

18 inserting"having attained retirement age (as de-

19 finedin section 216(7))".

20SEC.3. NONAPPLICATION OF RULES FOR COMPUTATION OF

21 EXEMPTAMOUNT FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO

22 HAVEATTAINED RETIREMENT AGE.

23 (a)IN (IENERAL.—Section 203(J) (8) of the Social Se- 24curityAct (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)) is amended by adding at 25 the end the Jbllowing new subparagraph:

HR5 EAS 3

1 "(E)Notwithstanding subparagraph (D), no de-

2 ductionsin benefits shall be made undersubsection

3 (b)with respect to the earnings of anyindividual in

4 any month beginningwith the month in which the in-

5 dividual attains retirement age (asdefined in section

6 216(l)).".

7 (b) CONFORMINGATIENDMENT.—Section 203(f) (9) of

8theSocial Security Act (42 U. S. C. 403(1)(9)) is amended

9bystriking "and (8) (D)," andinserting"(8) (D), and

10(8)(E),".

11SEC. 4.ADDITIONAL CONFORMINGAMENDMENTS.

12 (a)ELIMINATION OF REDUNDAI\TTREFERENcES TO Act 13RETIREMENTAGE.—Section 203 of the Social Security

14(42U.S.C. 403) is amended—

15 (1) in subsection(c),in the last sentence, by

16 striking"nor shall any deduction" andall that fbl-

17 lowsand inserting "nor shall anydeduction be made

18 underthis subsection from anywidow's or widower's

19 insurancebenefitjf•thewidow, surviving divorced

20 wife,widower, or surviving divorcedhusband involved

21 becameentitled to such benefit prior toattaining age

22 60.";and

23 2)in subsection(f)('l), by striking clause (D)

24 andinserting the fbllowing: "(D) fbrwhich such mdi-

25 vidual is entitled to widow's orwidower's insurance

hR5 LAS 4

1 benefits fsuchindividual became so entitled prior to 2 attaining age 60, ".

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT To PROVISIONS FOR

4 DETERMINING AMOUNT OF INcREASE ON ACCOUNT OF DE-

5 LAYED RETIREMENT.—Section 202 (w) (2) (B) (ii) of the So- 6 cial Security Act (42 U. S. C. 402(w) (2) (B) (ii)) is amended 7 by striking "or suffered deductions under section 203(b) or 8 203(c) in amounts equal to the amount of such benefit" and 9 inserting "or, if so entitled, did not receive benefits pursu- 10 ant to a request by such individual that benefits not be

11paid".

12 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

13 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 14 respect to taxable years ending after December 31, 1999. Attest:

Secretary.

HR5 EAS 106TH CONGRESS 2DSESSION R.5 AMENDMENT

March 28, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE H1441 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion. The text of the motion is as follows: Mr. SHAW moves to concur in the Senate amendment to HR. 5. The text of the Senate amendment is as follows: Senate amendment: Page 2. line 1.strikeOut all afterSEC- TION" over to and including line 3 on page 7 and insert: 1. SHORT TiTLE. This Act may be cited as the "Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act of 2000. SEC. 2. ELThIINATION OF EARNINGS TEST FOR fl'- DIVIDUALS WHO HAVE A7TA12V1D RE- 2IREMENT AGE. Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 USC. 403) is amended— (1) in subsection (c)(')), by strikingthe age of seventy" and insertingretirement age (as defined in section 2)6(1))'; (2) in paragraphs ())(A) and (2) of subsection (d), by striking "the age of seventy' eath place it appears and inserting "retirement age (as defined in section 2)6(1))'; (3) in subsection (1)('))(B), by striking 'was age seventy or over" and inserting'was at or above retirement age (as defined in section 2)6(1))"; (4) in subsection (1)(3). by striking "age 70" and inserting "retirement age (as defined in section 2)6(1)) (5) in subsection (h)0)(A), by striking "age 70" eath place it appears and inserting "retirement age (as defined in section 2)6(1)) 'and (6) in subsection C)— (A) in the heading, by striking "Age Seventy" and inserting 'Retirement Age": and (B) by striking 'seventy years of age" and inserting "having attained retirement age (as defined in section 2)6W) SEC. 3. NONAPPLICATION OF RULES FOR COM- PUTATION OF EXEMPT AMOUIJ'J' FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ATTh.INED RETIREMENT AGE. SENIOR CITIZENS FREEDOM TO (a) IN GENERAL—Section 203(1.) (8) of the So- cia) Security Act (42 U £ C. 403(1) (8)) is amended WORK ACT OF 2000 by adding at the end the following new sub- Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker. I askparagraph: unanimous consent that it be in order "(E) Notwithstanding subparagraph (D). no at any time today to take from thedeductions in benefits shall be made under subsection (b) with respect to the earnings of any Speakers table HR. 5, with a Senateindividua) in any month beginning with the amendment thereto, and to consider inmonth in which the individua) attains retire- the House a motion offered by thement age (as defined in section 2)6(1)). Chairman of the Committee on Ways (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT—Sect-ion and Means, or his designee. that the203(1) (9) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S. C. House concur in the Senate amend-403(1) (9)) is amended by striking "and (8) (D)," ment, that the Senate amendment andand inserting "(8)(D), and (8)(E), the motion be considered as read: thatSEC. 4.ADDITIONALCONFORMING AMENDMENTS. the motion be debatable for 1 hour (a) ELIMINATION OF RE.OUNDAP'/T REFERENCES equally divided and controlled by the TO RE77REMENT AGE—Section 203 of the Soda! Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) is amended— chairman and ranking member of the (1) in subsection (c), in the last sentence, by Committee on Ways and Means, orstriking 'nor shall any deduction" and all that their designees: and that the previousfollows and inserting "nor shall any deduction question be considered as ordered onbe made under this subsection from any widow's the motion to final adoption withoutor widower's insurance benefit if the widow. intervening motion. surviving divorced wife, widower, or surviving The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is theredivorced husband involved became entitled to such benefit prior to attaining age 60. ";and objection to the request of the gen- (2) in subsection (1)0), by striking clause (D) tleman from Florida? and inserting the following: "(D) for which suth There was no objection. individual is entitled to widow's or widower's Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker. pursu-insurance benefits if suth individual became so ant to the unanimous consent requestentitled prior to attaining age 60, just agreed to, I call up the bill (HR. 5) (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO PROVISIONS to amend title II of the Social SecurityFOR DETERMINING AMOUi7 OF INCREASE ON AC- Act to eliminate the earnings test for COUNT OF DEL4 rEDRETIREMENT. —Section individuals who have attained retire-202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(w)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking ment age. 'or suffered deductions under section 203(b) or The Clerk read the title of the bill. 203(c) in amounts equa) to the amount of suth MOnONOFEEREDBY MR. 5HAW benefit' and inserting'or, if so entitled, did not Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I offer areceive benefits pursuant to a request by suth motion. individua) that benefits not be paid". H1442 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE March 28, 2000 SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. troduced this legislation at the begin-tersupport themselves and theirfamilies. The amendments made by this Act shall applyning of this Congress. I also congratu-These hardworking seniors deservetokeep with respect to taxable years ending after De-late the gentleman from Texas (Chair-the benefits they have paid for, as this legisla- cember 31. 1999. man ARCHER) for his years of tirelesstion provides. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-work in relaxing and now repealing the MadamSpeaker.Ireserve the bal- ant to the order of the House today.earnings penalty. He is a personal tes-ance of my time. the gentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW)tament to what hard-working seniors Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker.I and the gentleman from New York (Mr.can do. In large part, passing this legis-yield myself such time as I may con- RANCEL) each will control 30 minutes. lation is a tribute to his tireless devo-sume. The Chair recognizes the gentlemantion to helping our Nation's taxpayers. Madam Speaker, I would like to con- from Florida (Mr. SHAW). including the seniors who have spentgratulate the gentieman from Florida (Mr. SHAW asked and was given per-decades working to support their fami-(Mr. SHAW) and the gentleman from mission to revise and extend his re-lies,their businesses. and this greatTexas (Mr. ARCHER), chairman of the marks.) country. Committee on Ways and Means, for the GENERALLEAVE Madam Speaker, I urge all Memberscooperation that they gave to us in the Mr.SHAW. Madam Speaker.I askto support this outstanding legislation.minority in indicating that this would unanimous consent that all MembersOur hard-working seniors deserve nobe a priority piece of legislation. It may have 5legislative days withinless. I would also like to pay tribute togave those of us on the Committee on which to revise and extend their re-the minority side and thank the gen-Ways and Means the opportunity to get marks and to include extraneous mate-tlenian from New York (Mr. RANCEL)the support of our Members on this rial on H.R. 5. and the gentleman from California (Mr.side of the aisle and to demonstrate The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is thereMATSUI) for making this really a land-how cooperation can have both sides of objection to the request of the gen-mark bipartisan bill and one that everythe aisle working a lot more closely. tleman from Florida? Member of the House can be very proud We hope that this sign of cooperation There was no objection. to support. means that before this year ends. that Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker. I yield Mr.Speaker, sincetherewill be no House-we will have the opportunity to show myself such time as I may consume. Senate conference, and the Senate manager'sthat there are plenty of differences be- Madam Speaker. I strongly supportamendment to H.R. 5 proceeded without a fulltween our parties and how we achieve H.R. 5. legislation to repeal the earn-committeereportbeing filed by the Financethe goals. and we do not challenge each

ings penalty for hard-working seniorsCommittee, I believe a brief explanation is inother's intent in terms of what is good age 65 and over. order of the differences betweenthelegisla-for this country. but certainly there Madam Speaker.Iam especiallytion before us today and the version of H.R.should be a lot of things that we can pleased that the Senate acted quickly5 that was approved by the House on Marchagree upon. I think it would be healthy and unanimously in support of this im-1,2000. and it would be the right political portantlegislation.Thetechnical First, some background isneeded.Underthing for us as an institution to bring changes made in the Senate improve oncurrent lawthereare twoseparateseniorthose things forward, Democrats and the legislation passed unanimously byearningslimits:astricterlimitthataffectsRepublicans, to show the House, to this House. and I urge all Members tothose who start drawing Social Security bene-show the other body. and indeed to once again support this excellent bill. fitsbefore reaching the fullretirement ageshow the President and the country Due to this quick work, seniors will(which is currently age 65) and a more lenientthat we are a body that can work. soon receive all the benefits that theylimit affecting seniors who have reached the This is a good piece of legislation. It are owed, even if they continue to workfull retirement age. After reaching age 70, sen- is long overdue. The manner in which after reaching the age of 65. That ision; are no longer affected by an earningsit has received overwhelming support their choice. As the name of our legis-limit. The stricter earnings iimt is $10,080 thisis just indicative of what we can do lation suggests. they deserve the free-year, wfth a 50% benefit offset for earningswhen we put our minds to it. dom to choose to work without losingabove thelimit. The more lenientlimitis Madam Speaker.Iask unanimous Social Security benefits. $17,000, with a 33% benefit offset for earningsconsent to yield the balance of my It is worth noting that many seniorsabove the limit H.R. 5 repeals the earningstime to the distinguished gentleman now affected by the earnings limit willlimit for seniors who reach the full retirementfrom California (Mr. MATSUI). ranking receive back payments from months age. member of the Subcommittee on Social this year that they have lost their So- The legislation before the House today isSecurity. and that he may control the cial Security benefits. That will be aslightly modified from the version that passedtime. welcome relieffor many, includingunanimously on March 1 with respect to the The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there some who have lost Social Securityeirnings limit for the first months of th& cal-objection to the request of the gen- benefits for years due to this unfairendar year during which a senior reaches thetleman from New York? penalty. Seniors can save this moneyfull retirement age. For seniors tuming 65 in There was no objection. for their future. use it to help with2000, the issue is what earnings limitwill Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker. I reserve theirgrandchildren's college edu-apply for months pnor to their 65th birthdaythe balance of my time. cation,orbuyprescriptiondrugs.(that is, while they are still 64)? Under the leg- Mr.MATSUI. Madam Speaker,I Again, it is their money and it shouldislation previously approved by the House, theyield myself such time as I may con- be their choice. more lenient limit would apply for such monthssume. Madam Speaker. ending the earningsfor seniors who tum 65 in 2000; for seniors Madam Speaker. first of all, I would penalty is the right thing to do. It iswho reach the fullretirement age in futurelike to just reiterate what the gen- also an affordable thing to do, as theyears, the stncterlimit would apply duringtleman from New York (Mr. RANCEL). Social Security Administrations inde-those months. Under the legislation we areranking member on the Committee on pendent actuaries have told us. Theyconsidering today, the more lenient limit wouldWays and Means, has said. First of all, agree this legislation will not affectapply for such months in all years. Iwant to commend the gentieman the soundness of the Social Security I am pleased that the House is supportingfrom Texas (Chairman ARCHER) for his program and its trust funds. this change today, which has the effect ofbipartisan approach on this legislation. We still must address Social Secu-itightly broadening the relief from the eamingsAnd. of course. the gentleman from rity's long-term financial imbalance,penaflyaffordedby the version of H.R. 5 theNew York (Mr. RANCEL) for his leader- but we were very careful to ensure thisHouse has already passed. It is worth notingship on the Democratic side. legislation does not make that taskthat this change will not affect Social Secu- I want to pay particular thanks and any more difficult than it already is. rity's long-run financial soundness, just as thecommendation to the gentleman from I would like to congratulate the gen-underlying H.R. 5 would not affect programFlorida (Mr. SHAW), the chairman of tieman from Texas (Mr. SAM JOHNSON),3olvency. This change is certainly in keeping the Subcommittee on Social Security. ourcolleague. and the gentleman fromwith the spirit of H.R. 5, which is designed toI think he did a tremendous job on Minnesota (Mr. PETERSON) who first in-help seniors whowantor have to work to bet-moving the bill from the subcommittee March 28, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE H1443 to the full committee and the floor ofreductionintheir Social Secunty benefitsif Madam Speaker, Ireserve the ba]- the House. they choose to work. No longer will seniorsance of my time. Obviously.Democrats and Repub-have to calculate just how many months and Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield licans working together made sure thatdays each year they can work without hitting 21/2 minutesto the gentleman from the other body kept their amendmentsthat eamings limits. Pennsylvania(Mr.ENGLISH),are- to a minimum. We just appreciate the This is good for senior citizens who want tospected member of the Committee on cooperation and the bipartisan spirit, Iwork. good for our workforce which benefitsWays and Means. think, that both sides of the aisle havefrom the experience and knowledge of older Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker I had. But I do wantto take that mo-workers, and of course good for the economy.would like to thank the gentleman ment to make that observation. Repealing the retirement eamings test willfrom Florida (Mr. SHAW), the chairman Madam Speaker, I would Just like toallow thousands of Social Security recipientsof the Subcommittee on Social Secu- verybrieflyreiterate some of theto work without a reduction in their benefits.rity, and the gentleman from Texas things that have been said before. TheThe Social Security Administration estimates(Mr. SAM JOHNSON), my distinguished Senate had two technical amendmentsthat in 1999, 793,000 beneficiaries betweencolleague, for their extraordinary ef. to our legislation. Both were very tech-the ages of 65 and 69 had some or all of theirforts as well as my colleagues on the nical in nature and actually improvedbenefits withheld because of the retirementother side of the aisle. the basic underlying legislation. eamings tests. Madam Speaker, right now the Social As a result of that, we think that By aflowing beneficiaries to work withoutSecurity system places a higher tax this bill should have, as it had when itsuffenng a reduction in benefits, more olderpenalty on working seniors than on bil- left the House, unanimous approval. 422workers may decide to remain in, or to retumlionaires. We have been sending seniors Members voted for it and no Memberto, the labor force. the message that when they hit retire- voted against it. Repealing the retirement eamings test willment age. we do not want them any- This will go a long way in encour-not affect Social Security's finances over themore. The earnings limit that was cre- aging senior citizens who are so neededlong run and would not change the date byated 60 years ago is a relic of Depres- when the unemployment rate is under 5which the Social Security Trust Funds are pro-sion era economics that says that sen- percent,tostayinthe workforce.jected to be exhausted. Repealing the retire-iors should make room for younger These are peoplethat undoubtedlyment eamings test for beneficiaries above theworkers. But we all know, seniors add have years and years of experience andnormal retirement age has a short-run cost,more to the workforce and more to the a wealth of knowledge to pass on tobut over the tong run, that cost is entirely off-economy than they could ever take their co-workers, and to ensure thatset. away. They add their years of experi- they can stay in the workforce and gar- Further, repea'ing the retirement eamingsence and their talents. ner the same wages without any pen-test will make the Social Security program H.R. 5repeals the earnings limit alty is something that the Congress iseasier and less expensive to administer. Thewhich unfairly punishes seniors who now about to do in sending this bill toSocial Security Administration estimates thatearn more than $17,000 a year. That is the President. savings from the cost of administering thenot a lot. This legislation has received. Certainly.Ithinkitisa majoreamings test could be as high as $100 million.virtually unanimous support in the achievement.Obviously, we have a am particulaily pleased that the only modi-House and Senate, but more impor- long ways to go in terms of ultimatelyfication to the bill that the Senate acceptedtantly, a ground swell of support from the comprehensive Social Security re-was a relatively minor one and one that im-our constituents. After all. a 65-year form. And I think the gentleman fromproves the bill. The amendment adopted byold who works as a barber or a cashie Florida and myself and others such asthe Senate changes the way in which the billcurrently loses $500 in benefits just be- the gentleman from Texas (Mr. STEN-applies to Social Secunty beneficiaries duringcause they have earned $18,500 a year. HOLM)thathave been working on com-the year in which they reach the normal retire-That is absurd. This arbitrary limit prehensive reform know that that is ament age and ensures that no one will beserves as a barrier to many low- and task that looms before us. This action.worse off under thisbill than under currentmiddle-income seniors who need to in and of itself, should not deter us work in order to improve their quality from trying to grapple with that verylaw. I am certain that no Member of the House will have an objection to this change and I of life or even to make ends meet. difficult and complex subject. And welook forward to sending this bill quickly to the The Social Security Administration know that there is partisan undertonesPresident for his signature. reports that more than 800,000 working to it. We also know that it is very dif- I'd 'ike to point out that not a single Memberseniors between the ages of 65 and 69 ficult to deal with. But we are going toof Congress has voted against this bill, a clearlose part or all of their Social Security have to address that particular issue. So, again. I urge my colleagues totestament to the bipartisan support it has re-benefits due to this outdated earnings vote in favor of this conference reportceived. When the bill was first considered bylimit. so we can send it immediately to thethe House, it passed 422—0. 0 1715 President. And, again, I want to com- When the bill was considered by the Sen- My own State of Pennsylvania ranks mend all individual Members who haveate, it passed 100—0.expect the outcome ofsixth with the number of seniors ad- worked on this legislation, including. Iour vote today to be the same. versely affected by that earnings limit. might add, I saw him come in. the gen- Additionally, our support for H.R. 5 sends a clear signal that by working together, Demo-It is important that Congress protect tleman from Texas (Mr. SAM JOHNSON),crats and Republicans. we can accomplishthe dignity of retirement. The time has a member of the Committee on Ways come for us to unshackle the creative and Means, and, of course. the gen-much more than we could by working at odds. Over the past several weeks, as thisbill energies of America's seniors. tleman from Minnesota (Mr. PETERSON)moved through the Ways and Means Com- Today, by supporting this legislation on the Democratic side who were the Congress says toseniors. you may original two cosponsors of this legisla-mittee, the House floor, and the Senate, Mem- bers have set aside their differences so thatchoose to work. choose to remain part tion. of the productive economy and choose Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate mythis bill could proceed and we could achieveto share your talents, and we will not colleagues forall their hard work on this bill. a victory for seniors who need to work without penalty. I am proud of our accomplishment. punish you. Iam very pleased to be here today to see this Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker,I bill through another step toward becoming law. I am extremely pleased that the Congress has addressed the eamings test in a bipar-yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Our vote today signals the end of the Social gentleman from Maryland (Mr. tisan manner, and I remain hopeful that the Security retirement eamings test for people CARDIN), a member of the Committee who have reached the normal retirement age.Congress might address other much-needed Social Security legislation in the same fashionon Ways and Means. This is a remarkab'e event because as the Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, let me tiUe of the bill indicates, we are freeing ourto deal with the shortfall that the system will face in the coming decades. thank the gentleman from California seniors from the work limits imposed by cur- (Mr. MATSUI) for yielding me this time rent law. Again, I want to thank my colleagues again No bnger will the most experienced mem-for all their hard work. This is truly an historicand for his work on bringing this legis- bers of our labor force have to experience aday and a big victory for our senior citizens. lation forward and the gentleman from H1444 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE March 28, 2000 Florida (Mr. SHAW), the chairman of Today, 800,000 seniors are one stepabilities, give workers greater control the Subcommittee on Social Security. closertogaining their freedom toof their retirement income, improve This is a very important piece of leg-work. It sounds unbelievable, does itthe safety net, and reward work. islation. It will be enacted.Ithink,not? To think that, since 1935, when But we, both the President and Con- very shortly once we complete our ac-Social Security was first proposed, wegress, have ignored our opportunity to tion and it is forwarded to the Presi-have been penalizing our seniors fordeai with the long-term chailenges fac- dent. It will affect 800.000 seniors whoworking. That is right. Since the incep-ing Social Security. have had their Social Security checkstion of the Social Security system, our Later this week. the Social Security reduced just because they decided toseniors have lost $1in benefits fortrustees will issue their annual report continue to work. That makes no senseevery $3 they earn over a set amount. which will show that the short-term at ail. Currently, as was stated, seniors mayoutlook for Social Security has im- We need more workers in the work-oniy earn $17,000 before losing theirproved slightly. We cannot afford to let force, not less. In today's economy andbenefits. this good news distract us from the with the shrinking workforce that we But today, thanks to the hard workproblems that remain. While the short- have of more people retiring and less nd dedication of the gentleman fromterm outlook for the Social Security people working, it makes common eco-Texas(Chairman ARCHER);SpeakerTrust Fund may be improved, the long- nomic sense to ailow those 65 years ofHASTERT; the gentleman from Floridaterm problems and the pressures facing age who want to work to be able to(Mr. SHAW), the chairman of the Sub-the rest of the budget may actually be work. Without thislegislation. the mar-committee on Social Security. we findworse. ginai tax rate is 33 percent. That is un-ourselves ready to pass the Senior Citi- When the Senate considered this leg- acceptable. That is why we are chang-zens' Freedom To Work Act. a bill I in-islation, Senator JUDD GREGG proposed ing it.It is interesting that this par-troduced last year. an amendment which would have made ticular legislation will have no impact I know that 64,500 seniors in Texasa modest step in advancing the discus- on the long-term solvency of the Socialalone. including Tony Santos and hission about the chailenges facing Sociai Security system, for it is a plus in hav-family. whom I spoke of earlier, areSecurity among policy makers and the ing people work and contributing togoingtocelebratetheir new-foundpublic. The Gregg amendment would the system. freedom to work. have required the commissioner of So- It also benefits women more than I fought in both Korea and Vietnamcial Security to provide the public and men, because women's work history isfor freedom, and I believe that includespolicy makers with easily understood not as strong, generally, as men. Thisthe freedom for our seniors to workandreadilyavailableinformation will allow women to be able to con-without being penalized by the Federalabout the financial chailenges facing tinue to work without being penaiizedGovernment. Social Security. The purpose of the under the Social Security system. Our seniors are dedicated,experi-amendment was simply to encourage a Madam Speaker. this legislation be-enced workers who have endured thismore honest discussion of the chal- comes effective January 1. It is retro-Depression-era law for far too long. Welenges facing Social Security. active to the current year, as it shouldare in a new century, 60 years past the Unfortunately, the Senate did not be, so that individuais in this current,Great Depression, where laws passed inhave time to discuss these issues when year will be able to get their full Social1935 are no longer relevant. it considered the earnings bill. How- Security benefits without the reduc This Nation was built by generationsever, the Senate Finance Committee tion for their work. of Americans who believed in the freechairman did indicate his willingness As the gentleman from Florida (Mr.enterprise system.In the words ofto work with Senator GREGG on this SHAW), Chair of the Subcommittee onThomas Edison,'Thereisno sub-issue later this year. Sociai Security, pointed out, we arestitute for hard work." This legislation I would respectfully encourage the able to do this even though we cannotwill make sure that our seniors havegentleman from Texas (Mr. ARCHER), bring forward at this point comprehen-the freedom to work, save. and investchairman of the Committee on Ways sive Sociai Security reform. I think wein a better America for tomorrow. and Means. and the gentleman from would ail like to do that. We know that Mr.MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I Florida (Mr. SHAW). chairman of the need to deai with the Social Secu-yield 3 minutes to the gentleman fromSubcommittee on Sociai Security, to rity system in a broader context, butTexas(Mr.STENHOLM).thedistin-conducthearings on these rec- we have an agreement on this very im-guished ranking Democrat on the Com-ommendations so that they may re- portant piece of legislation. so we aremittee on Agriculture, who has beenceive the attention they deserve. bringing that forward. We are doing itreaily one of the leaders in the whole More importantly, I encourage ail of in a bipartisan way. Social Security reform issue. my colleagues to remember that we Madam Speaker. as the gentleman Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, Istill have serious financial problems frn New York (Mr.RkNGEL), thethank the gentleman from Caiiforniafacing Social Security that must be ad- ranking member of the Committee onfor yielding me this time. and I appre-dressed. So while ail Members should Ways and Means, said, we should useciate the leadership of him and thevote for the earnings limit repeal today thisasa model to work together, Democrats and Republicans, to bringgentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW) onfor the reasons we have so eloquently other legislation forward. this effort and other efforts regardingheard made aiready. we should not for- I think about the need for seniors forSocial Security. get that we still have much hard work prescription drugs. We may not be able I strongly support repeal of the So-to do in making sure that Social Secu- to agree on Medicare reform; but wecial Security earnings limit. In fact,rity remains financiaily sound for our can agree. I would hope, on prescrip-repeal of the Social Security earningschildren and for our grandchildren. tion drugs. limit has been part of the comprehen- Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield Let us in a bipartisan way bring thatsive Social Security legislation that2½ minutes to the gentleman from Ari- forward, which will also help our sen-thegentlemanfromArizona(Mr.zona(Mr. HAY WORTH). arespected iors. KOLBE) and I introduced in the last twomember of the Committee on Ways and This is a good day for seniors. It is aCongresses. Means. good day for our Nation. I congratulate However, I do want to take this time Mr. HAYWORT}{. Madam Speaker. I all involved. to reiterate my disappointment thatthank the gentleman from Florida, the Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yieldwe are considering legislation to in-chairman of the Subcommittee on So- 2½ minutes to the gentleman fromcrease Social Security benefits withoutcial Security from our Committee on Texas (Mr. SAM JOHNSON), a member ofeven discussing the long-term financialWays and Means, for yielding me this the Committee on Ways and Meant. andchallenges facing Sociai Security. Wetime. one of the original sponsors of HR. 5. should have spent the last year work- Madam Speaker.Iappreciate the Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madamingonacomprehensiveplantogentleman from Texas (Mr. SAM JOHN- Speaker. I thank all on both sides ofstrengthen Social Security that wouldSON) lamenting a long-term solution to the aisle for their support. restore solvency, reduce unfunded li-the Social Security challenges that we H1445 March 28, 2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE face. But I think a word is in order torevenues because there is a pick up ofworking seniors over the age of 65 and put this debate and this challenge inrevenues in terms of the credit that isgives them the highest effective tax context. One of the elemental lessonsgiven. rate of their entire lives at a time So the reason we did it is quite sim-when senior citizens should be realizing we learn in civics class is that the lower taxes. It discourages them from President proposes; the Congress dis-ple. we have a surplus. We did not have a surplus before. working. And why in the world would poses. Mr. KLECZKA. Madam Speaker, willwe want to discourage any American. Sadly, executive leadership has been whether they are 16 or 67, from work- lacking and, indeed, missing when itthe gentleman yield? Iyield to the gen-ing? comes to a serious, long-term solution Mr. MATSUT. Clearly. repealing this penalty is the of Social Security challenges we face. tleman from Wisconsin. right thing to do. More seniors are Now it is true the gentleman from Mr. KLECZKA. Madam Speaker. thechoosing to work today past their re- Texas (Mr. SAM JOHNSON), along withonly reason I rise is to ask if the gen-tirement for many reasons: for their tleman from California (Mr. MATSUL) fami- the gentleman from Arizona, have onewould respond to a question. own financial needs, to help their remedy that they have proposed. The Mr. MATSUT. Yes, Madam Speaker. lies ortheir grandchildren through gentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW). Mr. KLECZKA. Madam Speaker. theschool, or for their own personal fulfill- the chairman of the subcommittee, andgentleman from Arizona (Mr.ment. The point is Americans are liv- the gentleman from Texas (Mr. AR-J-LAYWORTH), the previous speaker, indi-ing longer now and older Americans CHER). the chairman of the full com-cated that there was no initiative com-can and do make a great contribution mittee, likewise, have a long-term so-ing from this administration on thisto our society. They should not be pun- lution. ished. But, again, the missing ingredient,proposal. I believe the gentleman from In addition, repealing the earnings sadly, is effective leadership from theCalifornia served during the Bush ad-penalty will now unleash the produc- administration; and it looks like it willministration and Reagan administra-tivity of one of the most experienced tion. Does he recall similar legislationand talented workforces in this coun- take a verdict of the people on the firstcoming down from either President Tuesday following the first Monday inReagan or President Bush asking Con-try at a time when our growing econ- November to make that change. omy needs it and will need even more gress to repeal the earnings limit? of it in the new century. This is clearly However, Madam Speaker it is well Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker.I worth asking the question, what tookthink President Reagan did, but I doa win-win for everyone, which iswhy us so long to correct the injustice that the bill today enjoys widespread bipar- not know if President Bush did. I amtisan support. at long last this House will correct to-not quite sure. In summary, repealing the earnings night? Since the mid-1930s, since the Mr. KLECZKA. Okay. Madam Speak-penalty is based on the fundamental advent of the Social Security program.er. principles of fairness and freedom. Sen- those seniors who chose to work past Mr. MATSUT. Madam Speaker. I re-iors can now be free to work without retirement age have been penalized toserve the balance of my time. penalty and be treated fairly by a pro- the tune of $1 Out of every $3 of bene- Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker. I yield fits earned, simply because they chose gram that they paid into their entire myself such time as I may consume. lives. to work. Madam Speaker,Ithink the old The victory today goes to the hun- Now, with a labor shortage, with soadage comes to mind of never ask adreds of thousands of older Americans many senior Americans, healthy, will-question that you do not know the an-who do not see retirement as an end ing and able to work, at long last, thisswer to. but as a new beginning. House has moved to correct this in- Madam Speaker. I yield such time as Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, may I equity. he may consume to the gentlemaninquire as to how much time remains Again. Madam Speaker,I welcomefrom Texas (Mr. ARCHER), the chair-on either side? my colleagues on the left whojoin withman of the Committee on Waysand The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. us at long last in this bipartisan effort.Means. BIGGERT). The gentleman from Florida But, again, Madam Speaker. the ques- Mr. ARCHER. Madam Speaker.I (Mr. SHAW) has 17'/2 minutes remaining, tion that so many Americans will con-thank the gentleman from Florida forand the gentleman from California (Mr. tinue to ask is, why did it take so long?yielding me this time. MATSUI) has 19 minutes remaining. Even as we deal with the responsible Madam Speaker, today is a great day Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker. I yield question of a long-term remedy for So-for hundreds of thousands of working21/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from cial Security, the question remains.seniors across this country. It is also aWashington (Ms. DUNN). a member of why did it take the denizens of the leftspecial day for me personally. becausethe Committee on Ways and Means. so long to join with us? it is a culmination of my 27-year effort Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I thank Even as we extend the hand of bipar-to repeal the earnings limit. the gentleman for yielding me this tisanship, we welcome now this new- In fact, I introduced a bill to do so intime, and I rise today in enthusiastic found coalition. We hope that it will1973, and we have taken Out of the ar-support for H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' result in other moves to restore taxchives a copy of that bill, H.R. 10148.Freedom to Work Act. fairness and balance for all Americans.The reason to repeal the earnings pen- It is really a joy to be on the floor But this important step we take, andalty then was the same as it is today,and be debating this billin concert we welcome the newcomers to this en-it is simply wrong. with the minority. It is a great feeling deavor with the hand of bipartisanship. Twenty-seven years is a long time tothat we all believe this is something Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker.I wait for me. But I am more thrilledthat needs to be changed for the fairness of our Nation's valued seniors. yield myself such time as I may con-that working seniors will not have to The Social Security earnings penalty sume. wait any longer to be free from thisis yet another aspect of the Social Se- Madam Speaker, one of the issues Ipunishing tax. curity System that just no longer ap- think that the gentleman from Arizona I also want to thank the gentlemanplies to today's society. It is a 60-year (Mr. HAYWORTH) raised of why are wefrom Texas (Mr. SAM JOHNSON) and theold system. It was written in the 1930s, doing this now, if we would have donegentleman from Florida (Mr. SHAW),and it just does not work any longer. it 3 or 4 years ago, we would have hadchairman of the subcommittee on So-and that is why we unite today in either taken it Out of Defense or per-cial Security, for their tireless effortswanting to change this provision. haps other domestic programs or elseon this bill. Seniors are living longer, healthier increased the deficit. We have a surplus The Social Security earnings limit islives and we need their strength and now. As a result of that, we were ablenot only wrong, it is unfair, and it istheir experience in our communities. to do it without cutting other pro-backwards. We need their examples and their insti- grams, including the Defense budget. 0 1730 tutional memories to provide the ex- In addition,I would just add that, ample to young new workers who are over the length of the Social Security The earnings penalty actually cuts program itself, we will not see any lostSocial Security benefits from manymoving into thejob market. H1446 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE March 28, 2000 In my State, Washington State. someyear may take full advantage of thishired and they begin working, they are of our very best workers right now arebill's benefits. going to lose their Social Security. sitting in rocking chairs because they Accordingly, Madam Speaker, I urge I am sure my colleagues can recall cannot afford the loss of their Socialmy colleagues to join in supportingconversations they have had with their Security income that would come withthis worthy legislation. neighbors or constituents where that their continuing in their jobs. Thirteen Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker. I yieldhas been a statement that they have thousand seniors in my State are beingI/2 minutes to the gentleman fromheard. In my home State of Illinois, forced to choose between the jobs thatMichigan (Mr. CAMP), a member of the58,000 senior citizens between the ages they love or need and losing the retire-Committee on Ways and Means. of 65 and 70 are currently punished be- ment income forwhich they have Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I thankcause they are working. They are los- worked all their lives. This is not onlythe gentleman for yielding me thising almost one-third of their Social Se- wrong, as our chairman said, but ittime, and I rise in strong support ofcurity benefits if they make more than keeps an intelligent and productiveH.R. 5. $17,000 a year.Essentially, they are part of the work force at home. I am proud that today we are movingbeing taxed at Donald Trump's rates. Seniors who are currently retiredforward in eliminating the Social Secu-That is not right. That is not fair. have been called the greatest genera-rity earnings limit. Today, one of the Senior citizens today are working tion for the sacrifices they made in de-biggest problems facing our country islonger; they are living longer; and they fending freedom and building Americanot lack of jobs but lack of workers.want to be active longer, but our Tax into the world's only remaining eco-This is in direct contrast to the 1930s,Code punishesthem. Thatisjust nomic and military superpower. It iswhen the earnings limit was enactedwrong. It is an issue of fairness. Just time that we honor their contributionsand imposed a tax on working seniors.like elimination of the marriage tax to America by allowing them to con- H.R. 5 is important to seniors in thepenalty. where 25 million married cou- tinue to give one of the most preciousState of Michigan, where nearly 653,000ples pay higher taxes just because they gifts of all to us: Their work ethic. adults age 65 and older depend on So-are married. This is a case where, if a Madam Speaker,Iurge my col-cial Security to make up half theirsenior citizen wishes to continue work- leagues to support this very importanttotal income. At least one in 11 seniorsing, they must pay higher taxes and bill. in my State are still working. Theselose their Social Security benefits. Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker. I yield 2seniors have earned their Social Secu- My colleagues, this legislation passed minutes to the gentleman from Newrity benefits through a lifetime of con-the House with a unanimous vote, it York (Mr. GILMAN), the chairman oftributions, and the government doespassed the Senate with a unanimous the Committee on International Rela-not have the right to impose a 33 per-vote. Let us send this legislation with tions. cent tax on them. this little modification to the Presi- (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given The earnings limit is unfair and dis-dent.I am pleased the President is permission to revise and extend his re-criminates against working seniors. Nogoing to sign this legislation. It is nice marks.) retiree should be penalized for choosingto see a bipartisan effort work around here. Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker,Ito work. Our proposal would eliminate My colleagues, it is all about fair- thank the gentleman for yielding methis tax penalty on earnings and wouldness. Let us vote today to eliminate this time, and I rise today to stronglyallow seniors to collect their full So-theSocial Security earningslimit. support the Senate amendments focial Security benefits if they choose toPlease vote "aye." H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens Freedom towork. After all, it is their money. Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker. I yield Work Act. I am pleased that my colleagues on1½ minutes tothe gentleman from This modified bill removes earningsboth sides of the aisle are supportingLouisiana (Mr. MCCRERY), an esteemed limits for working seniors who receivethis legislation. It istimeto stop pe-member of the Committee on Ways and Social Security. For too many yearsnalizing our seniors with such an un-Means. seniors aged 65 to 69, who chose to con-just tax, and I urge my colleagues to (Mr. McCRERY asked and was given tinue to work, had their Social Seci-vote "yes" on H.R. 5. permission to revise and extend his re- rity benefits deducted by $1 for every $3 Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker. I yieldmarks.) earned when their total earnings ex-2½ minutes to the gentleman from Illi- Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker,I ceeded $12,500 annually. nois (Mr. WELLER), a respected memberthankthechairmanoftheSub- The 104th Congress, with my suppoit.of the Committee on Ways and Means.committee onSocialSecurityfor made a needed change,raising the (Mr. WELLER asked and was givenyielding me this time. earnings limit to $30,000 by the yearpermission to revise and extend his re- As I was listening to speakers here 2002. This years earnings limit went upmarks.) on the floor extol the virtues of this to $17,000.I have long believed that Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, whatlegislation. I was reminded of what I more needed to be done on this issue.a great day. We have legislation beforethink is an old Chinese proverb that I Ever since coming to Washington inus that is all about fairness and it isam going to paraphrase. that victory our 93rd Congress,I have introducedlegislation.Ibelieve, that will passhas many fathers. defeat is an orphan. legislation to either raise the earningswith overwhelming bipartisan support.We are all claiming credit for this bill. limit or eliminate it all together. In Illinois there are 800,000 seniorwhich is good for us all to claim credit The Social Security earnings limitcitizens between the ages of 65 and 70for something that the Congress is only serves to discourage seniors fromwho, because of their circumstances.doing and makes sense. It is just com- working and diminishes their potentialeither want to continue working ormon sense not to penalize seniors who impact onsociety.Itisa conde-need to work because their savings andmake work. scending regulation. It conveys a mes-retirement plans did not work out But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. sage that seniors have nothing to con-quite the way that they had wanted.ARCHER) is not the only one who took tribute and are better off not serving inBut these seniors suffer what is calledthis as a personal project. When I first the workforce. And, of course, that isthe Social Security earnings penaltycame to Congress in the spring of 1988 not true. limit. Essentially, their Social Secu-as a Member of the 100th Congress, I Itisgratifying the President hasrity benefits are taxed away if theywas adopted by my colleagues who voiced his support for eliminating thecontinue working. That isjust wrong. were elected m the regular election earnings limit.I commend the Com- This has gone on for far too long. Inwhich constituted the 100th Congress. mittee on Ways and Means for their at-fact, this was put into place back inAnd in one of our early meetings as a tention to this issue: and, likewise, thethe 1930s to discourage senior citizensclass, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Senate should be commended for theirfrom working. We are fortunate todayHASTERT), who was a member of our rapid attention in bringing the meas-to have a pretty good economy. Butclass, came up with the idea for a class ure to the floor, making their legisla-many times employers who are lookingproject. And our class project was to tion retroactive to December 31, 1999,for workers are told by senior citizensintroduce legislation and fight to re- so that those seniors who turn 65 thiswho would like to work that if they arepeal the earnings limit for seniors. for HOUSE H1447 March 28,2000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — I want to thank the gen- Social Security recipients. So we tookto the President, who strongly supports Again, this legislation. tleman from California (Mr. MATSUI), that upon ourselves to do. and we in- Again. I want to commend my col-the ranking member on the Democratic troduced legislation. leagues on both sides of the aisle for aside,and the gentleman from New So I rise today to give the gentleman York (Mr. RkNGEL). from Illinois (Mr. HASTERT) and thejob well done and for the bipartisan co- I want to com- dueoperation I think that we saw on both Ofcourse, again. class of the 100th Congress our sides of the aisle. That is why we werepliment the gentleman from Texas (Mr. credit for pushing this issue for the ARCHER), who has steadfastly stood for years and, finally today, wegainable to get 422 votes when the bill left last12 the House. I am sure the votewill beelimination of the earnings penalty for victory here on the House floor. unanimous here. many, many years now, as hedem- But surely every member of the Com- So, again, I urge a yes vote. onstrated on the House floor earlier. mittee on Ways andMeanswho saw the Madam Speaker, I yield back the bal- Madam Speaker, I yield back the bal- benefit of finally doing away with thisance of my time. ance of my time. antiquated law deserves credit: and I Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker Iyield The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. do not mind at all Democrats,Repub-myself such time as I may consume. BIGGERT). Pursuant to the order of the licans, everybody in the Housecoming Madam Speaker, when I was in myHouse of today the previous question to the floor and takingcredit for doingdistrict this last weekend, anolderis ordered. this. lady was working where we were eat- The question is on the motion offered It is certainly a happy day for seniorsing, and she was waiting ontables. Iby the gentleman from Florida(Mr. in this country, and I think ahappyhad helped her some years ago with aSHAW) to concur in the Senate amend- day for the Congress tofinally domatter concerning her son, whois veryment to H.R. 5. something that makes a lot of goodbadly retarded on an SSI matter. The question was taken: and the old-fashioned common sense to all of us I mentioned it to her, and I askedherSpeaker pro tempore announced that in this country but particularly ourher age. Her age is a little above65 butthe ayes appeared to have it. below 70. She is working waiting on ta- that seniors, our Social Security recipients. that Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, on I thank the Chair for yieldingand en-bles, very hard work for someone I demand the yeas and nays. courage him to keep up thegood work.age, on her feet all daylong, never The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker,I complains. And yet we are taxing her The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- yield2 minutes to the distinguishedat such an unconscionable rate.I toldant to clause 8 of rule XXand the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. BISHOP). her that we were going to bepassing only noChair's prior announcement, further Mr.BISHOP. Madam Speaker. I this and that she would not proceedings on this motion will be thank the gentleman for yielding melonger be penalized but that she waspostponed. this time. going to receive back thepenalties Madam Speaker, I feel it is a blessingthat she has incurred from thefirst of that many people today are able tothis year. continue working and leadingproduc- I do not know whether she reallybe- tive lives when they reach theirgoldenlieved me or not, but I am going tobe years. That is why Iurge my col-very pleased to go homeand tell her leagues to support the Senateamend-that indeed we did. And then Iwill go home again and tell her indeedthat the ments to this bill. President joined with this Congress Productivity helps give meaning to legisla- life. For many it helps prolonglife. and signed this great piece of tion. 0 1745 This is a first step, only a first step We should honor our seniors, nottowards Social Security reform, but it deny them what is rightfullytheirs.is one that is purely one offairness. It The earnings penalty is a disincentiveis so unfair for us to havecontinued to to work. In today's world, many sen-penalize older workers just simplybe- iors need the extra income,particu-cause they were betweenthe age of 65 larly when burdened with the high costand 70, saying that they could notkeep of prescription drugs and other essen-their entire benefit. So manyof them tial needs. With so many seniorsneed-had to work. Whether they werewait- ing every single penny,Madam Speak-ing on tables, whether they werework- er, we must help themin any way weing in construction, no matterwhat can. they were doing these wonderful peo- It is about time that we reach outple were working, many becausethey and help our mothers, our fathers,andjust wanted to work and manybecause, all those who have helped to shapethisas the case of Mary, shehad to work. of in- This is very important that we stay Nation. Currently, the amount also come withheldfrom Georgiabene-together on this legislation. And I ficiaries exceeds $91.2 millionyearlywant to compliment theother body. and more than $4.2 billion iswithheldThat is something we do not hear very nationally. This measure will not onlyoften in this House is complimentsfor put money in the pocketsof nearlythe other body, but they keptthis leg- 17,000 Georgians but more than700,000islation clean. itto be seniors nationwide. The President asked for Presidentclean. We asked for it to beclean, and Let us send this bill to the they obliged us and they passed aclean and eliminate this burdensome earn-bill. So I think this is really aland- ings penalty. mark day for this House. We are com- Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I reserve cooperation the balance of my time. ing together in complete Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker.Iwith the Democrats in the WhiteHouse yield myself such time as I may con-and with the Republicanscontrolling the legislative branch. sume. It is a wonderful day, and Iwould Madam SpeakerI would again Just and make urge my colleagues to votefor the con-urge all Members to vote yes ference report. Only two changes werethis again a unanimous statement by made that were technical in nature.this House of Representatives showing Obviously we want to move this bill onour commitment to Americanseniors.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —HOUSE March 28, 200( H 1450 Kaptur Nethercutt Shows Shuster Kasch Ney Simpson Kelly Northup Norwood Sisisky Kennedy Skeen Nussle Kildee Skelton Oberstar Kilpatrick Slaughter Kind (WI) Obey Smith (Ml) King fl'lY) Olver Smith (NJ) CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO Kingston Ortiz Smith (TX) SENIOR Kleczka Ose Smith (WA) WORKACT OF 2000 Knollenberg Owens Snyder SPEAKER pro tempore (MrS. Kolbe Oxley Souder The Packard Spence BIGGERT) Thepending business is the Kucinich of- Kuykendall Pallone Spratt questionof agreeing to the motion LaFalce Pascrell Stabenow feredby the gentleman fromFlorida LaHood Pastor Stark Stearns (Mr.SHAW)toconcur in the Senate LampSOn Paul to HR. 5. Lantos Payne Stenholm amendment Largent Pease Strickland Stump TheClerk read the title of the bill. Larson Pelosi Stupak TheSPEAKER protempore. TheLatham Peterson (MN) offered by Peterson (PA) Sununu questionis on the motion LaTourette Sweeney Petri thegentlemanfromFlorida(Mr. Lazio Talent Leach Phelps SHAW).on which the yeas and nays are Tancredo Lee Pickering Tanner ordered. electronic de- Levm Pickett Tauscher Thevote was taken by Lewis (CA) Pitts Tauzin vice,and there were—yeas 419, nays0, Lewis(GA) Pombo Taylor (MS) voting 16, as follows: Lewis(KY) Pomeroy Terry not Lipinski Porter Thomas (RollNo791 LoBondo Portman Thompson (CA) YEAS—419 Lofgren Price fl'1C) Thompson (MS) Lowey Pryce (OH) Thornberry AbercrOmbe Clay Gallegly Ganske Lucas (KY) Radanovich Thune Ackerman Clayton Thurman Clement Gejdenson Lucas (OK) Rahall Aderholt Ramstad Tiahrt Allen Clyburn Gekas Luther Gephardt Rangel Tierney Andrews Coble Maloney (CT) Regula Toomey Archer Coburn Gibbons Maloney fllY) Gilchrest Towns Armey Collins Manzullo Reyes Gilman Reynolds Traflcant Baca Combest Markey Turner Gonzalez Riley Bachus Condit Martinez tJdall (CO) Baird Conyers Goode Mascara Rivcrs Goodlattc tJdall M) Baker Cook Matsul Rodriguez Goodling Upton Baldacci Cooksey McCarthy (MO) Roemer Gordon Velazquez Baldwin Costello McCarthy (NY) Rogan Vcnto Ballenger Cox Goss Rogers Graham McCollum Visclosky Coyne Rohrabacher Barcia Granger McCrery Vitter Barr Cramer Ros-Lehtinen Green (TX) McDermott Walden Barrett (NE) Crowley Rothman Walsh Cubin Green (WI) McGovern Barrett (WI) McHugh Roukema Wamp Bartlett Cummings Greenwood Gutierrez Mclnnis Roybal-Allard Waters Barton Cunningham Gutknecht McIntyre Royce Watkins Bass Danner Hall (OH) McKeon Rush Watt (NC) Bateman Davis (FL) Watts (OK) Hall (TX) McKinney Ryan (WI) Becerra Davis (IL) Waxman Hansen Ryun (KS) Bentsen Davis (VA) McNulty Weiner Hastert Sabo Bereuter DeFazio Meehan Weldon (FL) Hastings (FL) Sanchez Berkley DeGette Meek (FL) Weller Hastings (WA) Sanders Berman Delahunt Menendez Wexler DeLauro Hayes Mica Sandlin Berry Hayworth Weygand Biggert DeLay Millender- Sanford Whitfield Hefley Bilbray DeMint McDonald Sawyer Wicker Bilirakis Deutsch Herger Saxton Hill (IN) Miller (FL) Wilson Bishop Diaz-Balart Millcr. Gary Scarborough Wise Dickey Hill (MT) Schaffer Blagojevich Hilleary Minge Wolf Bliley Dicks Mink Schakowsky Woolsey Dingell Hilliard Blumenauer Moakley Scott Wu Blunt Dixon Hinchey Hinojosa Moore Scnsenbrenner Wynn Boehlert Doggett Young (AK) Hobson Moran (KS) Serrano Bochner Dooley Young (FL) Hoeffel Moran (VA) Sessions Bonflla Doolittle Hoekstra Morella Shadegg Bonior Doyle Dreier Holden Murtha Shaw Bono Shays Borski Duncan Holt Myrick Hooley Sherman Boswell Dunn Nadler Horn Sherwood Boucher Edwards NapolitanO Ehlers Hostettler Neal Shimkus Boyd Houghton Brady (PA) Ehrlich Hoyer Brady (TX) Emerson NOT VOTING—16 Engel Hulshof Brown (FL) Canady Linder Quinn English Hunter Salmon Brown (OH) Hutchinson Mcintosh Bryant Eshoo Crane Taylor (NC) Etheridge Hyde Deal Mocks (NY) Burr Metcalf Weldon (PA) Burton Evans Inslee Franks (NJ) Isakson Miller. George Buyer Everett Gillmor Mollohan Callahan Ewing Istook Klink Jackson (IL) Calvert Farr Jackson-Lee Camp Fattah (TX) 01904 Campbell Filner Jefferson Cannon Fletcher Jenkins Capps Foley Sothe motion was agreed to. Capuano Forbes John announced Ford Johnson (CT) Theresult of the vote was Cardin Johnson. E. B Carson Fossella above recorded. Johnson, Sam as Castle Fowler motion to reconsider was laid on Chabot Frank (MA) Joncs (NC) A FrelinghuySen Jones (OH) Charnbliss Kanjorski thetable. Chenoweth-Hage Frost

H.R.5

en Iiundrdith onrzz oftht Enitd tatz of mrica

ATTHE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the CityofWashington on Monday, the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand nct Toaxxiend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the earnings test for individuals who have attained retirement age. 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 "Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000". SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EARNINGS TEST FOR INDIVIDUALSWHOHAVE A1TA1D RETIREMENT AGE. Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) is amended— (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking "the age of seventy" and inserting "retirement age (as defined in section 2 16(1))"; (2) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2) of subsection (d), by striking "the age of seventy" each place it appears and inserting "retirement age (as defined in section 216(1))"; (3) in subsection (f)(1)(B), by striking "was age seventy or over" and inserting "was at or above retirement age(as defined in section 216(1))"; (4) in subsection (f)(3), by striking "age 70" and inserting "retirement age (as defined in section 216(1))"; (5) in subsection (h)(1)(A), by striking "age 70" each place it appears and inserting "retirement age (as defined in section 216(1))"; and (6) in subsection (j)— (A) in the heading, by striking "age seventy" and inserting "retirement age"; and (B) by striking "seventy years of age" and inserting "having attained retirement age (as defmed in section 216(1))". SEC. 3. NONAPPLICATION OF RULES FOR COMPUTATION OF EXEMPT AMOUNT FOR INDIVIDUALSWHOHAVE AITAINED RETIREMENT AGE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 203(f)(8) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: "(E) Notwithstanding subparagraph (D), no deductions in benefits shall be made under subsection (b) with respect to the earnings of any individual in any month beginning with the month in which the inthvidual attains retirement age (as defined in section 2 16(1)).". H.R.5—2 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 203(f)(9) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(9)) is amended by striking "and (8)(D)," and inserting "(8)(D), and (8)(E),". SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. (a) ELIMINATION OF REDUNDANT REFERENCES TO RETIREMENT AGE.—Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) is amended— (1) in subsection (c), in the last sentence, by striking "nor shall any deduction" and all that follows and inserting "nor shall any deduction be made under this subsection from any widow's or widower's insurance benefit if the widow, surviving divorced wife, widower, or surviving divorced husband involved became entitled to such benefit prior to attaining age 60."; and (2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking clause (D) and inserting the following: "(D) for which such individua' is entitled to widow's or widower's insurance benefits if such individual became so entitled prior to attaining age 60,". (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO PROvISIONS FOR DETERMIMNG AMOuNT OF INCREASE ON AccouNT OF DELAYED RETIREMENT.— Section202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(w)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking "or suffered deductions under section 203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equa' to the amount of such benefit" and inserting "or, if so entitled, did not receive benefits pursuant to a request by such individual that benefits not be paid". SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to taxable years ending after December 31, 1999.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.

114 STAT. 198 PUBLIC LAW106—182—APR.7, 2000

Public Law 106—182 106th Congress An Act

Apr. 7, 2000 To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the earnings testfor individuals who have attained retirement age. [HR. 5] Be it enacted by the Senate and House ofRepresentatives of Senior Citizens' the United States of America in Congress assembled, Freedom to Work Act of 2000. SECTION 1. SHORT TiTLE. 421.J5C1305 This Act may be cited. as theSemor. Citizens Freedom to note. Work Act of 2000". SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EARNINGS TEST FOR INDiVIDUALSWHO HAVE ATTAINEDRETIREMENT AGE. Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42U.S.C. 403) is amended— (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking "the ageof seventy" and inserting "retirement age (as defined in section216(1))"; (2) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2) of subsection(d), by striking "the age of seventy" each place it appears andinserting "retirement age (as defined in section 2 16(1))"; (3) in subsection (f)(1)(B), by striking "was ageseventy or over" and inserting "was at orabove retirement age (as defined in section 216(1))"; (4) in subsection (f)(3), by striking "age 70"and inserting "retirement age (as defined in section 2 16(1))"; (5) in subsection (h)(1)(A), by striking "age70" each place it appears and inserting "retirement age (asdefined in section 2 16(1))"; and (6) in subsection (j)— (A) in the heading, by striking "ageseventy" and inserting "retirement age"; and (B) by striking "seventy years of age" andinserting "having attained retirement age (as defined insection 216(1))". SEC. 3. NONAPPLICATION OF RULES FOR COMPUTATIONOF EXEMPT AMOUNT FOR LNDWLDUALS WHO HAVEATTAINED RETIREMENT AGE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 203(f)(8) of the SocialSecurity Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)) is amended by adding at theend the following new subparagraph: "(E) Notwithstanding subparagraph (D), nodeductions in benefits shall be made under subsection (b) with respectto the earnings of any individual in any monthbeginning with the month in which the individual attains retirement age(as defined in section 216(1)).". PUBLIC LAW 106—182—APR. 7, 2000 114 STAT. 199

(b) CONFORMINGAMENI)MENT.—Section203(f)(9) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(9)) is amended by striking "and (8)(D)," and inserting "(8)(D), and (8)(E),". SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. (a) ELIMINATION OF REDUNDANT REFERENCES TO RETIREMENT AGE.—Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) is amended— (1) in subsection (c), in the last sentence, by striking "nor shall any deduction" and all that follows and inserting "nor shall any deduction be made under this subsection from any widow's or widower's insurance benefit if the widow, surviving divorced wife, widower, or surviving divorced husband involved became entitled to such benefit prior to attaining age 60."; and (2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking clause (D) and inserting the following: "(D) for which such individual is entitled to widow's or widower's insurance benefits if such individual became so entitled prior to attaining age 60,". (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO PROVISIONS FOR DETERMINING AMOUNT OF INCREASE ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYED RETIREMENT.— Section 202(w)(2)(B)(ii)of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(w)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking "or suffered deductions under section 203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal to the amount of such benefit" and inserting "or, if so entitled, did not receive benefits pursuant to a request by such individual that benefits not be paid". SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. 42 USC 402 note. The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to taxable years ending after December 31, 1999. Approved April 7, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5 (S. 279): HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106—507 (Comm. on Ways arid Means). CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Vol. 146 (2000): Mar. 1, considered and passed House. Mar. 21, 22, considered and passed Senate, amended. Mar. 28, House concurred in Senate amendment. WEEKLY COMPiLATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol.36(2000): Apr. 7, Presidential remarks. 0

Ad;ninist ration of WilliamJ. Clinton, 2000 / Apr. 7 761 Connecticut, who is the current Associate Commissioner for Retirement Policy. There are many leaders of the aging community here today; I welcome them. But most of all, I want to welcome this very large delegation from the United States Congress, and at risk of—if I forget anybody, do not be shy. But my notes say that present here today are: Chairman Bill Archer; our minority whip, David Bonior; Representative Ben •Cardin from Maryland; Representative Mac Collins from Georgia, who is here with his granddaughter who is happy that her grand- fathercancontinuetoworkintohis later years_[laughterl—Representative Joe Crowley from New York; Representative Sam Johnson from Texas; Representative Sandy Levin from Michigan; Representative John Lewis from Georgia; Representative Ron Lewis from Kentucky; Representative Bob Matsui from California; Representative Jim Ramstad from Minnesota; our subcommittee chair, Representative Clay Shaw from Florida; Representative John Spratt from South Carolina; Representative Jerry Weller from Illinois. I don't think I've missed anybody. And you should give them all a big hand; they did a fabulous job. [Applause] Over7 years ago now, when I took office, the Vice President and I made a commitment to a 21st centuly vision of America,with opportunity and responsibility for all American Remarks on Signing the Senior. citizens and a community of all American Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of citizens. To do it we thought we wouldhave 2000 to reward both work and family and create a Government thatwould borrow less and Apñl7,2000 invest more. For 7 years, we've worked hard Thankyou. Let me say, first of all, to Floon that. Mallonee, I thought she did a great job. Her Today, the size of the Government is about family must be very proud of her. And if youwhat it was in 1960, 40 years ago, thanks, get tired of the job you're in, you might con-in large measure, to higher productivityfrom sider elected office. [Laughter] the Federal work force and the advent of new I'dlike to welcome all the former Social technologies. Thanks to strong cooperative Security Commissioners here and say a spe- efforts in the Congress, we have turned cial word of appreciation to our currentrecord deficits into surpluses, and we've en- Commissioner, Ken Apfel, and Deputy Com-joyed the longest economic expansion in his- missioner Bill Halter. I'd also like to acknowl-tory. edge the contributions of Jim Roosevelt, until We've tried to find ways to reward work recently, the Associate Commissioner for Re- and family, doubling the earned-income tax tirement Policy at the Social Security Admin-creditfor working families with modest istration, something thatwould have mademeans, passing the Familyand Medical his grandfather veryproud of him; andLeave Act, improving the college loan pro- former RepresentatiVeBarbara Kennelly ofgram, and providing tax creditsfor college 762 Apr. 7 I Administration of WillianzJ. Clinton, 2000

costs that were never there before, and many That's true. Increasingly, older Americans other initiatives. But we know, increasingly,want to work. Many' of them for various rea- how we deal with Social Security will bea sons need to work. And we know, as a prac- test of our commitment to family and, in-tical matter, that unless they're in terrifically creasingly, to work. physically draining jobs, that continuingto In the 65 years since President Rooseveltwork ma)' well add not only to the length signed it into law, Social Security has dra- but to the quality of their lives. matically transformed the lives of older and Today, one in four Americans between 65 disabled Americans. Seniors wereonce the and 69 has at least a part-time job. Eighty poorest people in America. Today, thanks topercent of the baby boomers say they intend Social Security, they are the least likely toto keep working past age 65. And I'm the live in poverty. In spite of the fact thatmanyoldest of the baby boomers, so Ican speak seniors enjoy other sources of income, iffor our generation. One of thereasons I went there were no Social Security in America, al-to law school is so nobody could ever force most half the seniors in the country wouldme to retire. [LaughterJ Although, I spent be below the poverty line. the better part of my life trying to escape Thanks to Social Security, many ofourlaw practice—{laughterJ—I still remember seniors have a level of independence that fewvividly how I felt about it, even asa young older Americans could even have dreamed man, and I still have some solace in that. of 65 years ago. And thanks to Social Secu- Yet, because of the Social Security retire- rity, we Americans continue to uphold thement earnings test,the system withholds sacred compact between the generations. benefits from over 800,000 older working But FDR himself said, and I quote, that AmeriOans and discourages countless more— 'Socia Security represents a cornerstone inno one knows how many—from actually a structure which is by no means complete,"seeking work. It has long seemed senseless and that 'new conditions impose newre- to me. quirements upon Government and those who In the 1992 campaign, Vice President conduct Government." He would have beenGore and I campaigned on scrapping the re- the first to agree, I believe, that Social Secu-tirement earnings test. When it became obvi- rity must change to keep pace with changingous that the work that we had all done to- times in America. gether to balance the budget and run asur- The system originally was designed toen-plus and to stabilize the fund would make courage older Americans to retire by with-it possible to do so with no adverse impact, holdinu benefits from those 65 and older whoin my 1999 State of the Union Address, I workeä'. Keep in mind,65 years ago, when proposed it. Social Security was initiated, the life expect- But what has happened here is truly aston- ancy in this country was not 65. The so-calledishing. I hope this will go out allacross Amer- retirement earnings test made some sense in ica today. All you ever hear is how much we the Great Depression, when the Nationwas fight up here. This bill passed unanimously. desperate to find jobs for young workers withNobody was against this. And it is a tribute families and the unemployment rate inourto the people who work on these issues in Nation was 25 percent. the Conuress and those who have listened Conditions today could hardly bemore dif- to them,ut also it shows that there is a keen ferent. The economy is booming, theunem-awareness here of how the aging of America ployrnent rate at its lowest point in 30years. and the improved financial condition ofour Companies desperately need more workers. country and our Government has totally Older Americans have the skills and theex- changed the landscape. perience that businesses need. Indeed, one But Ithinkitalso reflects the under- of the most interesting things thatwas saidstanding that this is a genuine human rights to me today before we started i—Flo saidissue. We want people to have this right to it's a good thing we did this, because she'dchoose the life the)' want or they need. The be hard to replace at her present position.Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act means [Laughter] that hundreds of thousands of older working Administration of WilliamJ. Clinton, 2000 / Apr.7 763 Adminis- Americans will get checks nextmonth reim-do is to log on to the Social Security tration's vebsite, vww.ssa.gov, and click on bursiiig them for all the Social Securitybene- planner. fits withheld this year. the new Social Security retirement Yesterday morning, in Chappaqua, NewIt provides estimates of futurebenefits based and estimated future York, I went to get my morning cupof coffee on your past, present, village—[laug/iter]—and aincome, and a new toolfor the growing le- in my new little learning to use lady came up to me and said, "Youknow, gion of Americans who are teacher, and my districtnew technologies tomake their own invest- I'm a public school plans. needs me. But I'm 65 years old. Are you guysment decisions and retirement Two days ago, at the \Vhite HouseCon- ever going to getaround to lifting that earn- know—it's terrible—I'm ference on the New Economy, Idiscussed ings test?" And you how Gov- embarrassed to tell you this, but I canhardlywith leading experts on technology keep up with my schedule from oneday toernment could use the Internet to empower remember that I wasindividuals and strengthen civil society.This the next, and I didn't planner is just a srñall but doing it the day after tomorrow. Isaid, "Innew retirement you'll. be very happy." powerful example of the kind of innovations just a few days I think transform [Laughter] So if you're looking at me today— that I believe have the potential to the relationship between theUnited States [laughter]—we did it. people. This bill not only means that ourseniors Government and the American and per- Let me, finally, just add onecautionary will be able to enjoy extra income today are pro- sonal fulfillment that comes withwork with- and hopeful note. These steps companiesfoundly important but I believe weshould out being penalized. It means I think with labor shortages will have a freshsupplydo more to strengthen Social Security. abilitywe should extendthe life of the Trust Fund of experienced workers, increasing our while to grow withoutinflation. In the future, itwell into the middle of this century, workingstrengthening benefits for older womenliv- will mean more baby boomers much more likely to longer, contributing more to the taxbase and ing alone, who are still to the Social Security TrustFund at preciselybe in poverty than other seniors. of younger Last fall,I proposed legislation to pay the time when the percentage 1835 workers payiig into the system will bedrop-down our debt for the first time since and use the benefits of debtreduction, which ping. would now—if we took the benefitsof debt This is a big deal. If present work rates of the continue and present birth rates and presentreduction that we're getting because immigration rates continue, when allthesurplus in Social Security tax collections now, will only be the benefits are manifested inlower interest baby boomers get in here, there States on this debt two people working for every one person payments for the United This may alsoas we pay thedebt down. If we took those drawingSocialSecurity. benefit, and we change that and help to further stabilizethe lower interest payments, that put it into the Socia'Security Trust Fund, Social Security Trust Fund itself. life of the Trust Fund The retirement earnings test meanshigherwe could extend the to 2054, which willbe well beyond the life benefits for—ending it means higher benefits fortunate baby for working seniors with no negativeef- expectancy of all but the most effectsboomers. fects—I say this again—no negative Congress to pass on the long-term fiscalhealth of the Social I hope we can work with right thingthat plan this year. It is asimple measure. Security Trust Fund. So it's the We may to do for seniors, but it'salso a smart thingSome of us would like to do more. not be able to do more in anelection year, for our Nation. where there are genuine andhonest dif- I'm also pleased today to announce an- and even other important innovation to upgradeSocialferences between the two parties within the parties about how toproceed on Security for the information age. Beginning could simply today, Americans of any age can find outin this issue. But at least, if we benefittake the interest savings the Americanpeäpe seconds what their Social Security Security taxes, levels will be In the future. All they have to have given us with their Social 764 Apr.7 / Administration of vVilliamJ. Clinton,2000 which are now in surplus over distribution, Now I'd like to invite the Membersof and pay the interest savings frompayingCongress to come up here for the bill signing. down the debt into the Trust Fund, thinkAnd I'd like to invite the seniorsto go over of it: We'd have 54 years on the life of thethis way and kind of stand behindme, too. Social Security Trust Fund. So I hopewe can do that. NOTE: The President spoke at 11a.m. in the Pres- I also hope we can strengthen incentives idential Hal! in the Dwight D. EisenhowerExecu- for working families to save by passing the tive Office Building. In his remarks, he referred to Florence Mallonee, Social Security recipient, retirement savings plan that I reconu-nended.who introduced the President. H.R. 5, approved And I hope we can expand high-quali'pen- April 7, was assigned Public Law No. 106—182. sion coverage for millions of workers. I have proposed tax credits for small businessesto establish good pensions for their employees. It's harder for them, and I think we ought to give them more help to do it. Again I say, conventional wisdom says that nothing important happens in Washingtonin an election year. Today we have proved the corwentional wisdom wrong. This isan election year. This is important, and it happened by unanimous vote of the UnitedStates House of Representatives and Senate. So,so much for the conventional wisdom, and good for the seniors in America and those ofus who hope to be part of the doubling of the senior population in the next 30years. Let me also say, I think it's importantto point out that it's not just seniors who should be happy about this, and I'm glad Flo has got her whole family here. One of the most profound worries of the baby boomgenera- tion is that, because we are so large, when we retire, if we haven't made adequate provision for it, our retirement will imposea big burden on our children and their abilityto raise our grandchildren. So tlils should be a happy day for Americans of all ages today, because a veiy good thing has been donefor the future. So I thank you all for being here. I look forward to working withyou to further strengthenSocialSecurity,to strengthen Medicare. I hope we can agree to adda prescription drug benefit there. I hopewe can reauthorize the Older Americans Act. I hope we can do a lot of other things this year. But the spirit—again, I want to thank theMem- bers of Congress, the RepubIicns andthe Democrats, for the spirit behind thisaction. This is how America is supposedto work. You have done a good thing today. Thank you veiy much.

SOCIAL SECURITY Office of the Commissioner

March 29, 2000

The Honorable Jacob Joseph Lew Director Office of Management and Budget Old Executive Office Building, Rm. 252 17th andPennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20503

Dear Mr. Lew:

This is in response to your requestfor our views on the enrolledbill, H.R. 5, the "Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000."

We have reviewed the bill. The bill supportsthe Administration's positionthat it is important to modernize the SocialSecurity system by eliminating theoutdated retirement provide that earnings in earnings test at normal retirement age.As passed, the bill would currently age 65, would and after the month the personattains full-benefit retirement age, not affect the person'sSocial Security benefits. supplement their Social This change will give many olderAmericans the opportunity to workforce. I strongly Security benefits while remainingproductive members of the recommend that the President approveH.R. 5.

Sincerely,

Kenneth S. Apf I Commissioner of Social Security

Enclosure: Summary of H.R. 5

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATIONBALTIMORE MD 21235-0001 H.R. 5 SeniorCitizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000

Section-by-Section Description

Section 1

This Act may be cited as the "Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000".

Section 2

Under current law, Social Security benefits for beneficiaries under age 70 are generally reduced if they have earnings over a certain amount. For beneficiaries who have reached the full-benefit retirement age (now age 65,butscheduled to gradually rise to age 67) and are under age 70 in 2000, Social Security benefits are seduced $1 for every $3ofearnings above $17,000 per year. The $17,000 threshold is scheduled to rise to $25,000 in 2001, $30,000 for 2002, and be indexed to increases in average wages thereafter.

Section 2 of the bill makes several amendments to section 203 of the Social Security Act to provide that the age at which the earnings limit no longer applies is changed from the month the beneficiary reaches age 70 to the month of attainment of the full-benefit retirement age.

Section 3

Section 3 provides that any deductions from benefits on account of earnings do not apply to earnings in and after the month the beneficiary reaches the full-benefit retirement age. In applying the earnings limit for the year in which a person reaches the full-benefit retirement age, the earnings threshold that applies under current law ($17,000 for 2000) would continue to apply for January of that year to the month prior to the month in which a person attains full-benefit retirement age.

Section 4

Section 4 would make additional conforming changes, including a conforming change to the delayed retirement credit provision, which can increase a retired worker's benefit. This section would allow retired workers who are already on the benefit rolls to accrue delayed retirement credits for any month between full-benefit retirement age and age 70 for which they elect not to receive a benefit.

Section 5

Theamendments made by the Act are effective with respect to taxable years ending after December 31, 1999.

LE67SL/J hUE BiiII et Iii

106-16 February 29, 2000

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS 4ND MEANS MARKS UP H.R. 5 THE "SENIOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 2000"

On February 29, 2000, the House Committee on Ways and Means marked up H.R. 5, the "Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000." The House will consider the bill on March 1, 2000.

As reported by the full committee, the bill would eliminate the Social Security retirement earnings test in and after the month in which a person attains normal retirement age.

Elimination of the retirement test would be effective with respect to taxable years ending after 12/31/99.

The current law regarding the retirement earnings test would apply to those individuals attaining age 65 in calendar year 2000 for the months before they attained age 65.

1 of 1 LE6ISLJ1 1/lIE BuI I et iii 106-17 March 1, 2000

HOUSE PASSES H.R. 5, TilE"SENIORCITIZENS' FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 2000"

On March 1, 2000, the House passed by a vote of 422 to 0 (with 13 members not voting) H.R. 5,the"Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000."

As passed, the bill would eliminate the Social Security retirement earnings test in and after the month in which a person attains normal retirement age.

Elimination of the retirement test would be effective with respect to taxable years ending after 12/31/99.

The current law regarding the retirement earnings test would apply to those individuals attaining age 65incalendar year 2000 for the months before they attained age 65.

Thebill was introduced on March 1, 1999, and reported by the Subcommittee on Social Security on February 16, 2000. On February 29, 2000, the bill was further amended by the full committee on Ways and Means and approved by the committee by a voice vote. The House passed the bill without further amendment. Senate action is pending.

1 of 1

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR LEGISLATION AND CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS LE6ISII1 1/lIE

1.1I I t11 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 106-18 March 23,2000

SENATEPASSES H.R. 5, THE "SENIOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO WORKACT OF 2000"

On March 22, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 5, the "SeniorCitizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000," by a vote of 100-0. The House passed adifferent version of the bill on March 1, 2000. Rather than convene a House/Senateconference to iron out bill differences, the House is expected to take up the Senate-passedversion of the bill shortly.

As passed, the bill would eliminate the Social Securityretirement earnings test in and after the month in which a person attains full retirement age.Elimination of the retirement test would be effective with respect to taxable yearsending after December 31, 1999.

The Senate bill also includes provisions which were notincluded in the House-passed bill that:

o Would, in the calendar year the beneficiary attains the full retirement age,permanently apply the earnings limit for those at the full retirement age through age69 ($17,000 in 2000) and the corresponding reduction rate ($1 for $3 offset) to allmonths prior to attainment of the full retirement age. (In applying the earnings test forthis calendar year, only earnings before the month ofattainment of full retirement age are considered.) The earnings threshold would rise to $25,000 in 2001,$30,000 in 2002, and then rise thereafter in conjunction with increases in average wages.The earnings limit would not apply beginning with the month the beneficiaryreaches full retirement age.

o Would, beginning with the month in which the beneficiary reachesfull retirement age and ending with the month prior to attainment of age 70,permit the retired worker to earn a delayed retirement credit for anymonth for which the retired worker requests that benefits not be paid even though he/she is already on thebenefit rolls.

1 of 1

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR LEGISLATION AND CONGRESSIONALAFFAIRS LEGISLATIVE

• SOCIAL SECURITY IiiI I etI fl ADMINISTRATION 106-19 March 29,2000

THEHOUSE PASSED H.R. 5, THE"SENIOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 2000

On March 28, 2000, the House of Representatives agreed to the Senate amendment to H.R. 5,the 'Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000," by a recorded vote of 419-0 and cleared the measure for transmission to the President.

As passed, the bill o Would eliminate the Social Security retirement earnings test in and after the month in which a person attains full retirement age--currently age 65.Eliminationof the retirement test would be effective with respect to taxable years ending after December 31, 1999. o Would, in the calendar year the beneficiary attains the full retirement age, permanently apply the earnings limit for those at the full retirement age through age 69 ($17,000 in 2000) and the corresponding reduction rate ($1 for $3 offset) to all months prior to attainment of the full retirement age.(In applying the earnings test for this calendar year, only earnings before the month of attainment of full retirement age are considered.) The earnings threshold would rise to $25,000 in 2001, $30,000 in 2002, and then rise thereafter in conjunction with increases in average wages. The earnings limit would not apply beginning with the month the beneficiary reaches full retirement age. o Would, beginning with the month in which the beneficiary reaches full retirement age and ending with the month prior to attainment of age 70, permit the retired worker to earn a delayed retirement credit for any month for which the retired worker requests that benefits not be paid even though he/she is already on the benefit rolls.

The House originally passed the bill on March 1, 2000. On March 22, 2000 the Senate passedan amended version of the bill.

1 of 1

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR LEGISLATION AND CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS LEGISLATIVE SOCIALSECURITY Bulletin• ADMINISTRATION April 7, 2000 106-20 TilEPRESIDENT SIGNSH.R. 5, THE"SENIORCITIZENS' FREEDOM TO WORK ACTOF 2000"

Today, President Clinton signed into lawH.R. 5,theSenior Citizens' Freedom To Work Act of 2000. As yet, a public law numberhas not been assigned.

The legislation: in and after the month in which o Eliminates the Social Security retirement earnings test a person attains fullretirement age--currently age 65.Eliminationof the retirement test would be effective with respect to taxable yearsending after December 31, 1999. applies o In the calendar year the beneficiaryattains the full retirement age, permanently the earnings limit for those at thefull retirement age through age 69($17,000 in 2000, $25,000 in 2001 and $30,000 in 2002) and thecorresponding reduction rate ($1 for $3 offset) to all months prior to attainment of thefull retirement age.(In applying the earnings test for this calendar year, onlyearnings before the month of attainmentof full retirement age are considered.) beneficiary reaches full retirement age o Permits, beginning with the month in which the and ending with the month prior toattainment of age 70, the retired worker to earn a delayed retirement credit for any month forwhich the retired worker requests that benefits not be paid even though he/she isalready on the benefit rolls.

On March 1, 2000, the Houseapproved an earlier version of H.R. 5.TheSenate approved an amended version of the legislation on March22, 2000. The House agreed to theSenate amendment to the legislation and cleared the measurefor transmission to the President on March 28, 2000. For additional detail, seeLegislative Bulletins 106-16 through106-19.

1 of 1

AFFAIRS OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERFOR LEGISLA11ON AND CONGRESSIONAL

106TH CONGRESS 1ST SEssioN

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate theearnings test for individuals who have attained retirement age.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITEDSTATES

JANUARY21,1999 Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. KYL, and Mr. hELMS) introducedthe following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL To amend title II of the Social SecurityAct to eliminate the earnings test for individuals who haveattained retirement age.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House ofRepresent a- 2 tives of the United States of America inCongress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the "Senior Citizens'Free- 5 dom to Work Act of 1999". 6 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EARNINGS TEST FORINDIVID-

7 UALS WHO HAVE A11'A1IED RETIREMENT

8 AGE.

9 Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 10 403) is amended— 2

1 (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking "the age of

2 seventy" and inserting "retirement age (as defined

3 in section 216(1))"; 4 (2) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2) of subsection

5 (d),by striking "the age of seventy" each place it

6 appears and inserting "retirement age (as defined in

7 section 216(1))";

8 (3)in subsection (f)(1)(B), by striking "was

9 age seventy or over" and inserting "was at or above

10 retirement age (as defined in section 216(1))";

11 (4) in subsection (f)(3)—

12 (A) by striking "33'/3 percent" and all

13 that follows through "any other individual," 14 and inserting "50 percent of such individual's

15 earnings for such year in excess of the product

16 of the exempt amount as determined under

17 paragraph (8),"; and

18 (B) by striking "age 70" and inserting 19 "retirement age (as defined in section 216(1))"; 20 (5)in subsection (h)(1)(A), by striking "age

21 70" each place it appears and inserting "retirement 22 age (as defined in section 216(1))"; and 23 (6) in subsection (j)— 24 (A) in the heading, by striking "Age Sev- 25 enty" and inserting "Retirement Age"; and

•S 279 Is 3

1 (B) by striking "seventy years of age" and

2 inserting "having attained retirement age (as

3 defined in section 216(1))".

4 SEC.3.CONFORMING AMENDMENTSELIMINATINGTHE

5 SPECIALEXEMPTAMOUNT FORINDIVIDUALS

6 WHOHAVEATTAINED RETIREMENT AGE.

7 (a) UNIFORM EXEMPT AMOTJNT.—Section

8203(f) (8) (A)of theSocialSecurity Act (42U.S.C. 9 403(f)(8)(A)) is amended by striking"the new exempt 10 amounts (separately stated for individualsdescribed in

11subparagraph (D) and for other individuals) which are to 12 be applicable" and inserting "a new exempt amountwhich

13shall be applicable".

14 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 15 203(f(8)(B)of theSocialSecurity Act (42U.S.C. 16 403(f)(8)(B)) is amended—

17 (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by strik-

18 ing "Except" and all that follows through "which-

19 ever" and inserting "The exempt amount whichis

20 applicable for each month of a particular taxable

21 year shall be whichever";

22 (2)in clauses(i)and (ii), by striking "cor-

23 responding" each place it appears; and

24 (3) in the last sentence, by striking "an exempt

25 amount" and inserting "the exempt amount".

.S 279 Is 4

1 (c) REPEAL OF BASIS FOR COMPUTATION OF SPE- 2 CIA1 EXEMPT AMOUNT.—Section 203(f)(8)(D) of the So-

3cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. (f)(8)(D)) is repealed.

4 SEC. 4. AJ)DITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

5 (a)ELIMINATION OF REDUNDANT REFERENCES TO

6RETIREMENTAoE.—Section 203 of the Social Security 7 Act (42 U.S.C. 403) is amended—

8 (1) in subsection (c), in the last sentence, by

9 striking "nor shall any deduction" and all that fol-

10 lows and inserting "nor shall any deduction be made

11 under this subsection from any widow's or widower's

12 insurance benefit if the widow, surviving divorced

13 wife, widower, or surviving divorced husband in-

14 volved became entitled to such benefit prior to at-

15 taming age 60."; and

16 (2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking clause (D)

17 and inserting the following: "(D) for which such in-

18 dividual is entitled to widow's or widower's insurance

19 benefits if such individual became so entitled prior 20 to attaining age 60,".

21 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO PRoVISIoNS FOR

22 DETERMINING AMOUNT OF INCREASE ON ACCOUNT OF 23 DELAYED RETmEiNT.—Section 202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of the

24 SocialSecurity Act(42U.S.C.402(w)(2)(B)(ii))is 25 amended—

.S 279 IS 5

1 (1) by striking "either"; and

2 (2) by striking "or suffered deductions under

3 section 2 03(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal to the

4 amount of such benefit".

5 (c)PROVISIONS RELATING TO EARNINGS TxN

6INTOACCOUNT IN DETERMINING SUBSTANTIAL GAINFUL

7ACTiVITYOF BLIND INrnvmUALS.—The secondsentence

8of section 223(d)(4)(A) of the Social SecurityAct (42 9 U.S. C. 423(d) (4) (A)) is amended bystriking "if section 10 102 of the Senior Citizens' Right to WorkAct of 1996 11 had not been enacted" and inserting thefollowing: "if the 12 amendments to section 203 made by section102 of the

13Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996 and bythe 14 Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of1999 had not 15 been enacted".

16 SEC. 5. EFFECTiVE DATE.

17 The amendments and repeals made by this Actshall

18apply with respect to taxable years ending afterDecember

1931, 1998. 0

.S 279 Is