[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 172 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16585-S16589]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  SENIOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO WORK ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I want to pay tribute to Senator 
McCain. There is not a more fierce advocate of his position in this 
area. He has been that way since I have known him. I have been on the 
other side of the issue all that time, also. We have serious 
disagreement. But I have a deep respect and admiration for him. He has 
been of great assistance to me in dealing with the tough issues on the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee, like POW's/MIA's. No one speaks with more 
credibility and integrity than this man from Arizona. So I want that 
clearly on record.
  As to Senator Kerrey, let me share with my colleagues here that I 
hope you heard every word that Senator Kerrey was saying, because every 
word that he was saying is absolutely true with regard to Social 
Security.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot continue to leave out of serious 
total discussion something that is $360 billion a year, and we are not 
touching it. You do not dare touch it. That is why this will pass. Do 
not worry about the 60 votes on a point of order. Do not worry about 70 
or 80; it will pass by 90 to 10.
  Then we will deal with it. We will ``find the money.'' I hear that 
plea. I can understand that clearly.
  This, however, in my mind, does not comport with the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution which I voted for the other day, because it said if 
it can be done ``without injuring the long-term solvency of Social 
Security or negatively impacting the deficit.''
  What this fundraising mechanism does is get the money short term, but 
in the long term it is absolutely devastating.
  Now, this legislation, in my mind, does violate the Budget Act 
because it increases outlays in the Finance Committee area of 
jurisdiction during the 5-year budget windows of 1996 to 2000. I hope 
the Senate will sustain the point of order lying against it, but I know 
that will be a very remote possibility because I am sure the phone 
lines are jingling right now as to the fact that we are going to free 
up senior citizens to do what they need to do. We may well be doing 
that between these ages of 65 and 70, which has been apparently a very 
vigorous movement in America with regard to the earnings limit.
  There is not a single person in this body that has been more 
dedicated to that issue in all my time of serving with him than the 
Senator from Arizona. I am sympathetic. The rest of the Senate is 
sympathetic. They will prove it in their votes. There is no question 
that Americans are living longer and are productive for a longer time. 
Our retirement policy should reflect that.
  Let me caution my colleagues and the vapors of the day that it will 
pass in the Chamber as we vote this because I know how this game works. 
This is a $360 billion program, the biggest and largest of all handled 
by the Federal Government. Millions of Americans depend upon it. They 
should not, but they do. They never should have under the original 
Social Security law because it was never intended to be a pension. 
Regardless of what the senior groups may tell you, it is not a pension. 
It was an income supplement, very well put together, as the Senator 
from Nebraska has pointed out.
  A majority of Americans who stand to retire some day--and almost all 
of us hope to and many of us in this line of work hope we get out 
before they throw us out--some day will be dependent upon it as a 
principal source of income. It is not right that it should be, but 
nevertheless it is.
  It is very difficult to craft it now in these later years to be a 
principal source of income when it was never intended to be a principal 
source of income but only a supplemental source of income. That is all 
very well reflected.
  I just want to review the bidding one more time as to what you put 
into this--as people complain vigorously about what they are getting 
out--and give some very critical comments about COLA's and why are the 
seniors being treated this way.
  Let me put it in a very personal way. I am 64 years old. I have 
worked since I was 15. My first job was at the Cody Bakery in Cody, WY. 
I was the person who put that remarkable strawberry clear glop in the 
middle of the sweet roll. That was my job. You went tick, tick like 
that every morning. Somehow I have never eaten one of those again and 
never shall. That was my job.
  Do you know what I put into Social Security that year? Five bucks--
they really bit me that year, 1959. Worked at the B4 Ranch, did not put 
in a nickel. Off to college after high school, never put in a nickel. 
Never earned enough in the summer--there was an earnings limit--I never 
earned enough in the summer to contribute to Social Security. Went to 
the army. Never put in a nickel in those years. Got out. Went to finish 
law school. Started to practice law.
  The first year I practiced law, I put in $59 that year. Then the old 
man put me to work and he kept the money. I remember how that worked in 
the partnership. I put a shingle up and it said ``Simpson and Father,'' 
and he never got over that--instead of ``Simpson and Son.'' But I had a 
dear, loving father and we worked together.
  Then for all the years of my practice--I hope you will hear this--I 
never put in over $874 a year and neither did anyone else in America. 
Got it--874 bucks a year and self-employed, and no other person did 
either, because there was a cap. A person could make $100,000 a year 
and the cap was $12,000. A person could make $1 million and the cap was 
set at $12,000 or $8,900 or whatever it is, and you applied the 
percentage rate to that. I understand what Social Security is and what 
it was. So, earning the maximum, from the year 1959 until 1976, I never 
put in over $874 per year.
  Then off to Washington: $1,200 a year, a real hit there, and then 
$1,500 a year, and then $2,000 a year and then $3,000 a year up in the 
late 1980's, and now I think I am up to 4,200 bucks a year.
  Got it? If I retire at 65 I will receive $1,120 a month--got it? If I 
save my strength until the age of 70 and not take it until then, I will 
receive $1,540 a month. That is the way it is. That is Social Security. 
It cannot be sustained. There is no way it can be sustained.
  When I was a freshman at the University of Wyoming, there were 16 
people paying into this system and one person taking benefits; today 
there are three people paying into the system and one person taking 
benefits. In 20 years, there will be two people paying into the system, 
one taking benefits. Everybody in this Chamber knows that. Everybody 
who is a trustee of the Social Security Administration knows that.
  So this continual ritual is played out that somehow we are doing 
something hideous to senior citizens. If you retired in 1960, you got 
all your money back in the first 2\1/2\ years, plus interest. Got it in 
2\1/2\ years, every penny back.
  In the 1970's, you got it all back in 3 years. Today, if you retired, 
you get it all back in 6\1/2\ years, plus interest.
  That is where we are, a totally unsustainable system. Who is telling 
us that? The trustees. Are the trustees all Ronald Reagan Republicans 
or far-right legions? No. No, they are not. The trustees are Robert 
Rubin, Robert Reich, Donna Shalala, Shirley Chater--one Republican, one 
Democrat--telling us very simply, in the year 2013 there will not be 
sufficient revenue coming in under this pay-as-you-go plan, only 

[[Page S 16586]]

sufficient revenue to pay the benefits right there. At that point, in 
2012, you have no choice but to cash in the bonds. You take the IOU's 
and you cash them in.
  If this passes, the interest rate is going to be .25 percent more. It 
will be good for the short term. It will take care of this for the 
short term. That is the Senator's intent. But if this is long-term 
solvency, it does not meet that test. It does not, because when cash-in 
time comes, you will pay more because the interest rate is higher and 
you pay more.
  I just think we should be very, very careful about making Social 
Security policy or any policy which may increase outlays without 
sufficient offsets on the floor of the Senate. I hope my colleagues 
will see this legislation, as I say, does not follow the sense-of-the-
Senate vote last week. I know this is the intention.
  I attribute not a single ulterior motive to the Senator from Arizona. 
He is a believer. He says to me often, ``Look, I will get a vote on 
that, regardless of where you are.'' And he will and he does.  And that 
is his forte.

  But, as chairman of the Social Security and Family Policy 
Subcommittee, we have not had a hearing on this. Win, lose, or draw, I 
will promise one on this. It makes no difference what happens here. I 
think we need to have a hearing on this to see that it comports with 
the long-term solvency of Social Security.
  The measure before us acknowledges that increases in the earnings 
limit will itself worsen the solvency of Social Security, so the 
offsets are offered. First, of course, is the across-the-board cut in 
discretionary funding. I have now information--I want to submit it for 
the Record--I think it is very important that we have these figures, 
that this measure cannot be scored as producing the necessary savings. 
This is from Congressional Budget Office today.
  This constitutes, thus, a violation of the Budget Act. This 
legislation, according to CBO, would add $9.9 billion to the budget 
deficit. That is a violation of the Budget Act.
  I point out to my colleagues, even if this offset were to make up for 
the projected increases in the deficit, it would not resolve the 
question of solvency in the Social Security trust fund itself. I hope 
you hear that. That offset money is going to come from the general 
appropriated revenue. Thus, the balance sheet within Social Security 
would not be improved, and that is what we have to improve if we are to 
meet the sense-of-the-Senate recommendation. It would not be improved 
in any way.
  Thus, I believe this offset would not meet the terms of that vote 
which we state we would only increase the earnings limit if--if--if the 
solvency of Social Security were not adversely affected.
  And finally, another proposed offset--and here is the one--you do not 
have to listen to it, you do not have to do anything with it, pitch it, 
throw it over the side of the ship, but the other proposed offset is a 
devastating one. It increases the interest rates paid on obligations 
within the Social Security trust fund.
  My understanding of this--and the Senator is here and can educate 
me--but my understanding of this measure is that it will provide a 
short-term infusion of capital. It will do that. I will agree to that. 
I will agree that that is the case. But over the long term and the long 
run, it would mean higher costs, higher outlays as the Social Security 
trust fund is drawn down. In fact, this legislation goes so far as to 
increase the interest paid, if I read it--and I need to know this--to 
increase the interest rate paid on such bonds that have already been 
issued, effectively reissuing them at higher rates of return, with 
potentially severe consequences for the long-term solvency of the trust 
fund.
  I am told that the increase in interest rates would bring the overall 
long-term costs up toward--and, in some cases, even beyond--the so-
called high-cost scenario which is used by the trustees of the Social 
Security system to measure the long-term solvency of Social Security. 
They tell us where the high-cost scenario is, the low-cost, the mid-
cost.
  In other words, then, such a measure would move the crash date for 
Social Security closer in time than it is under current policy. And 
remember where the crash date is today? It is 2029, crash date. Where 
was it in the early 1980's, after Senator Moynihan and many others of 
our fine colleagues righted that listing program? It was 2063. Now it 
is 2029. In another year, I suppose they will move it up to 2025. Then 
crater day will be 2020.
  So I have also asked the Social Security actuaries to review the 
consequences of the legislation and I expect to have that from them 
shortly. My mind is not closed on the subject. I will work with this 
fine friend and Senator, as chairman of the Social Security and Family 
Policy Subcommittee; be pleased to have the Senator as a witness, hold 
hearings. He has been a leader. I know he will continue to be, and 
indeed he will.
  But in the present moment I do not believe that in any sense we 
should go forward. I think the Senate should sustain the budget point 
of order lying against this legislation. This is far too serious an 
issue to be dealt with in this way on the floor of the Senate. I hope 
the Senate will not take an action which could conceivably worsen the 
long-term outlook--I am talking about the long-term outlook for Social 
Security, or which will cause an increase in the outlays permitted to 
the Finance Committee under the terms of the Budget Act.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent a letter dated today from 
June E. O'Neill of the Congressional Budget Office, citing the figures 
and where we are with regard to this additional $9.9 billion, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                 Washington, DC, November 2, 1995.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to a request from your 
     staff, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has prepared the 
     attached cost estimate for S. 1372, the Senior Citizens' 
     Freedom to Work Act. The estimate is based on the bill as 
     introduced, with modifications that the sponsors expect to 
     make prior to action on the Senator floor.
       If you wish further details, we will be pleased to provide 
     them. The CBO staff contacts are Wayne Boyington (Social 
     Security), and Jeff Holland (interest on the public debt).
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
                                                         Director.
       Attachment.


               congressional budget office cost estimate

       1. Bill number: S. 1372.
       2. Bill title: Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act.
       3. Bill status: As introduced on October 31, 1995, with 
     modifications that the sponsors expect to make prior to 
     action on the Senate floor.
       4. Bill purpose: As modified, S. 1372 would increase the 
     exempt earnings amount for Social Security beneficiaries aged 
     65-69 in stages to reach $30,000 in 2002, change the interest 
     rate paid on Treasury securities held in the old-age 
     survivors insurance trust fund, and establish sequestration 
     procedures to reduce discretionary spending.
       5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: S. 1372 would 
     provide ad hoc increases in the exempt earnings limit for 
     Social Security recipients who have reached the normal 
     retirement age such that, by 2002, the exempt amount would be 
     $30,000. Additional Social Security benefit payments would 
     total $392 million in 1996 and $9.9 billion over the 1996-
     2002 period. The bill would attempt to compensate the old-age 
     and survivors insurance (OASI) trust fund by increasing the 
     interest payments made by the Treasury to the trust fund. 
     Consequently, the bill is estimated to increase the off-
     budget surplus marginally and increase the on-budget deficit 
     by $11.7 billion over the next seven years.


[[Page S 16587]]
                                     BUDGETARY IMPACT OF S. 1372 AS AMENDED                                     
                                    [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       1996       1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
          Direct Spending                                                                                       
                                                                                                                
Off-budget:                                                                                                     
    Benefit payments:                                                                                           
        Estimated budget authority        392        920      1,241      1,490      1,753      1,988      2,138 
        Estimated outlays.........        392        920      1,241      1,490      1,753      1,988      2,138 
    Receipt of interest payments:                                                                               
        Estimated budget authority       -908     -1,327     -1,498     -1,685     -1,882     -2,092     -2,318 
        Estimated outlays.........       -908     -1,327     -1,498     -1,685     -1,882     -2,092     -2,318 
    Net off-budget effects:                                                                                     
        Estimated budget authority       -516       -407       -257       -195       -129       -104       -180 
        Estimated outlays.........       -516       -407       -257       -195       -129       -104       -180 
On-budget:                                                                                                      
    Interest payments:                                                                                          
        Estimated budget authority        908      1,327      1,498      1,685      1,882      2,092      2,318 
        Estimated outlays.........        908      1,327      1,498      1,685      1,882      2,092      2,318 
Total budget:                                                                                                   
        Estimated budget authority        392        920      1,241      1,490      1,753      1,988      2,138 
        Estimated outlays.........        392        920      1,241      1,490      1,753      1,988      2,138 
                                                                                                                
 Authorizations of Appropriations                                                                               
                                                                                                                
On-budget:                                                                                                      
    GAO report:                                                                                                 
        Estimated authorizations                                                                                
         of appropriations........    ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )          0          0          0          0          0 
        Estimated outlays.........    ( \1\ )    ( \1\ )          0          0          0          0          0 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Less than $500,000.                                                                                        


       6. Basis of estimate:


                            direct spending

       Off-budget.--Under current law, Social Security recipients 
     aged 65-69 can earn up to $11,640 in wages during 1996 before 
     facing a reduction in benefits. The exempt amount is 
     increased each year to reflect the growth in average wages in 
     the economy. S. 1372 would increase the exempt amount faster 
     than under current law during the 1996-2002 period. The 
     exempt amount would be increased to $14,500 in 1996 and to 
     $17,500 in 1997. The exempt amount would increase by $2,500 
     annually for the next five years and reach $30,000 by 2002. 
     Indexing would resume in 2003. The changes would not apply to 
     blind recipients, who currently face the same earnings limit 
     as beneficiaries aged 65-69, nor would Social Security 
     recipients under age 65 be affected.
       S. 1372 would raise the interest rates paid on the assets 
     of the OASI trust fund and would increase interest payments 
     to the fund by $908 million in 1996 and $11.7 billion over 
     the 1996-2002 period. These interest payments would be 
     reflected in the off-budget accounts as receipts or negative 
     outlays.
       These two changes would increase the off-budget surplus by 
     $516 million in 1996 and by $1.8 billion over the seven-year 
     period.
       On-budget.--The additional interest payments made by the 
     Treasury would contribute on-budget direct spending equal to 
     the amount of off-budget interest receipts. Thus, the on-
     budget deficit is increased by $908 million in 1996 and by 
     $11.7 billion over the 1996-2002 period.


                         discretionary spending

       S. 1372 would establish a process by which discretionary 
     spending would be reduced in amounts equal to the additional 
     Social Security benefit payments. Changes in outlays from 
     future appropriations, however, are specifically excluded 
     from the pay-as-you-go procedures of the Balanced Budget Act.
       In addition, the bill requires the General Accounting 
     Office to complete a report assessing the effects the 
     increase in the exempt earnings limit has on the economy.


                                revenues

       Increasing the amount of money that a Social Security 
     beneficiary may earn without having his or her benefit 
     reduced would increase benefits for some elderly people who 
     are currently working and have their benefits partly or 
     entirely withheld. Although the proposal would encourage 
     additional paid work by some elderly people, such an increase 
     in work would have a negligible effect on the amount of 
     Social Security benefit payments. Because the cost estimate 
     incorporates the economic assumptions in the budget 
     resolution, the estimate does not reflect any change in 
     economywide employment, compensation, or income and payroll 
     tax collections. Even if those additional revenues were 
     included in the cost estimate, however, they would offset 
     less than 20 percent of the additional benefit payments, 
     according to the Social Security Administration.
       7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting 
     direct spending or receipts through 1998. The pay-as-you-go 
     effects of the bill are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1996    1997    1998 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays...............................     908   1,327   1,498
Change in receipts..............................   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable.                                                     

       8. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
       9. Estimate comparison: None.
       10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
       11. Estimate prepared by: Wayne Boyington (Social 
     Security), and Jeff Holland (Interest on the public debt).
       12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I then respectfully render a point of 
order under section 302(f) of the Budget Act, and state that in formal 
fashion. Madam President, the pending measure increases outlays in 1996 
and over the 5-year period 1996 to 2000 in excess of the Finance 
Committee's allocation for these time periods. I therefore raise a 
point of order under section 302(f) of the Budget Act against this 
measure.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, in a minute I will seek to waive the 
budget point of order and would ask for the yeas and nays on that at 
the time.
  I also ask unanimous consent we would have a vote on that, and that 
vote take place followed by a return to the Rockefeller pending sense-
of-the-Senate amendment.
  So I guess my parliamentary request is, I request unanimous consent 
to temporarily set aside the Rockefeller amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It does not require setting aside. Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, on this issue I have, of course, the 
greatest respect and affection for the Senator from Wyoming. I deeply 
regret it is a Member of my party who is seeking to overturn what is 
clearly in the Contract With America, a mandate and promise that we 
made to the American people in 1994.
  On the subject of hearings, the Senator from Wyoming wants to have a 
hearing. While he is sitting there maybe he wants to read the hearing 
that took place on March 1, 1995, and the hearing that took place on 
May 24, 1994, last year and the six other hearings that took place on 
this amendment and the seven or eight times I brought up this issue for 
debate and discussion on the floor of the Senate. So I am a little bit 
puzzled when the Senator from Wyoming says we have not had a hearing on 
it, when on March 1, 1995, I see numerous comments on the issue by the 
Senator from Wyoming.
  I wonder, maybe I would ask him a question, if he remembers being at 
the hearing in March 1, 1995, and at the hearing on May 24, 1994?
  So we have had hearings on this issue. The issue is clear. It is not 
complicated. Are we or are we not going to lift the earnings test on 
working Americans? The Senator from Wyoming makes a very compelling 
case that the Social Security system is in trouble. Then what would be 
a better cure, what would be a better cure, I ask the Senator from 
Wyoming, than to allow people to work and help try to return the Social 
Security system back to the supplemental income it was originally 
intended to be, because right now there is no incentive for them to be 
working?
  Madam President, the CBO will certify that there will be actually 
more 

[[Page S 16588]]

money in the trust fund as a result of this. I appreciate the problem 
of the Senator from Wyoming with this money. I asked the Senator from 
Wyoming, as a member of the Finance Committee, how come it was that on 
Thursday and Friday of last week somehow they found $13 billion? They 
just found it because we had a problem. I do not know how they found 
it. Perhaps the Senator from Wyoming can tell me.
  But now what we have is a proposal, which in the short term may cost 
some money, but the Senator from Wyoming cannot find a single expert--a 
single expert--who will not say that once this earnings test is lifted, 
there will be more revenues into the coffers in the form of taxes 
because more people will work.
  The Senator from Wyoming knows that as well as I do because he was 
present at these hearings.
  The fact is, if we adopted this, the interest paid on the Social 
Security fund would be increased by 2.25 percent each year for the next 
7 years. But, also, this bill mandates that the GAO and the Comptroller 
General analyze the actual effect on the Treasury of raising this 
earnings test limit, and we know what the result will be.
  We know what the result will be. The result will be that the Social 
Security trust fund that the Senator from Wyoming is deeply concerned 
about--and I share his concern--will be healthier as a result of 
lifting the earnings test. Everybody knows what the difference between 
static and dynamic budgeting is. Everybody knows that. If everybody 
believed in that, we would never cut the capital gains tax. We would 
never cut it if you believe in static scoring of taxation around here. 
But also everybody knows that, if you cut the capital gains tax, as we 
did the time seriously under President Kennedy, we increase revenues 
into our coffers.
  As the Senator from Wyoming said, I have been working on this issue 
for a long time. But so have our colleagues in the House. They passed 
this bill three times. That is why they asked us to come over here. 
They want us to fulfill the Contract With America. They want us to 
fulfill the promise that we made to them in the election in 1994. Right 
there in the Contract With America was lift the earnings test.
  I understand that the Senator from Wyoming did not sign the Contract 
With America. But I did. So did a lot of other Republicans, and the 
taxpayers of this country believe that we all did. That is why I am 
disturbed that the Senator from Wyoming would be the one to oppose this 
budget point of order.
  Madam President, I ask to waive the budget point of order, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Arizona restate the 
point of order, and was he seeking to waive?
  Mr. McCAIN. I believe that the Senator from Wyoming made the point of 
order.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I made the formal point of order, Madam President.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Wyoming made the point of order.
  Madam President, I move to waive the point of order, and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there is sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, as a matter of procedure, I believe 
that point of order that I made was nondebatable but I was willing to 
go forward.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 3 minutes to reply to the 
Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator the motion to 
waive is debatable.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I am talking about the point of order. The point of 
order which I made is nondebatable, if I am not mistaken.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Once a motion to waive is made, it is in order 
to debate it.
  Mr. SIMPSON. At that time, let the record show that it was not 
debatable. And I knew that, and I was willing to let my friend go 
forward. But let me just respond here.
  Of course, we are not into ridiculous questions to shoot back and 
forth at each other. Ridiculous or sarcastic questions serve no purpose 
here.
  I was there. So was the Senator from Arizona. And I can tell you not 
once did we ever discuss the long-term effects of Social Security on 
raising the interest rates on securities obligated to the trust fund, 
or to go back and reissue new interest rates on those. That I can tell 
you never happened. So let us get that very clear.
  We are not here to box each other around and whack on ourselves. We 
are here to try to get some reason on a very emotional issue which has 
a tremendous impact on Social Security. If anybody believes that by 
fiddling with the interest rates on the obligations of Social Security 
to get a short-term result to get something that someone is pledged to 
get, then I want to know where the rest of them are going to be too 
when we do another part of the Contract With America which is to not 
back, to expose only 50 percent of Social Security benefits to tax 
instead of 85 percent, and we will do that too. These are bills that 
nobody will vote against. That is part of the reason they come up. You 
do not dare vote against this. But I cannot wait for that vote because 
you know where the money is going to come from when we expose only 50 
percent of this money, this benefit to tax instead of 85 percent. It 
comes from part A, the health insurance trust fund. I hope everybody is 
ready for that one. That will be contract day at the old ranch.
  So, I was there. I remember what we did. I am fully aware that we had 
hearings. I am fully aware of what they were about. And I am fully 
aware of what this one is about. It was not anything that we talked 
about or had a single word about in a hearing, especially with regard 
to the interest rate on the bonds. We need to ensure that we do not in 
doing this take actions that injure the long-term solvency of the U.S. 
Social Security system, and increasing these interest rates could have 
consequences of which we have no ability to determine. And we have not 
had hearings on that issue; period.
  I have only chaired this subcommittee for several months. If all 
these things took place before, more power to them. I will get back and 
rattle around in them too. We will all look at them once again. We 
cannot change too much, and then we will go ahead and pass it.
  And then people between 18 and 45, when they are my age, will look 
around and blink like a frog in a hailstorm, and they will deserve 
everything they get.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to waive.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want to say to the Senator from 
Wyoming his point is well made. I apologize for saying that issue was a 
particular part of this issue, as far as the long-term bonds are 
concerned, that was brought up. It was not brought up, and he is 
entirely correct. And I apologize for insinuating that aspect of this 
legislation had been discussed in the past.
  The point is that this entire issue is very well known. And the point 
is that the Senator from Wyoming knows, as well as I do, that witness 
after witness testified that, if we lift the earnings test, it will 
result in a net increase in the Social Security trust fund because 
seniors will work, and seniors will pay more taxes. That is why we have 
in this bill that in 2 years the GAO and the Comptroller General must 
report as to the actual effects of lifting the earnings test, which, as 
I say to any outside observer, will be an increase in funding.
  So, if I intimated to the Senator from Wyoming that we had hearings 
on the actual aspect of the funding, I apologize, and I understand how 
strongly he feels about the Social Security issue. We share that 
combative spirit, and I hope that once this amendment is passed that we 
can work together in the future to solve the larger problem which the 
Senator from Wyoming articulates in a far more enlightening fashion 
than anyone I know; and, that is, the problems that face Social 
Security in general. And our obligation is not only to represent 
generations of retirees but future generations of Americans.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I deeply appreciate those comments of 
my friend, and they are sincere. I take them that way. I am just glad 
to set that record straight. The Senator from Arizona and I almost have 
a signal on this issue. We will sit across the room and suddenly 
someone will mention 

[[Page S 16589]]

something, and we just kind of go into a rigor and a catatonic state. 
Then we usually meet, he looking this way, and me looking this way. And 
I have found in life a very interesting thing; that oftentimes I see 
something in someone else that might irritate me. And it is most always 
something I do myself, that I do not handle very well in my own daily 
doings. With John McCain of Arizona, I will just say it takes one to 
know one. And we do. I commend my friend, and he is going to get a nice 
vote here. And he is going to be tickled to death. There you are.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Wyoming. He adds 
to this body in more ways than I am able to describe, especially not 
the least of which was his brief recitation of his history of his 
various forms of employment.
  I yield the floor, Madam President.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support raising the Social Security 
earnings limit to allow Social Security beneficiaries now subject to 
the limit to earn more income. However, I cannot support the motion to 
waive the budget point of order on the legislation before the Senate 
today. Raising the earnings limit will draw increased payments out of 
the Social Security trust fund. Any measure to raise the earnings limit 
must pay for that change. The legislation before us does not adequately 
assure that this will be paid for in a manner which will not increase 
the Federal deficit or in a manner which avoids further cuts in 
critical education and health programs, including programs for seniors. 
I am hopeful that a better manner of paying for this change will be 
designed and that we will raise the Social Security earnings limit. 
This one falls short.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion by the Senator 
from Arizona to waive the point of order. On this question, the yeas 
and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], the 
Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], and the Senator from South Carolina 
[Mr. Thurmond] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from South 
Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], would vote ``yea.''
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is absent because of illness in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 562 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Warner

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simpson
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bradley
     Hatfield
     Lugar
     Thurmond
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). On this vote, the ayes are 53, 
the nays are 42. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point 
of order is well taken, and the bill is committed to the Finance 
Committee.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senate has spoken at this time. I want 
the Senate to know that this is an important issue for seniors of 
America. They are tired of this onerous, unfair, and outrageous tax.
  I am sorry my friends across the aisle did not vote for it. They are 
going to have a chance to vote for it next week, the week after and the 
week after, and seniors will let their views be known, and others 
across America, as to how outrageous this vote was. I hope they 
understand that I am not going to quit on this issue until it is done, 
because the seniors of America deserve it.
  I yield the floor.
  (At the request of Mr. Dole, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)

                          ____________________