[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 190 (Thursday, November 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17869-S17870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS LIMIT LEGISLATION

 Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
that would increase the Social Security earnings limit--the amount that 
senior citizens can earn before they start losing Social Security 
benefits.
  As my colleagues know, the earnings limit is currently $11,280, and 
it is increased each year for inflation. For seniors between the ages 
of 65 and 69, every $3 earned over that limit means a $1 reduction in 
Social Security benefits.
  It is almost hard to believe this issue is still around. I remember 
back in my first term in the Senate--in 1977--when I introduced similar 
legislation. At the time, the earnings limit was $3,000, and I tried to 
increase it to $6,000. I was prompted to do so in part because of a 
Delaware woman who came up to me at a meeting and told me that she was 
breaking the law.
  I wondered what crime could this sweet, frail, elderly woman be 
guilty of. And, she told me. She had a part-time job and was being paid 
in cash so that she would not have to report her income and thereby 
lose her Social Security benefits. She needed both to survive 
financially.
  In the years since then, I have heard other stories--they are 
practically endless.
  Imagine an elderly couple whose adult child develops some medical 
problem. Like most parents, they want to help their child--they do not 
abandon their parental instincts and concern just because they have 
turned 65. But, to meet the costs of caring for their child, they need 
to go back to work--and as a result, they will lose some of their 
Social Security benefits.
  Or imagine the case--and it happens all too often--where the husband 
dies. And the wife, who he supported financially, now faces a dilemma. 
Her widow's Social Security benefits are not enough. She must get a 
part-time job to maintain a living. So, she goes to work, but loses 
part of her Social Security benefits.
  Or imagine those senior citizens who just want to supplement their 
Social Security income--so they do not become dependent on welfare or 
on their own children, who are facing a financial squeeze of their own 
between their mortgages and putting their kids through college. Those 
seniors who want to ensure that they do not become dependent on others 
are penalized by having their Social Security benefits reduced.
  Mr. President, these stories illustrate the perversity of a low 
Social Security earnings limit. It discourages some seniors from 
working, penalizes other seniors for working, and makes criminals of 
some seniors who need both a paycheck and a Social Security check to 
survive. This is not right.
  So why does this policy even exist? Well, believe it or not, at one 
time, it had a very legitimate purpose.
  In the midst of the Great Depression roughly 60 years ago, 
unemployment was rampant. And, the plain fact was, we wanted senior 
citizens out of the work force so that there would be more jobs for 
young workers with young families. That is part of the reason why 
Congress created the Social Security earnings limit--to discourage 
seniors from working.
  A legitimate rationale at the time. But not today. Today, 
unemployment stands at a low 5.5 percent. And, the American economy, 
with a shrinking labor pool, is facing competition within an ever 
expanding global marketplace.
  So, just when we need experienced workers in the labor force, we are 
wasting the greatest source of experience--our senior citizens. Just 
when we should be encouraging seniors to stay in the work force, many 
elderly workers are better off earning less than earning more. These 
are seniors who wish to work--in some cases, must work--who would work 
hard, and who could add millions of dollars to our economy. But, many 
are not working because the Social Security earnings limit penalizes 
them for doing so.
  This is simply not fair to our seniors, and it is not good for this 
country. We should not penalize anyone for wanting to work and for 
wanting to supplement their income. And, we should not make criminals 
of those who do.
  Now, unlike some of my colleagues, I do believe that some earnings 
limit still has a place. Social Security is, after all, a retirement 
program, not a reward for becoming old. But, an earnings limit set at 
$11,280 simply has no rational basis whatsoever. And those it hurts are 
too often those who are already struggling.
  I find it interesting that the effect of such a low earnings limit is 
that working, middle-class seniors are penalized. They lose part of 
their Social Security benefits. But, the wealthy are treated 
differently. The elderly Donald Trumps and the elderly Ross Perots of 
the country have far greater incomes than $11,280, but they get those 
incomes from investments and unearned income. Therefore, they do not 
face the reduction in Social Security benefits that the middle-class 
faces.
  This needs fixing. So, Mr. President, the legislation I am 
introducing today would increase the Social Security earnings limit to 
$14,500 next year and then gradually increase it over the following 6 
years until the limit reaches $30,000 in the year 2002. In other words, 
seniors could earn up to $30,000 per year before their Social Security 
benefits begin to be reduced.
  Earlier this month, the Senate debated and failed to pass similar 
legislation introduced by Senator McCain. I want to commend the Senator 
from Arizona for his dedication to this issue over the last several 
years. And, I say to my colleagues that the bill I am introducing today 
is the same as the Senate considered--and unfortunately rejected--a few 
weeks ago, except in a couple of respects.
  First, my bill would also apply the increase in the earnings limit to 
blind 

[[Page S17870]]
recipients of Social Security benefits. Currently, blind individuals 
aged 55 and over qualify for Social Security disability benefits if 
their earnings are below the level of the retirement earnings limit. My 
proposal would retain this parallel treatment between the retired and 
the blind.
  The second major difference between my bill and the earlier McCain 
legislation is that my bill does not include an offset. I believe we 
must find a way to pay for this bill. But, it was clear that the vote 
to defeat an increase in the earnings limit earlier this month was 
based in part on the proposed offset. So, my hope is that by not 
specifying an offset now, we can work together in a bipartisan fashion 
to find a suitable way to pay for the costs of this proposal and 
increase the Social Security earnings limit.
  Mr. President, those senior citizens who want to work and those who 
must work to make ends meet should be honored and commended, not 
penalized by the Social Security system. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.

                          ____________________