[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 5, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13962-H13971]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               SENIOR CITIZENS' RIGHT TO WORK ACT OF 1995

  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 2684) to amend title II of the Social Security Act 
to provide for increases in the amounts of allowable earnings under the 
Social Security earnings limit for individuals who have attained 
retirement age, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2684

       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' Right to 
     Work Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASES IN MONTHLY EXEMPT AMOUNT FOR PURPOSES OF 
                   THE SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS LIMIT.

       (a) Increase in Monthly Exempt Amount for Individuals Who 
     Have Attained Retirement Age.--Section 203(f)(8)(D) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(D)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(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 216(l)) before the close of the taxable year involved 
     shall be--
       ``(i) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1995 
     and before 1997, $1,166.66\2/3\,
       ``(ii) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1996 
     and before 1998, $1,250.00,
       ``(iii) for each month of any taxable year ending after 
     1997 and before 1999, $1,333.33\1/3\,
       ``(iv) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1998 
     and before 2000, $1,416.66\2/3\,
       ``(v) for each month of any taxable year ending after 1999 
     and before 2001, $1,500.00,
       ``(vi) for each month of any taxable year ending after 2000 
     and before 2002, $2,083.33\1/3\, and
       ``(vii) for each month of any taxable year ending after 
     2001 and before 2003, $2,500.00.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 203(f)(8)(B)(ii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     403(f)(8)(B)(ii)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the taxable year ending after 1993 and 
     before 1995'' and inserting ``the taxable year ending after 
     2001 and before 2003 (with respect to individuals described 
     in subparagraph (D)) or the taxable year ending after 1993 
     and before 1995 (with respect to other individuals)''; and
       (B) in subclause (II), by striking ``for 1992'' and 
     inserting ``for 2000 (with respect to individuals described 
     in subparagraph (D)) or 1992 (with respect to other 
     individuals)''.
       (2) The second sentence of section 223(d)(4)(A) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(4)(A)) is amended by striking ``the exempt 
     amount under section 203(f)(8) which is applicable to 
     individuals described in subparagraph (D) thereof'' and 
     inserting the following: ``an amount equal to the exempt 
     amount which would be applicable under section 203(f)(8), to 
     individuals described in subparagraph (D) thereof, if section 
     2 of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1995 had not 
     been enacted''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to taxable years ending after 1995.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF DISABILITY INSURANCE CONTINUING 
                   DISABILITY REVIEW ADMINISTRATION REVOLVING 
                   ACCOUNT.

       (a) Continuing Disability Review Administration Revolving 
     Account for Title II Disability Benefits in the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Section 201 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 401) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(n)(1) There is hereby created in the Federal Disability 
     Insurance Trust Fund a Continuing Disability Review 
     Administration Revolving Account (hereinafter in this 
     subsection referred to as the `Account'). The Account shall 
     consist initially of $300,000,000 (which is hereby 
     transferred to the Account from amounts otherwise available 
     in such Trust Fund) and shall also consist thereafter of such 
     other amounts as may be transferred to it under this 
     subsection. The balance in the Account shall be available 
     solely for expenditures certified under paragraph (2).
       ``(2)(A) Before October 1 of each calendar year, the Chief 
     Actuary of the Social Security Administration shall--
       ``(i) estimate the present value of savings to the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund, the Federal Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund, and the Federal Supplementary Medical 
     Insurance Trust Fund which will accrue for all years as a 
     result of cessations of benefit payments resulting from 
     continuing disability reviews carried out pursuant to the 
     requirements of section 221(i) during the fiscal year ending 
     on September 30 of such calendar year (increased or decreased 
     as appropriate to account for deviations of estimates for 
     prior fiscal years from the actual amounts for such fiscal 
     years), and
       ``(ii) certify the amount of such estimate to the Managing 
     Trustee.
       ``(B) Upon receipt of certification by the Chief Actuary 
     under subparagraph (A), the Managing Trustee shall transfer 
     to the Account from amounts otherwise in the Trust Fund an 
     amount equal to the estimated savings so certified.
       ``(C) To the extent of available funds in the Account, upon 
     certification by the Chief Actuary that such funds are 
     currently required to meet expenditures necessary to provide 
     for continuing disability reviews required under section 
     221(i), the Managing Trustee shall make available to the 
     Commissioner of Social Security from the Account the amount 
     so certified.
       ``(D) The expenditures referred to in subparagraph (C) 
     shall include, but not be limited to, the cost of staffing, 
     training, purchase of medical and other evidence, and 
     processing related to appeals (including appeal hearings) and 
     to overpayments and related indirect costs.
       ``(E) The Commissioner shall use funds made available 
     pursuant to this paragraph solely for the purposes described 
     in subparagraph (C).''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 201(g)(1)(A) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 401(g)(1)(A)) is amended in the last sentence by 
     inserting ``(other than expenditures from available funds in 
     the Continuing Disability Review Administration Revolving 
     Account in the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund made 
     pursuant to subsection (n))'' after ``is responsible'' the 
     first place it appears.
       (3) Annual report.--Section 221(i)(3) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 421(i)(3)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and the number'' and inserting ``the 
     number'';
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
     comma; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following: ``and a final 
     accounting of amounts transferred to the Continuing 
     Disability Review Administration Revolving Account in the 
     Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund during the year, the 
     amount made available from such Account during such year 
     pursuant to certifications made by the Chief Actuary of the 
     Social Security Administration under section 201(n)(2)(C), 
     and expenditures made by the Commissioner of Social Security 
     for the purposes described in section 201(n)(2)(C) during the 
     year, including a comparison of the number of continuing 
     disability reviews conducted during the year with the 
     estimated number of continuing disability reviews upon which 
     the estimate of such expenditures was made under section 
     201(n)(2)(A).''.
       (b) Effective Date and Sunset.--
       (1) Effective date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply for fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 
     1995, and ending on or before September 30, 2002.
       (2) Sunset.--Effective October 1, 2002, the Continuing 
     Disability Review Administration 

[[Page H 13963]]
     Revolving Account in the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall 
     cease to exist, any balance in such Account shall revert to 
     funds otherwise available in such Trust Fund, and sections 
     201 and 221 of the Social Security Act shall read as if the 
     amendments made by subsection (a) had not been enacted.
       (c) Office of Chief Actuary in the Social Security 
     Administration.--
       (1) In general.--Section 702 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 902) is 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection:

                            ``Chief Actuary

       ``(c)(1) There shall be in the Administration a Chief 
     Actuary, who shall be appointed by, and in direct line of 
     authority to, the Commissioner. The Chief Actuary shall be 
     appointed from individuals who have demonstrated, by their 
     education and experience, superior expertise in the actuarial 
     sciences. The Chief Actuary shall serve as the chief 
     actuarial officer of the Administration, and shall exercise 
     such duties as are appropriate for the office of the Chief 
     Actuary and in accordance with professional standards of 
     actuarial independence. The Chief Actuary may be removed only 
     for cause.
       ``(2) The Chief Actuary shall be compensated at the highest 
     rate of basic pay for the Senior Executive Service under 
     section 5382(b) of title 5, United States Code.''.
       (2) Effective date of subsection.--The amendments made by 
     this subsection shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. ENTITLEMENT OF STEPCHILDREN TO CHILD'S INSURANCE 
                   BENEFITS BASED ON ACTUAL DEPENDENCY ON 
                   STEPPARENT SUPPORT.

       (a) Requirement of Actual Dependency for Future 
     Entitlements.--
       (1) In general.--Section 202(d)(4) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 402(d)(4)) is amended by striking ``was living 
     with or''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to benefits of individuals who 
     become entitled to such benefits for months after the third 
     month following the month in which this Act is enacted.
       (b) Termination of Child's Insurance Benefits Based on Work 
     Record of Stepparent Upon Natural Parent's Divorce From 
     Stepparent.--
       (1) In general.--Section 202(d)(1) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 402(d)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (F);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (G) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(H) if the benefits under this subsection are based on 
     the wages and self-employment income of a stepparent who is 
     subsequently divorced from such child's natural parent, the 
     sixth month after the month in which the Commissioner of 
     Social Security receives formal notification of such 
     divorce.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply with respect to notifications of divorces 
     received by the Commissioner of Social Security on or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. RECOMPUTATION OF BENEFITS AFTER NORMAL RETIREMENT 
                   AGE.

       (a) In General.--Section 215(f)(2)(D)(i) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(f)(2)(D)(i)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(i) in the case of an individual who did not die in the 
     year with respect to which the recomputation is made, for 
     monthly benefits beginning with benefits for January of--
       ``(I) the second year following the year with respect to 
     which the recomputation is made, in any such case in which 
     the individual is entitled to old-age insurance benefits, the 
     individual has attained retirement age (as defined in section 
     216(l)) as of the end of the year preceding the year with 
     respect to which the recomputation is made, and the year with 
     respect to which the recomputation is made would not be 
     substituted in recomputation under this subsection for a 
     benefit computation year in which no wages or self-employment 
     income have been credited previously to such individual, or
       ``(II) the first year following the year with respect to 
     which the recomputation is made, in any other such case; 
     or''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 215(f)(7) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(f)(7)) is 
     amended by inserting ``, and as amended by section 5(b)(2) of 
     the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1995,'' after 
     ``This subsection as in effect in December 1978''.
       (2) Subparagraph (A) of section 215(f)(2) of the Social 
     Security Act as in effect in December 1978 and applied in 
     certain cases under the provisions of such Act as in effect 
     after December 1978 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``in the case of an individual who did not 
     die'' and all that follows and inserting ``in the case of an 
     individual who did not die in the year with respect to which 
     the recomputation is made, for monthly benefits beginning 
     with benefits for January of--''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) the second year following the year with respect to 
     which the recomputation is made, in any such case in which 
     the individual is entitled to old-age insurance benefits, the 
     individual has attained age 65 as of the end of the year 
     preceding the year with respect to which the recomputation is 
     made, and the year with respect to which the recomputation is 
     made would not be substituted in recomputation under this 
     subsection for a benefit computation year in which no wages 
     or self-employment income have been credited previously to 
     such individual, or
       ``(ii) the first year following the year with respect to 
     which the recomputation is made, in any other such case; 
     or''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to recomputations of primary 
     insurance amounts based on wages paid and self employment 
     income derived after 1994 and with respect to benefits 
     payable after December 31, 1995.

     SEC. 6. ELIMINATION OF THE ROLE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   ADMINISTRATION IN PROCESSING ATTORNEY FEES.

       (a) Actions Before the Commissioner.--Section 206(a) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 406(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking the fourth and fifth 
     sentences;
       (2) by striking paragraphs (2), (3), and (4);
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2)(A) No person, agent, or attorney may charge in excess 
     of $4,000 (or, if higher, the amount set pursuant to 
     subparagraph (B)) for services performed in connection with 
     any claim before the Commissioner under this title, or for 
     services performed in connection with concurrent claims 
     before the Commissioner under this title and title XVI.
       ``(B) The Commissioner may increase the dollar amount under 
     subparagraph (A) whenever the Commissioner determines that 
     such an increase is warranted. The Commissioner shall publish 
     any such increased amount in the Federal Register.
       ``(C) Any agreement in violation of this paragraph shall be 
     void.
       ``(D) Whenever the Commissioner makes a favorable 
     determination in connection with any claim for benefits under 
     this title by a claimant who is represented by a person, 
     agent, or attorney, the Commissioner shall provide the 
     claimant and such person, agent, or attorney a written notice 
     of--
       ``(i) the determination,
       ``(ii) the dollar amount of any benefits payable to the 
     claimant, and
       ``(iii) the maximum amount under paragraph (2) that may be 
     charged for services performed in connection with such 
     claim.''; and
       (4) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (3).
       (b) Judicial Proceedings.--Section 206(b)(1) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 406(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``representation,'' and all that follows and inserting the 
     following: ``representation. In determining a reasonable fee, 
     the court shall take into consideration the amount of the 
     fee, if any, that such attorney, or any other person, agent, 
     or attorney, may charge the claimant for services performed 
     in connection with the claimant's claim when it was pending 
     before the Commissioner.'';
       (2) in the second sentence of subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``or certified for payment'';
       (3) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (4) by striking ``(b)(1)(A)'' and inserting ``(b)(1)''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 223(h)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 423(h)(3)) is 
     amended by striking all that follows ``obtained)'' and 
     inserting a period.
       (2) Section 1127(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-6(a)) is 
     amended by striking the last sentence.
       (3) Section 1631(d)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1383(d)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(other than paragraph (4) thereof)''; and
       (B) by striking all that follows ``title II'' and inserting 
     a period.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to--
       (1) any claim for benefits under the old-age, survivors, 
     and disability insurance program under title II of the Social 
     Security Act, the supplemental security income program under 
     title XVI of such Act, or the black lung program under part B 
     of the Black Lung Benefits Act that is initially filed on or 
     after the 60th day following the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and
       (2) any claim for such benefits filed before such 60th day 
     by a claimant who is first represented by any person, agent, 
     or attorney in connection with such claim on or after such 
     60th day.

     SEC. 7. DENIAL OF DISABILITY BENEFITS TO DRUG ADDICTS AND 
                   ALCOHOLICS.

       (a) Amendments Relating to Title II Disability Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Section 223(d)(2) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(C) An individual shall not be considered to be disabled 
     for purposes of this title if alcoholism or drug addiction 
     would (but for this subparagraph) be a contributing factor 
     material to the Commissioner's determination that the 
     individual is disabled.''.
       (2) Representative payee requirements.--
       (A) Section 205(j)(1)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     405(j)(1)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) In the case of an individual entitled to benefits 
     based on disability, the payment of such benefits shall be 
     made to a representative payee if the Commissioner of Social 
     Security determines that such payment would serve the 
     interest of the individual because the individual also has an 
     alcoholism or drug addiction condition (as determined by the 
     Commissioner) that prevents the individual from managing such 
     benefits.''.
       (B) Section 205(j)(2)(C)(v) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     405(j)(2)(C)(v)) is amended by striking ``entitled to 
     benefits'' and all that follows through ``under a 
     disability'' and inserting ``described in paragraph (1)(B)''.
       (C) Section 205(j)(2)(D)(ii)(II) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     405(j)(2)(D)(ii)(II)) is amended by striking all that follows 
     ``15 years, or'' and inserting ``described in paragraph 
     (1)(B).''.

[[Page H 13964]]

       (D) Section 205(j)(4)(A)(i)(II) (42 U.S.C. 
     405(j)(4)(A)(ii)(II)) is amended by striking ``entitled to 
     benefits'' and all that follows through ``under a 
     disability'' and inserting ``described in paragraph (1)(B)''.
       (3) Treatment referrals for individuals with an alcoholism 
     or drug addiction condition.--Section 222 of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 422) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:

   ``Treatment Referrals for Individuals with an Alcoholism or Drug 
                          Addiction Condition

       ``(e) In the case of any individual whose benefits under 
     this title are paid to a representative payee pursuant to 
     section 205(j)(1)(B), the Commissioner of Social Security 
     shall refer such individual to the appropriate State agency 
     administering the State plan for substance abuse treatment 
     services approved under subpart II of part B of title XIX of 
     the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-21 et seq.).''.
       (4) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 225 of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 425(c)) is repealed.
       (5) Effective dates.--
       (A) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (4) shall 
     apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits under title 
     II of the Social Security Act based on disability for months 
     beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act, except 
     that, in the case of individuals who are entitled to such 
     benefits for the month in which this Act is enacted, such 
     amendments shall apply only with respect to such benefits for 
     months beginning on or after January 1, 1997.
       (B) The amendments made by paragraphs (2) and (3) shall 
     apply with respect to benefits for which applications are 
     filed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (C) If an individual who is entitled to monthly insurance 
     benefits under title II of the Social Security Act based on 
     disability for the month in which this Act is enacted and 
     whose entitlement to such benefits would terminate by reason 
     of the amendments made by this subsection reapplies for 
     benefits under title II of such Act (as amended by this Act) 
     based on disability within 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social Security 
     shall, not later than January 1, 1997, complete the 
     entitlement redetermination with respect to such individual 
     pursuant to the procedures of such title.
       (b) Amendments Relating to SSI Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1614(a)(3) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(I) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), an individual shall 
     not be considered to be disabled for purposes of this title 
     if alcoholism or drug addiction would (but for this 
     subparagraph) be a contributing factor material to the 
     Commissioner's determination that the individual is 
     disabled.''.
       (2) Representative payee requirements.--
       (A) Section 1631(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1383(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(II) In the case of an individual eligible for benefits 
     under this title by reason of disability, the payment of such 
     benefits shall be made to a representative payee if the 
     Commissioner of Social Security determines that such payment 
     would serve the interest of the individual because the 
     individual also has an alcoholism or drug addiction condition 
     (as determined by the Commissioner) that prevents the 
     individual from managing such benefits.''.
       (B) Section 1631(a)(2)(B)(vii) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1383(a)(2)(B)(vii)) is amended by striking ``eligible for 
     benefits'' and all that follows through ``is disabled'' and 
     inserting ``described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(II)''.
       (C) Section 1631(a)(2)(B)(ix)(II) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1383(a)(2)(B)(ix)(II)) is amended by striking all that 
     follows ``15 years, or'' and inserting ``described in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii)(II).''.
       (D) Section 1631(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1383(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) is amended by striking ``eligible for 
     benefits'' and all that follows through ``is disabled'' and 
     inserting ``described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(II)''.
       (3) Treatment services for individuals with a substance 
     abuse condition.--Title XVI of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1381 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:


 ``TREATMENT SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH A SUBSTANCE ABUSE CONDITION

       ``Sec. 1636. In the case of any individual whose benefits 
     under this title are paid to a representative payee pursuant 
     to section 1631(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), the Commissioner of Social 
     Security shall refer such individual to the appropriate State 
     agency administering the State plan for substance abuse 
     treatment services approved under subpart II of part B of 
     title XIX of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-21 
     et seq.).''.
       (4) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 1611(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)) is 
     amended by striking paragraph (3).
       (B) Section 1634 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1383c) is amended 
     by striking subsection (e).
       (5) Effective dates.--
       (A) The amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (4) shall 
     apply with respect to supplemental security income benefits 
     under title XVI of the Social Security Act based on 
     disability for months beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, except that, in the case of 
     individuals who are eligible for such benefits for the month 
     in which this Act is enacted, such amendments shall apply 
     only with respect to such benefits for months beginning on or 
     after January 1, 1997.
       (B) The amendments made by paragraphs (2) and (3) shall 
     apply with respect to supplemental security income benefits 
     under title XVI of the Social Security Act for which 
     applications are filed on or after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (C) If an individual who is eligible for supplemental 
     security income benefits under title XVI of the Social 
     Security Act for the month in which this Act is enacted and 
     whose eligibility for such benefits would terminate by reason 
     of the amendments made by this subsection reapplies for 
     supplemental security income benefits under title XVI of such 
     Act (as amended by this Act) within 120 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Social 
     Security shall, not later than January 1, 1997, complete the 
     eligibility redetermination with respect to such individual 
     pursuant to the procedures of such title.
       (D) For purposes of this paragraph, the phrase 
     ``supplemental security income benefits under title XVI of 
     the Social Security Act'' includes supplementary payments 
     pursuant to an agreement for Federal administration under 
     section 1616(a) of the Social Security Act and payments 
     pursuant to an agreement entered into under section 212(b) of 
     Public Law 93-66.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 201(c) of the Social 
     Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994 
     (42 U.S.C. 425 note) is repealed.
       (d) Supplemental Funding for Alcohol and Substance Abuse 
     Treatment Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Out of any money in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated to 
     supplement State and Tribal programs funded under section 
     1933 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-33), 
     $100,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
       (2) Additional funds.--Amounts appropriated under paragraph 
     (1) shall be in addition to any funds otherwise appropriated 
     for allotments under section 1933 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-33) and shall be allocated 
     pursuant to such section 1933.
       (3) Use of Funds.--A State or Tribal government receiving 
     an allotment under this subsection shall consider as 
     priorities, for purposes of expending funds allotted under 
     this subsection, activities relating to the treatment of the 
     abuse of alcohol and other drugs.

     SEC. 8. REVOCATION BY MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY OF EXEMPTION FROM 
                   SOCIAL SECURITY COVERAGE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1402(e)(4) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, any exemption which has been 
     received under section 1402(e)(1) of such Code by a duly 
     ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church, a 
     member of a religious order, or a Christian Science 
     practitioner, and which is effective for the taxable year in 
     which this Act is enacted, may be revoked by filing an 
     application therefor (in such form and manner, and with such 
     official, as may be prescribed in regulations made under 
     chapter 2 of such Code), if such application is filed no 
     later than the due date of the Federal income tax return 
     (including any extension thereof) for the applicant's 
     second taxable year beginning after December 31, 1995. Any 
     such revocation shall be effective (for purposes of 
     chapter 2 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and title 
     II of the Social Security Act), as specified in the 
     application, either with respect to the applicant's first 
     taxable year beginning after December 31, 1995, or with 
     respect to the applicant's second taxable year beginning 
     after such date, and for all succeeding taxable years; and 
     the applicant for any such revocation may not thereafter 
     again file application for an exemption under such section 
     1402(e)(1). If the application is filed after the due date 
     of the applicant's Federal income tax return for a taxable 
     year and is effective with respect to that taxable year, 
     it shall include or be accompanied by payment in full of 
     an amount equal to the total of the taxes that would have 
     been imposed by section 1401 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 with respect to all of the applicant's income 
     derived in that taxable year which would have constituted 
     net earnings from self-employment for purposes of chapter 
     2 of such Code (notwithstanding section 1402(c)(4) or 
     (c)(5) of such Code) except for the exemption under 
     section 1402(e)(1) of such Code.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall apply with 
     respect to service performed (to the extent specified in such 
     subsection) in taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1995, and with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable 
     under title II of the Social Security Act on the basis of the 
     wages and self-employment income of any individual for months 
     in or after the calendar year in which such individual's 
     application for revocation (as described in such subsection) 
     is effective (and lump-sum death payments payable under such 
     title on the basis of such wages and self-employment income 
     in the case of deaths occurring in or after such calendar 
     year).

     SEC. 9. PILOT STUDY OF EFFICACY OF PROVIDING INDIVIDUALIZED 
                   INFORMATION TO RECIPIENTS OF OLD-AGE AND 
                   SURVIVORS INSURANCE BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--During a 2-year period beginning as soon 
     as practicable in 1996, the Commissioner of Social Security 
     shall conduct a pilot study of the efficacy of providing 
     certain individualized information to recipients of monthly 
     insurance benefits under section 202 of the Social Security 
     Act, designed to promote better understanding of their 
     contributions and benefits under the social security system. 
     The study shall involve solely beneficiaries whose 
     entitlement to such benefits first occurred in or after 1984 
     and who have remained entitled to such benefits for a 
     continuous period of not less than 5 years. The number of 
     such recipients involved in the study shall be of sufficient 
     size to generate a statistically valid sample for purposes of 
     the study, but shall not exceed 600,000 beneficiaries.
       (b) Annualized Statements.--During the course of the study, 
     the Commissioner shall provide to each of the beneficiaries 
     involved in the 

[[Page H 13965]]
     study one annualized statement, setting forth the following 
     information:
       (1) an estimate of the aggregate wages and self-employment 
     income earned by the individual on whose wages and self-
     employment income the benefit is based, as shown on the 
     records of the Commissioner as of the end of the last 
     calendar year ending prior to the beneficiary's first month 
     of entitlement;
       (2) an estimate of the aggregate of the employee and self-
     employment contributions, and the aggregate of the employer 
     contributions (separately identified), made with respect to 
     the wages and self-employment income on which the benefit is 
     based, as shown on the records of the Commissioner as of the 
     end of the calendar year preceding the beneficiary's first 
     month of entitlement; and
       (3) an estimate of the total amount paid as benefits under 
     section 202 of the Social Security Act based on such wages 
     and self-employment income, as shown on the records of the 
     Commissioner as of the end of the last calendar year 
     preceding the issuance of the statement for which complete 
     information is available.
       (b) Inclusion With Matter Otherwise Distributed to 
     Beneficiaries.--The Commissioner shall ensure that reports 
     provided pursuant to this subsection are, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, included with other reports currently 
     provided to beneficiaries on an annual basis.
       (c) Report to the Congress.--The Commissioner shall report 
     to each House of the Congress regarding the results of the 
     pilot study conducted pursuant to this section not later than 
     60 days after the completion of such study.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Jacobs] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today, it is my honor to speak on behalf of the Senior 
Citizens' Right To Work Act of 1995, because I am also speaking on 
behalf of the 1 million people who are affected by the Social Security 
earnings limit.
  Over a year ago, we promised working seniors financial relief from 
the punitive earnings limit which is imposed on many older Americans 
who must work to make ends meet.
  Today we are taking one more step toward fulfilling that promise with 
the Senior Citizens' Right To Work Act.
  H.R. 2684 is a fair and balanced bill. It is fair to the working 
seniors. It is fair to the financial soundness of the Social Security 
trust fund.
  This legislation enjoys widespread support among the senior 
community, because they, too, know it is good policy to do what is 
right for working seniors.
  The members of the Ways and Means Committee know it is good policy, 
too, because it passed the committee unanimously on a vote of 31 to 0.
  I urge my colleagues to follow the example of the Ways and Means 
Committee and pass the Senior Citizens' Right To Work Act of 1995.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I, of course, support this legislation as well, and I 
commend the gentleman from Kentucky as well as the gentleman from Texas 
who are longstanding supporters of the concept, and I cannot think of a 
better example of a legislative accommodation to various points of 
view.
  There were those of us, and still are, who believe that it is 
improper to repeal the retirement test altogether, those of us who 
believe that retirement benefits should, in fact, go to people who are 
retired. But the compromise this bill represents is a very happy one, 
as the gentleman from Kentucky has said, for practically any reasonable 
person who has dealt with this issue over the years. This is a happy 
moment for the American people. It is a proud moment for the Congress, 
and it might not be a bad example for the people moving across the hall 
here to negotiate the whole budget.
  There has been give and take. There has been friendship. And there 
has been accomplishment, and we have arrived at that accomplishment 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise today not in the manner that I would have liked. I support 
this bill. I support final passage of this bill.
  But I am truly disappointed that the bill came up under suspension, 
because it gives us no opportunity to amend the bill, and I had planned 
to testify today before the Committee on Rules to ask that we could 
have an amendment to continue equity for the blind people of this 
Nation. Up to this point, people in America who are blind have the same 
situation on earnings test limits as those who are 65 and older, and my 
amendment would have maintained this current link between senior 
citizens and the blind for the purposes of Social Security earnings.
  This Social Security earnings test link was put forth originally by 
our own chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Archer]. He had this idea that this was a very good thing 
for the blind to have this same type of situation, and it became law 
nearly 20 years ago. Unfortunately, the bill before us will break that 
link, and the blind will no longer have the same work incentive our 
senior citizens should and will enjoy.
  Earlier in the year I submitted a similar amendment before the 
Committee on Rules during consideration of the Contract With America, 
and the amendment was not permitted on the floor of the House. Today, 
again, I tried to get an amendment before the Committee on Rules, but, 
unfortunately, the decision was made to have this come under 
suspension.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel this is unfortunate for the blind of this country 
not to be allowed to have the vote, but, more importantly, the link is 
broken. So I would like to say today, whereas it was not found possible 
to do this, the blind are very interested in this piece of legislation 
and would certainly like to reestablish this link. I would hope 
somewhere down the line this could come up again and we could have 
something that will work and continue.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] the chairman of the 
full Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Kentucky for yielding 
me time.
  Today is truly a banner day for this House of Representatives and for 
the country. As my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, Andy Jacobs, 
said, we should find more opportunities to work together for the 
betterment not only of our senior citizens, but for all Americans.
  Today is particularly a sentimental day for me, because over 20 years 
ago I initiated the effort to eliminate the retirement test. I felt 
very strongly that this country was losing tremendous talent available 
in its senior citizens who, if they did work, were penalized by losing 
their Social Security benefits and paying the highest effective 
marginal tax rate as a result of any age group in the country.
  Today, after all of those years, we are making a move in the right 
direction, and it is a result of the work of the gentleman from 
Kentucky, Jim Bunning, our subcommittee chairman, cooperating with the 
gentleman from Indiana, Andy Jacobs, the ranking Democrat on the 
committee.
  But it is also a sentimental day for Barry Goldwater. I hope in some 
way that he may be watching today, because year after year he was the 
lead Senate sponsor of this legislation, until he retired from the 
Senate.
  This earnings limit brings about the most odious administrative 
nightmare in every Social Security office across this country. If you 
talk to people who who are there day by day, having to deal with Social 
Security problems, you will find that they will tell you that this is 
the toughest thing they have to deal with, just from a standpoint of 
administrative redtape.
  When fully phased in, this will eliminate about 50 percent of the 
people who have to comply with it and bring about these mountainous 
files of uncertainty.
  Seniors who want to work after the passage of this bill will be able 
to continue to do so up to earning $30,000 a year. That is a giant step 
forward. It will unlash an awful lot of talent, an awful lot of 
resources, to help push this country forward in the years ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, I could not be more gratified with the response on a 
bipartisan basis, where this bill came out of our committee on a 31-to-
0 vote, to send it to the Senate, where hopefully 

[[Page H 13966]]
they will pass it speedily and put it on the desk of the President so 
it can be signed soon this year.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I have the good fortune to 
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this most important 
piece of legislation. It has been late in coming, but it is certainly 
an answer to many of our commitments to our senior citizens.
  For many it is very difficult to live on Social Security and then be 
limited to $11,000 a year in earnings limits, as existing law provides. 
By increasing this over 7 years to $30,000, we are recognizing the fact 
that many of our seniors want to continue to work, can continue to 
work, and can live a much better and fuller life if they are able to 
work. It is high time that this legislation pass.
  I compliment the chairman and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Jacobs] 
for working on this, in a bipartisan way, to bring this most important 
piece of legislation to the House floor.
  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is not very controversial. The base 
bill does provide for an increase in the earnings limit for senior 
citizens. I guess we could debate, and possibly the Senate will debate, 
whether or not it should go to $30,000 over a period of 7 years. But 
the point I want to raise with the body today is, No. 1, the process on 
how the bill got before us today, and then two of the components which 
are very troublesome to me.
  We were notified, I believe last week, that this bill would be coming 
before the Committee on Rules today at 2:30, at which time Members who 
were interested could approach the Committee on Rules and ask for 
various amendments to be made in order.
  That is the usual process when we are amending bills and debating 
bills. However, for whatever reason, unbeknownst to this speaker, the 
Committee on Rules canceled that hearing on this particular bill and it 
was rushed to the House under a procedure we call suspension of the 
rules. The suspension of the rules procedure does not permit any 
amendments to be offered to the legislation being debated.
  So essentially what the Republican majority has done is cut some of 
us off, some of us who wanted to propose some constructive changes to 
the legislation we were debating.
  You ask what are those changes? What do you want to change about the 
bill? There are two major changes I think that have to be addressed.
  One was already spoken to by the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. 
Kennelly], and it is something we did discuss before the committee and 
I am sad to say to no avail. But under current law and under an 
amendment back to 1977 that was proposed by my good friend, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of the committee, there 
was a linkage formed between the blind and the earnings test for Social 
Security recipients. However, although that linkage has proved very 
beneficial to the blind involved and it has been in the law since 1977, 
for some reason, unbeknownst to me, that linkage is ending with the 
passage of this bill.
  If you look at the plight of a blind person who has tried to struggle 
in a low paying job, to not permit them to earn more as we are doing 
for retired people I think is absurd. In fact, the example I used 
before the Committee on Ways and Means during markup was take the 
situation of a blind person who is not going to get better in his or 
her lifetime, unless a miracle would occur, a blind person who is 
trying to increase their stand in this country, and they try to get a 
job earning more money. But they know full well they are going to lose. 
A person who is blind who is trying to earn will lose Social Security 
benefits.
  However, a retired person who is, say, 66 years old, very, very 
healthy, not blind, will over a 7-year period be able to earn $30,000, 
and I think the unlinking of the two is totally unfair. However, 
because of the Republican procedure today, the blind people will not 
get a separate vote on their request to my office and many others to 
keep this linked.
  The other problem with the bill has nothing to do with the earnings 
test. However, under current law for attorneys who represent people in 
Social Security disability cases, they receive their reimbursement for 
the representation through a separate check from the Social Security 
Administration. That is being done away with. It does not save any 
money. We are told it might cost some money, but we are going to save 
some man-hours. We did want to offer before the Committee on Rules a 
proposal wherein we take the one disability check going to the 
beneficiary, have two payees listed on the check, and if in fact that 
did not cover the cost we would provide for a $20 fee. That was not 
permitted. That is sad.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins].
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say that this is a day that many of us in this 
body can stand and say promises made, promises kept, because both sides 
of the aisle have promised our seniors we would give them relief in 
their earnings ability by allowing them to continue to work and earn 
extra money and not be penalized for such.
  It comes from both sides of the aisle. As has been mentioned, both in 
the subcommittee and the full committee, there was not a dissenting 
vote. Again, this is how this body can work.
  I go back to just 10 days ago, on Sunday evening in this same body 
when on a unanimous consent we sent a continuing resolution down to the 
White House that would do the same thing, promises made, promises kept. 
That is why we all agreed to a 7-year balanced budget. I look forward 
to the day we stand here unanimously and say we fulfilled that promise 
also.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I now have the pleasure of 
yielding 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English].
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2684, legislation that will raise the Social Security earnings 
limit for working seniors who right now face higher real tax rates than 
millionaires in the current system.
  While senior citizens are the primary beneficiaries of this 
legislation, I am pleased to say another important sector of our work 
force will also benefit, and that is members of the clergy.
  H.R. 2684 includes a provision that I have advocated that would 
provide a 2-year open season for members of the clergy to enroll in 
Social Security. Some members of the clergy elected not to participate 
in Social Security early in their careers, before they fully understood 
the ramifications of opting out. Because the election process is 
irrevocable, there is no way for them to participate in the program 
under current law. Clergy typically have the most modest earnings 
throughout their working lives, and would be among those most likely to 
rely on Social Security. This legislation would give them an 
opportunity to enroll.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of yielding 
1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] a member of the 
Subcommittee on Social Security and a member of the full committee.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is more important than repealing the 
16th amendment and getting rid of the IRS is fixing it so our citizens 
have the right to work and earn whatever they want to. This bill, 
believe it or not, allows anyone between 65 and 70, which is what we 
are talking about, to hit $14,000 as a salary limit this year, this 
next year, instead of having to wait until the year 2002, which is what 
current law does.
  You know what that does? That helps 20 percent of those involved in 
that category, which is 925,000 people. That means those guys are not 
going to have to pay any more tax. That means they can work at Wendy's 
and McDonald's or wherever they want to and earn money without being 
subject to the Federal Government of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we have to pass it. It is a duty that we have.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of yielding 
1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].

[[Page H 13967]]

  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yield me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation. One 
provision of this bill, Mr. Speaker, cuts off benefits for those 
individuals considered disabled solely based on their addiction to 
either drugs or alcohol. I strongly support this provision.
  Mr. Speaker, as a recovering alcoholic who spends a great deal of my 
time with other alcoholics and addicts who are still suffering the 
ravages of chemical addiction, I can tell you that paying cash benefits 
to these people is not the kind of help that they need. In fact, cash 
benefits only make the problem of addiction worse, only serve to 
enable, to fuel the addiction.
  Those addicted to drugs or alcohol do not need cash, they need 
treatment. This bill, Mr. Speaker, provides $200 million in additional 
money to the States through an existing block grant program for the 
prevention and treatment of substance abuse.
  So I commend my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Ways and 
Means, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, for 
bringing this thoughtful piece of legislation to the floor, and I urge 
all of my colleagues to give substance abusers the help that they need. 
Support this legislation.
  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Indianapolis for 
yielding me time. There is not a man nor woman on that particular side 
from the gentleman's party whom I respect more, and whom I am going to 
dearly miss after his retirement this year.
  Mr. Speaker, today represents another step in our efforts to increase 
the Social Security earnings limit. Currently senior citizens between 
the ages of 65 and 69 lose $1 in Social Security benefits for every 
three they make over $11,280. This important piece of legislation we 
are considering today will change that. It will raise the earnings 
limit for those ages 65 to 69 to $30,000 by year 2002, thereby removing 
this disincentive to work and allowing seniors to keep more of their 
hard-earned dollars.
  This bill is especially important to the folks I represent back in 
Nebraska. The Omaha area is currently experiencing a labor shortage. 
With unemployment hovering around 2 percent, our efforts to raise the 
earnings limit will allow more seniors to enter the work force without 
being punished by the Federal Government, thereby providing Nebraska 
businesses with experienced employees rich in talent and full of 
ability.

                              {time}  1700

  Simply put, lifting the earnings limit for our Nation's seniors is 
the right thing to do. And as my friend from Georgia earlier said, 
promises made, promises kept.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp].
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding. I rise in support of the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act 
which will raise the earnings limit for seniors.
  This legislation accomplishes two important tasks: First, it ends the 
policy of subsidizing drug and alcohol abuse with Social Security 
funds; and, second, and very importantly, it ends the practice of 
punishing seniors who want to work.
  Currently, seniors who want to remain a vital part of the work force 
will lose $1 of their Social Security contributions for every $3 they 
earn over $11,280. This legislation will remove the disincentive to 
work placed upon seniors by raising that limit.
  American seniors have worked hard to pay into the Social Security 
trust fund. This legislation not only protects their investment and 
honors our commitment to them, it also encourages seniors to continue 
their contribution to our Nation's work force.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin].
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me time. 
I am proud to stand in support of the Senior Citizens Right to Work 
Act, and I am proud to have been an original cosponsor of this bill. 
Not only does it raise the earnings limit for our senior citizens 
between the ages of 65 and 70, just as importantly as allowing them to 
have hard-earned money to help them in these years, it gives the added 
benefit of allowing them to continue working to allow the senior 
citizens to do the things they want to do in their golden senior years.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a benefit that is healthy to them beyond the 
financial earnings. And in that I cite as an example of my own father 
who today is working at age 76. This law does not apply to them because 
seniors above the age of 70 are not subjected to earnings limits. But I 
see senior citizens who find it healthy for their own day-to-day 
happiness and well-being to be working, and I am proud to support this 
bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. This is a wonderful piece of legislation. It has 
simply taken too long to come to the floor of the House. It is 
bipartisan. It came out of our Committee on Ways and Means with a vote 
of 31 to 0, and it is time, in fact, beyond time, that this legislation 
go into effect.
  I support this legislation largely because I think it is just plain 
wrong to penalize our most experienced and dedicated workers for 
continuing to work and contribute to a better livelihood for themselves 
and also to a better future for the United States.
  Seniors across the country want to work beyond age 65 because a fixed 
Social Security income alone these days often does not provide adequate 
financial security. I think also the younger people in the workplace 
gain a lot through the experience of those folks who continue to work. 
It is good for all of us.
  Unfortunately, currently the earnings limit discriminates against 
some of our senior citizens and prevents us from being able to benefit 
from the talents of millions of experienced professional. The earnings 
limit punishes seniors after they have earned $11,280 by hitting them 
with an additional effective tax of 33 percent. It is too long that 
this has gone on. Now is the time to change it.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to make one note about an amendment that was 
accepted unanimously in the Committee on Ways and Means that is 
included in this legislation, a provision I offered during our 
consideration by our committee, that is, in effect, a sunshine 
amendment. It is designed to help seniors better understand their 
contributions and benefits under the Social Security system.
  The lack of information currently provided to seniors simply is 
unacceptable. My parents and seniors around this country have a desire, 
a need, and certainly a right to know about the status of their 
participation in the system, and so the amendment we proposed outlines 
the total income earned by each senior.
  Mr. Speaker, the provisions that we have added to this bill that 
would give further information on Social Security are: The total income 
earned by the individual receiving benefits, the total Social Security 
contributions by that individual and separately by that individual's 
employer, and, finally, the total dollars that have been received back 
by the beneficiary from Social Security.
  I think, Mr. Speaker that it will open up a degree of information 
that has never been available before. It will help people understand 
what their return is on the current Social Security compared to what 
they have paid in. Numerous seniors in my district find it ironic that 
other retirement benefit programs, like mutual funds and IRAs, provide 
this type of information in writing on a quarterly basis.
  Our proposal is a study for a period of 2 years with not more than 
600,000 recipients. We will see how it works, and I hope continue to 
provide this and further information.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this proposal. it is, 
as I said, way beyond its time. It will be good for seniors and good 
for all of us.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Heineman].

[[Page H 13968]]

  (Mr. HEINEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support of this legislation. I am a cosponsor of the 
bill and I urge my colleagues to strongly, strongly support the bill.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, which 
helps to fulfill a solemn pledge I made to the senior citizens in the 
Fourth Congressional District of North Carolina to remove this 
burdensome tax targeted at our working senior citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, as a senior citizen myself I know that current law 
penalizes seniors who want to work by imposing an earnings limit on the 
amount of outside income they can receive while still obtaining their 
full Social Security benefits. Seniors between the ages of 65 and 69 
currently lose $1 in Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn 
above $11,280. This kind of earnings limit amounts to an additional 33 
percent tax on top of existing income taxes.
  I know from first hand experience that many seniors continue to lead 
active and productive lives and contribute in important ways to our 
community. We should be supporting seniors who want to work, not 
penalizing them. H.R. 2684 will raise the current earnings limit from 
$11,280 to $30,000 by the year 2002. After the year 2002, the earnings 
limit will be indexed to the growth in average wages.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a modest, but critical reform, and I am pleased 
to lend my support to this much needed legislation.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  (Mr. TORKILDSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the increase 
in the earnings limit for Social Security recipients.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], who has worked for the last 8 
years to make this bill law.
  (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, this certainly is a red letter day for this 
Congress, but certainly, even more than that, a red letter day for the 
seniors of this country. It would not have happened, and I want to 
thank specifically the gentleman, who, after we passed this bill out of 
this House with over 400 votes on it, and the funding mechanism was 
rejected by the Senate, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] came 
back, worked with the staff diligently and made it work. We need to 
thank him profusely for that effort to make sure that this bill is on 
this floor today so that we can pass it and move it on.
  I also want to thank other Members, the gentleman from Texas, Dick 
Armey, who carried this bill for years in the House; and another 
gentleman from Texas, Bill Archer, who carried it for 20 years in the 
House as an important piece.
  What this bill does, ladies and gentleman, it helps working seniors, 
seniors who do not have pension income or stocks and bonds tacked away; 
people who have never had the chance to save and invest, and yet when 
they want to work to bring up their standard of living, to be part of 
this country, to share in the economy, to help their grandchildren, to 
take a vacation, to buy a car, when they go to earn those extra 
dollars, they get hit with a marginal tax rate of 56 percent when they 
exceed the limit of $11,000. Fifty-six percent, nearly twice the rate 
that millionaries pay today. Those seniors who live off investment 
incomes are not impacted by the earnings limit.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not just a right. America's working seniors 
should not be punished just because they never had money to tuck away 
and must now keep working to make ends meet. This tax relief for 
working seniors is sorely needed.
  Even though we know working seniors will pay more into our economy 
and more than offset the cost associated with lifting the earnings 
limit, the Congressional Budget Office will not allow this dynamic 
method of scoring. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] has worked 
to put together a proposal that meets the CBO budget rules and has also 
looked at that extra dynamic.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is a salute to senior citizens, people who 
have worked their whole life, people who have yet to give information 
and education and leadership to people who are younger, that they can 
be the person that they look up to in a work force in a small store, a 
candy store, a McDonald's, the Sears area, all of those people who 
endorse this piece of legislation.
  I again salute the gentleman from Kentucky for his tremendous 
leadership and his staff for bringing this piece of legislation 
together and salute the seniors of this country so that they can make a 
statement in their behalf as well.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kentucky for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the earnings test limit is unfair and unjust. It is, 
effectively, a mandatory retirement mechanism for a country no longer 
in need of it. It precludes greater flexibility for the elderly worker, 
and also prevents America's full use of the eager, experienced, and 
educated elderly worker. Finally, it deprives the U.S. economy of the 
additional income which would be generated by the elderly worker.
  Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of this bill, and I certainly 
want to applaud my colleague from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning; and, of 
course, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Dennis Hastert, who has 
labored in the vineyards for many years. When I came here in 1989, we 
worked so hard to get this bill forward, and I think now we have an 
opportunity to pass a great bill, to gain economic equality for those 
elderly workers who either want to work or must work in order to 
maintain a decent lifestyle.
  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
speak on behalf of this legislation which our senior citizens of the 
United States have been waiting for. The income eligibility raising is 
certainly an idea whose time has arrived.
  I have to congratulate all those colleagues who have been working so 
long and hard to make this legislation a reality. The fact is that 
seniors should be able, under 70 years of age, to earn more than 
$11,280. Under this legislation it will raise the income limit up to 
$30,000 without having the deduction from their Social Security.
  Anything we can do to help the seniors, who have helped us have the 
right to be here in Congress and to serve, certainly need our 
attention, our respect and admiration. I thank the individuals who have 
brought this legislation forward: the gentleman from Illinois, Dennis 
Hastert, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, and others, the 
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Jacobs. I appreciate all their help in 
making this day possible and urge all my colleagues to support the 
legislation.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am overjoyed to rise today in strong support 
of the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act. This is very good news for 
seniors in Florida and all across America.
  The issue here is very, very simple. Big brother, the Federal 
Government, is no longer going to punish seniors who choose to remain a 
productive part of the American work force. The new majority in 
Congress made a promise to our Nation's seniors that we would fix the 
unfair earnings test process and that is what is happening.
  Mr. Speaker, today's action provides one more example of promises 
made, promises kept, as we have said before. By raising the earnings 
test threshold from the meager $11,280 to $30,000 over the next 6 years 
we are sending a clear message to seniors that hard work and self-
reliance are still valued qualities in the United States of America.
  Although I feel strongly that we should abolish the earnings test 
limit altogether, because there should be no 

[[Page H 13969]]
additional tax penalty for work just because an individual has reached 
a certain age, this legislation does move us much further to that 
ultimate goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote and very much commend the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hastert], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Jacobs], for their 
strong, persistent, smart leadership in this matter.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from 
Kentucky on this issue. My father is 73 and a principal of a school in 
Palm Beach County, FL, very active. For those between the age of 66 and 
69, they should have the same opportunities.
  Mr. Speaker, we have commended people for work in America. Many of 
our bills talk about work being an honorable occupation. Go out and 
work. Get a job. But somehow when we hit 66, we are told, ``Sorry, 
unless you are going to be penalized, you do not need to pursue gainful 
employment.''
  So, I think this Congress is on the right track. Restoring dignity. 
Instead of telling people just because they hit a magic number, this 
age, that they are no longer wanted, now we are saying they continue to 
be wanted. They will be productive. They will continue to pay taxes and 
they will have a benefit to society.
  Public supermarkets in my district employ many seniors in assisting 
in grocery checkouts and other items. People are proud to have that 
opportunity to continue to remain active in their communities and the 
job market.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman for his leadership on this and 
urge passage.
  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I really hate to be the skunk at the 
Republican picnic this afternoon, but in my previous remarks I 
indicated that this bill is basically noncontroversial. But, also, one 
of the bad things that this bill that we are going to be voting on does 
is delink the earnings test for the blind.
  Mr. Speaker, we have 17,000 people, it is not a heck of a lot, but we 
have 17,000 blind Americans who qualify for this program today and they 
are being delinked. Yet after I made those comments, not one Republican 
would stand up and defend that law change. That is sad.
  The Speaker of this House, when he addressed the National Federation 
of the Blind, back in February of this year, indicated that removing 
the linkage for the blind was a major mistake and that he would make 
sure that was taken out. That is all we have heard for the last half 
hour is this gushing, gushing for our senior citizens. We have heard 
that through this measure we are going to salute our senior citizens. 
This is the same party, my friends, that is cutting Medicare for the 
senior citizens by $270 billion. Doubling their premiums, cutting $185 
or $182 billion out of Medicaid, which provides nursing home care. 
Where were the salutes then? Where was the support and all the gushing 
then?
  Through this bill, the seniors are going to have to work to pick up 
what they are losing in their health care program. This is ridiculous.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair please give us 
the time remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Everett). The gentleman from Kentucky 
[Mr. Bunning] has 2\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Jacobs] has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, just in response to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Kleczka], there are over 120 organizations currently trying to get the 
nonblind disabled to the same level of earnings that are under this 
bill for the blind disabled. The blind disabled in this bill continue 
to have the same limit on earnings that are in the current law. In 
other words, their limit on earnings will rise to $14,400 by the year 
2002. The nonblind disabled are stuck at $6,000.
  The cost of raising the nonblind disabled to the blind disabled 
currently is approximately $10 billion. We do not have the money to do 
that. To take them to where the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. 
Kennelly] would like to take them, the cost would run approximately $20 
billion over just the next 5 years. We do not have the money to do 
that.
  The bill preserves the indexing of the limitation on earnings for 
blind disabled recipients in the future. So, in answer to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, blind disabled recipients lose nothing as the result of 
this bill.
  In summary, I would first like to thank everybody that has worked on 
this bill: the staff, Phil Moseley, Valerie Nixon, Kim Hildred, 
Katherine Keith, Mary Anne Gee, Ken Morton, Janice Mays, Sandy Wise, 
and Cathy Noe; but most of all I would like to thank my colleague, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Jacobs]. Without his help we could not have 
gotten this bill together and accomplished on a bipartisan basis, both 
in the subcommittee and in the full committee.
  When we get a bill that comes out of our subcommittee almost on a 
unanimous vote, and a bill that comes out of the full Committee on Ways 
and Means, this day and age on a unanimous vote, I am certainly very 
proud of that fact. And it is because of the leadership of the 
gentleman from Indiana on his side that we were able to accomplish 
that.
  We know that the gentleman is going to retire, and maybe we could 
name this the Andy Jacobs retirement bill. The fact of the matter is I 
am sorry to see him leave, and I am very proud to have worked with the 
gentleman over the past 5 years on the Subcommittee on Social Security.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this legislation to raise the Social Security earnings limit. Under 
this bill, the annual income senior citizens will be allowed to earn, 
without penalty, will rise from $11,280 to $30,000 over the next 5 
years.
  In this day and age, I cannot believe that there would be anybody in 
this Chamber who wants to discourage people from working. Yet the 
earnings limit does precisely that. It is a foolish policy and one 
which creates perverse economic incentives. H.R. 2684 represents a 
solid first step and goes a long way toward lifting the burden placed 
on those seniors who continue to work and make contributions to 
America's economic activity.
  Under current law, seniors under the age of 70 who choose to work 
lose $1 out of every $3 they earn over some arbitrary and bureaucratic 
limit--currently set at $11,280 a year. To punish these folks, who have 
racked up years of experience, wisdom, and institutional knowledge 
makes no sense whatsoever. By raising the limit to $30,000, we begin to 
ease the penalty and, I hope, make definite strides to eliminating the 
earnings test altogether.
  The elections that swept Republicans into the majority were about 
rearranging our priorities and keeping our promises. We promised to 
raise the earnings limit in the Contract With America, and this bill, 
of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor, is symbolic of our 
efforts to keep our promises and fix a Government which all too often 
sends hardworking citizens the wrong signals.
  H.R. 2684, Mr. Speaker, is only a partial fix and only the beginning 
of corrective action which is long overdue. Last year, I cosponsored 
legislation--H.R. 300--which would have fully repealed the earnings 
limit and again this year, I cosponsored legislation--H.R. 201--to 
fully repeal the earnings test. For years, we have heard people argue 
that raising the earnings limit or repealing the earnings test would 
only benefit the wealthy. What these people either forget or ignore is 
the fact that under current law, income derived from private pensions 
and investments is not subjected to the limit at all. Therefore the 
argument that this bill would only benefit the wealthy is completely 
without merit. In fact, the ultrawealthy can and already do earn as 
much as they want from their investments, but middle-class hardworking 
men and women who want to keep a job are penalized for moneys they 
earn. H.R. 2684 addresses this inequity and restores fairness for those 
who want to work.
  For many of our elderly citizens, the additional wages they will be 
allowed to earn, without penalty, is important. But for many more there 
is an even greater reward: The dignity of working, earning, and keeping 
an honest buck. There is a spiritual as well as a health benefit to be 
derived from keeping active, working and being fairly compensated. Why 
the Federal Government would punish people for this is beyond me.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2684 also corrects a number of other injustices as 
well. Like the 

[[Page H 13970]]
fact that under current law, alcoholics and drug abusers can receive 
Social Security disability cash payments. As I said earlier, 
Republicans were elected to change our priorities, and here is a clear-
cut case of mixed up priorities. Punish seniors who decide to work, but 
give cash benefits to drug and alcohol abusers? These people need 
treatment and counseling. Under H.R. 2684, people addicted to alcohol 
or drugs will no longer be eligible to receive benefits due to 
disability. Instead, the bill redirects some of that funding to various 
drug and alcohol treatment programs so that people get the type of help 
they need.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing I would reiterate that this bill on the whole 
is a solid piece of legislation that can and should receive bipartisan 
support. It is unfortunate that during the years that the Democrats 
controlled the House this legislation was never brought to the floor 
for a vote and thus people continued to pay penalties at a very low 
threshold. Today, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2684, and I look 
forward to building upon this achievement and eliminating the 
irrational earnings test altogether.
  Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come before you today to 
express my support for the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1995.
  The time has come to defend the working seniors of America--seniors 
that have been penalized for their productive contributions to society.
  The current Social Security earnings limit of $11,280 has 
demonstrated Government's apathy toward those seniors who continue to 
work in retirement out of necessity. We must never forget that, for 
many seniors, work is not a choice.
  More importantly, the wisdom of our Nation's seniors is needed in 
today's work force. America benefits from their work ethic and their 
experience.
  I urge support for this legislation, and commended those seniors who 
have continued to offer their ideas and services beyond retirement. 
These reforms in Social Security reflect our values to allow personal 
responsibility and opportunity.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I offer my 
support for H.R. 2684, the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act.
  For many senior citizens, their retirement years are not golden and 
filled with leisure. Many of our elderly who cannot make ends meet with 
their savings and Social Security benefits have no other choice but to 
continue working. This legislation will help low-income senior 
citizens, especially single women, who are at risk of living in poverty 
during their retirement years.
  As the safety net for the elderly begins to fray due to cuts in 
Medicare and other programs, the least we can do is allow those who 
need to work to keep more of their benefits. I am pleased the Ways and 
Means Committee was able to forge a bipartisan bill on this important 
issue.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2684, the 
Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act. As you know, in 1935 Congress 
passed the Social Security Act to provide a stable source of income to 
older Americans. This program, however, includes an earnings limit that 
unfairly penalizes those senior citizens who want to work beyond the 
retirement age. Mr. Chairman, by raising the Social Security earnings 
limit to $30,000 by the year 2002, H.R. 2684, in part, fulfills our 
promises made to senior citizens in the Contract With America. Let me 
explain.
  First, it is a matter of fairness for seniors. Under current law, a 
senior citizen loses $1 in benefits for every $3 earned, above the 
$11,280 limit. This limit hurts low and middle-income senior citizens 
the most. These are individuals who work out of necessity--and need the 
income. Raising the earnings limit will enable these individuals to 
work so that they can make ends meet.
  Second, the low earnings limit penalizes senior citizens for 
remaining in our workforce. Our economy suffers from the loss of 
experience and skills that seniors bring to the work force. I have 
heard first hand from constituents in my district, that the earnings 
limit actually inhibits some seniors from working because the lose a 
portion of their Social Security benefits.
  Third, raising the earnings limit will help stimulate the economy. 
Obviously , senior citizens will be paying more taxes if they are 
working, and at the same time, have more money in their pockets to 
spend.
  Significantly, this legislation is paid for by spending cuts that 
make sense. Among other things, the bill eliminates the current 
practice of providing disability benefits to individuals that are 
considered disabled only because they are alcoholics or drug addicts. 
It also creates a revolving fund to finance continuing disability 
reviews to determine whether individuals receiving disability benefits 
are still disabled. Based on government studies, these reviews will 
result in fewer beneficiaries and substantial savings to the taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation. By increasing the Social Security earnings limit, it 
lessens the penalty for many senior citizens and it does so, in the 
most fiscally responsible manner.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important 
legislation. The current earnings limit has been a disincentive for 
seniors to continue to be productively employed. In particular, the 
present earnings limit imposes a hardship on middle and lower-income 
retirees, who often rely on earnings from work to supplement their 
Social Security benefits. The earnings penalty is in reality a huge 
marginal tax on working seniors. It discourages work and it is 
discriminatory between earned (wages) and unearned (dividends, 
interest, etc.) income.
  I support this legislation which will allow our seniors to continue 
to work and not be penalized for it. The ``Senior Citizens' Right to 
Work Act of 1995'' is long overdue and is just one piece of our puzzle 
as we bring tax fairness back to America's tax code. Again, I am 
pleased to support this legislation which will allow Indiana seniors 
the right to work.
  Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2684, the 
Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act. This bill will help alleviate the 
uncalled for economic discrimination against senior citizens between 
the ages of 65 and 69. It is outrageous that seniors in that age 
bracket are unduly punished by having their Social Security earnings 
reduced by one dollar for every three dollars they earn above $11,280.
  This bill will increase the earnings limitation from $11,280 to 
$30,000 by the year 2002. The first increase will occur in 1996 when 
the limit will be raised from the current $11,280 to $14,000. Each year 
thereafter, through 2000, the limit will increase by another $1,000. 
Thus, in 2000 the limit be up to $18,000. In 2001 the earnings 
limitation will jump up by some $7,000, going from $18,000 to $25,000. 
Finally, in 2002 the limit will be increased from $25,000 to $30,000.
  After 2002, the earnings limit will be indexed to the growth in 
average wages. In this way, the earnings limitation will be able to 
keep up with the times.
  I have long been an advocate and supporter of raising the earnings 
limitation for seniors. Earlier this year I cosponsored H.R. 8, the 
Senior Citizens Equity Act, which contained a provision raising the 
earnings limit to $30,000 by 2002. This provision was incorporated into 
H.R. 1215, the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act which passed the 
House on April 5, 1995, by a vote of 246 in favor, 188 against. I voted 
in favor of H.R. 1215. Since the fate of this legislation is still 
undetermined, I believe it is wise that the House is trying another 
venue, H.R. 2684, the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act, in the effort 
to raise the earnings limitation.
  The current low earnings limitation is an economic disincentive to 
work for many of our Nation's seniors. It puts a limit on the full use 
of their capabilities, as many who want to work more are put off by the 
reduction in their Social Security benefits. It is an absurd situation. 
This country should encourage, not discourage, seniors from earning 
more than $11,280 per year. Seniors who work are contributing mightily 
to our economy. They earn money and pay taxes on what they earn. They 
should not be penalized for their initiative and industry.
  In addition to raising the earning limit for seniors, the legislation 
contains another much needed reform. It prohibits the consideration of 
drug addicts and alcoholics as disabled in determining eligibility for 
entitlements to cash Social Security and Supplemental Security Income 
[SSI] disability benefits if the addiction is the contributing factor 
to the disability. This should put an end to having SSI disability 
being misused by drug and alcohol addicts to support their habits.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2684, the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act is a 
giant stride forward in the direction of helping our senior citizens 
between the ages of 65 and 69. It will enable them to earn more money 
without fear of having a substantial reduction in their Social Security 
benefits. The Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act will give our seniors 
the opportunity to live better lives because they will be able to have 
higher incomes and still retain their Social Security benefits without 
reductions. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Senior Citizens' 
Right to Work Act urge the measure's unanimous passage today. This 
essential legislation increases the amount that senior citizens under 
age 70 may earn without having their Social Security benefits reduced.
  Under current law, Social Security beneficiaries aged 65 through 69 
who earn too much lose $1 in benefits for every $3 they earn above 
specified limits. The limit is indexed so that it increases annually to 
reflect the increase in average wage growth. The current limit is 
approximately $11,000.
  Seniors who are able to work should be encouraged to do so. Without 
this measure, the 

[[Page H 13971]]
Federal Government is telling our elderly citizens to stay at home, and 
not to pursue gainful employment. That is not the message that I want 
to send to the seniors in the 3d Congressional District of Connecticut.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation's seniors have too much to offer for us to 
simply turn them away. We need their wisdom, their expertise and their 
zeal.
  Older Americans have tremendous potential to contribute to our 
communities, both in terms of professional expertise and productivity. 
It is a shame to lose those invaluable resources. Furthermore, Seniors 
who are active live longer and lead happier lives.
  I strongly support the Senior Citizen's Right to Work Act, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
voice some concerns with H.R. 2684, the Senior Citizens' Right to Work 
Act. Although I will support the bill on final passage, I am concerned 
about the effect that some of the more obscure provisions in the 
legislation may have on the rights of senior citizens.
  Included in this bill are provisions which remove the Social Security 
Administration from the process of payment of attorneys' fees. 
Currently, the Social Security Administration [SSA] approves the fees 
that an attorney may charge to represent a person in administrative 
proceedings, usually related to a denial of disability benefits. When 
the applicant is successful, SSA withholds the lesser of $4,000 or 25 
percent of the benefits to pay the attorney. H.R. 2684 would change the 
law such that SSA would no longer be involved in the process and 
attorneys could negotiate fees up to a $4,000 limit.
  This portion of H.R. 2684, while seeming sublime on the surface, may 
result in attorneys choosing to stop representing disabled individuals 
in their administrative proceedings. Since the fee would no longer be 
withheld, attorneys are fearful that they may not be paid for the 
service they provide, and thus may choose to avoid this type of 
representation.
  While I will support the legislation, I regret that the leadership 
has chosen to bring this legislation to the floor in such a fashion so 
as to preclude amendments, and I hope to work with the Senate and the 
White House concerning the availability of competent representation for 
Social Security claimants.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2684, the 
Senior Citizens Right to Work Act of 1995, and commend its sponsor, the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] for all of his hard work on this 
measure.
  Under current law, this country's senior citizens from age 65 to age 
69 are limited to earn only $11,280 in additional income before they 
suffer penalties of $1 in Social Security benefits for every $3 of 
income earned above that limit. Mr. Bunning's measure will allow 
seniors by the year 2000, to earn up to $30,000 in outside income 
without being forced to give up Social Security benefits.
  While this bill is certainly a step in the right direction, I believe 
that we should go further and eliminate this anachronistic limitation 
and thereby allow our seniors to continue to work to the best of their 
capabilities in order to sustain themselves in a time of an increasing 
cost of living. We must allow older Americans who choose to work to 
earn appropriate pay without losing any of their hard-earned Social 
Security benefits.

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us obviously enjoys very 
broad support among our colleagues. However, we ought to pause for a 
moment and give serious thought to what we are doing by passing this 
measure.
  The Congressional Budget Office projects that we will spend more than 
$350 billion on Social Security benefits in 1996--more than one-fifth 
of the budget, and more than we are spending on any other single 
Federal program. Working Americans--no matter how little they make--6.2 
percent of their paycheck--with their employers paying the same 
amount--to finance these benefits. Yet not only have we taken this huge 
program off the budget negotiating table, we are now actually moving to 
increase it--at a time when we are trying to cut back just about 
everything else the Government spends money on.
  We need to give serious thought to whether it makes sense to increase 
these benefits--when the majority of that increase will go to those who 
are already relatively well off--at a time when we are moving to cut 
benefits for people who really need them.
  We also need to give serious thought to whether it is wise to make 
what will be a huge move toward turning Social Security into a benefit 
which one is automatically entitled to receive upon reaching age 65, 
rather than a program to compensate for lost earnings due to 
retirement, as was originally intended. We need to ask: Does it make 
sense to do that when people are living so much longer than they used 
to, and when our population of older Americans is going to begin 
growing enormously in just a few years?
  And, we ought to consider whether we are inviting early retirees--
ages 62-64--to ask for the same thing we are about to grant retirees 
aged 65-69. Once we increase the earnings limitation for recipients who 
are aged 65-69, will early retirees ask for a liberalization of the 
definition of ``retired'' using the very same arguments that are being 
made by those aged 65-69?
  The title of this bill, the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act, is a 
misnomer. Senior citizens have every right to work; what this does is 
give older working Americans the right to collect more Social Security 
benefits than they are currently entitled to. At a time when we ought 
to be curbing entitlement spending, not expanding it, passing this 
legislation seems most unwise.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2684, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________