[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 45 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3114-S3123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    INCREASING THE PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today the Senate considers H.R. 3136, a bill 
to increase the public debt limit to $5.5 trillion. The bill would also 
increase the earnings limit for all Social Security recipients as well 
as provide regulatory relief for small businesses. The regulatory 
relief package mirrors S. 942, which passed the Senate earlier this 
month by a vote of 100 to 0. As of last night, some details of that 
package were still being finalized. Senator Bond, chairman of the Small 
Business Committee, will explain that portion of this bill. I will 
focus my remarks on the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996. 
However, before I do that, let me spend a few moments on the need for 
the debt-limit increase.
  Earlier this year, we passed two bills, H.R. 2924 and H.R. 3021, to 
provide for temporary relief from the current debt limit. These two 
bills created new legal borrowing authority not subject to the debt 
limit for a short period of time. Today we will act on the long-term 
extension. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this increase 
should be sufficient through the end of fiscal year 1997.
  Over the past decade, many have argued against raising the debt 
limit, however, let me remind my colleagues that last fall we passed a 
budget that would have achieved balance in 7 years. That legislation 
would have gone a long way to reduce the amount of debt limit increases 
which are always so painful to enact. Unfortunately, as we all know, 
President Clinton decided to veto the Balanced Budget Act of 1995.
  If we fail to concur in the action of the House, or if President 
Clinton were to veto this bill, we would find ourselves in a fiscal and 
financial crisis. The Government could not borrow and bills would only 
be paid out of current receipts, leading to defaults on interest 
payments and payments to contractors as well as an inability to make 
all required benefit payments. These defaults would also lead to higher 
interest rates.
  Congress has raised the debt limit 33 times between 1980 and 1995. 
Many of these increases were short-term temporary extensions. It is 
important to remember that the increase of $600 billion included in 
this bill is the third largest increase. The largest increase was in 
the 1990 budget deal and the second largest was in the 1993 Clinton 
tax-increase bill.
  I hope that the Senate expeditiously enacts this critically important 
piece of legislation to preserve the full faith and credit of the U.S. 
Government.
  Now let me turn to title I of this bill. The Senior Citizens' Right 
to Work Act is a big step toward providing greater economic opportunity 
and security for America's senior citizens.
  Under current law, millions of men and women between the ages of 65 
and 69 are discouraged from working because they face a loss of their 
Social Security benefits. If a senior citizen earns more than a certain 
amount--the so-called earnings limit--he or she loses $1 in Social 
Security benefits for every $3 earned. The current earnings limit is a 
very low amount--only $11,520.
  Mr. President, this earnings limit is unfair to seniors and is a 
barrier to a prosperous economic future of all Americans.
  For today's seniors, the earnings limit can add up to a whopping tax 
bite. According to both the Congressional Research Service and the 
Joint Committee on Taxation, seniors who have wages above the earnings 
limit can face marginal tax rates over 90 percent, when one factors in 
Federal and State taxes.

  Mr. President, that is not right.

[[Page S3115]]

  But as unfair as the earnings test is today, it will be an even 
bigger problem in the future, a future that is rapidly approaching.
  We all know the statistics concerning the aging of America. In the 
same way, we realize more and more that much of our future economic 
growth will depend on the ability of older Americans to remain working.
  Mr. President, why do we even have this earnings limit? Back in 1935, 
when the Social Security system was designed, it was widely believed 
that the economy could support only a limited number of workers. 
Perhaps this belief was understandable 60 years ago--when we were in 
the middle of the Great Depression. But today, few, if any, economists 
hold such a belief. In fact, most believe quite the opposite.
  Mr. President, I also believe this bill will improve public 
confidence in the Social Security system.
  Social Security is a contract with the American people. Everyone 
working today knows the taxes the Federal Government takes from them 
each payday will be returned by the Social Security program when they 
retire. For parents working to support a family, this sizable tax can 
be--and often is--overwhelming.
  But what too many seniors find out, Mr. President, is that the 
Government can exact a high price when they reach 65. If they continue 
to work, seniors are allowed to earn very little before the Government 
starts taking back benefits. As I noted earlier, for every dollar a 
senior earns over the earnings limit--currently only $11,530--he or she 
loses 33 cents in benefits.
  Mr. President, the bill now before the Senate would raise the 
earnings limit for seniors aged 65 to 69 to $12,500 this year, and to 
$30,000 by 2002. This legislation is entirely paid for with real 
savings, not gimmicks.
  But we are not just spending money. This bill also provides $1.8 
billion of deficit reduction over 7 years.
  Even better, according to the Social Security Administration, title I 
of this bill actually improves the long-range health of the Social 
Security trust fund.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum from the 
Office of the Actuary of the Social Security Administration that makes 
this point be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we all know the Social Security trust fund 
has a long-range solvency problem. Beginning in 2013, payroll taxes 
will no longer be enough to cover benefits, and by 2031 the trust fund 
surplus will be depleted.
  Although this bill is in no way a complete solution to that problem, 
every little bit helps.
  Lastly, let me note that title I contains two other provisions 
important to the health of the Social Security system.
  First, the bill provides funding for continuing disability reviews. 
These reviews are supposed to be done periodically to determine if 
individuals receiving disability benefits under Social Security or SSI 
continue to be disabled. Historically, this important program integrity 
activity has not been well funded, and the Social Security 
Administration has a backlog of over 1 million reviews waiting to be 
done. Social Security itself admits that billions of dollars have been 
lost from not doing these reviews, and even more money will be lost in 
the future.
  This bill will help fix that urgent problem.
  Incidentally, the continuing disability review provision is supported 
by the Administration, and a very similar proposal is continued in the 
President's 1997 budget.
  Second, title I of this bill contains a provision to protect the 
Social Security and Medicare trust funds from underinvestment or 
disinvestment--which has been endorsed by the Treasury Department.
  Title I of this bill was reported out of the Finance Committee 
unanimously and a similar measure passed the House by the 
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 411 to 4.
  I am grateful to Senators Dole and McCain, both champions of raising 
the earnings limit, for their tireless efforts on this issue. I am 
proud to join them in this effort.
  Raising the earnings limit is also strongly supported by AARP.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from AARP be 
printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in closing on the earnings limit, let me 
quote two distinguished experts from the Urban Institute, Eugene 
Steuerle and Jon Bakija. These experts have stated, ``The simple fact 
is that the earnings test is a tattered remnant of a bygone era.''
  Mr. President, let us act now, and send the message to America's 
seniors that we value their experience and skills.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                   March 22, 1996.
     From: Stephen C. Goss, Deputy Chief Actuary.
     Subject: Estimated, long-range OASDI financial effects of the 
         Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1966--Information.
     To: Harry C. Ballantyne, Chief Actuary.
       Enacting the ``Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996'' 
     (Title II of H.R. 3136) would increase (improve) the long-
     range OASDI actuarial balance by a total amount estimated at 
     0.03 percent of taxable payroll. The long-range solvency of 
     the OASDI program would thus be improved by reducing the 
     long-range deficit from 2.17 percent of taxable payroll to 
     2.14 percent of taxable payroll. These estimates are based on 
     the intermediate (alternative II) assumptions of the 1995 
     Trustees Report. The balance of this memorandum describes the 
     long-range financial effects of the individual provisions of 
     the title.
       Sections 204 and 205 of this act would each increase 
     (improve) the long-range OASDI actuarial balance by an 
     estimated 0.01 percent of taxable payroll. Section 204 would 
     require one-half support from a stepparent at time of filing 
     for a stepchild to receive benefits on the stepparent's 
     account, and terminate benefits to stepchildren upon the 
     divorce of the stepparent and the natural parent. Section 205 
     would prohibit eligibility to DI (and SSI) disability 
     benefits based on drug addiction or alcohol abuse, 
     respectively. Section 202, which would raise the earnings 
     test exempt amount for beneficiaries at or above the normal 
     retirement age to $30,000 by 2002, would result in negligible 
     (estimated at less than 0.005 percent of taxable payroll) 
     changes in the long-range OASDI actuarial balance. Sections 
     206 (pilot study on information for OASDI beneficiaries), 207 
     (protection of the trust funds), and 208 (professional staff 
     for the Social Security Advisory Board) would also result in 
     negligible effects on the long-range actuarial balance.
       Section 203 authorizes the appropriation of specific 
     amounts to be made available for fiscal years 1996 through 
     2002 for continuing disability reviews. This provision will 
     have the effect of increasing the number of continuing 
     disability reviews through 2002, with the result that total 
     costs of the DI program will be lower for the long-range 
     period and that the solvency of the OASDI program will be 
     improved throughout the long-range period. Additional savings 
     will occur if continuing disability reviews continue at the 
     same level beyond 2002 as is provided for in this provision 
     through the year 2002. The effect of this provision, assuming 
     the appropriation of the specified amounts through 2002, is 
     estimated to be an additional increase (improvement) in the 
     long-range actuarial balance estimated at 0.01 percent of 
     taxable payroll.
                                                  Stephen C. Goss.

                               Exhibit 2


                                                         AARP,

                                   Washington, DC, March 27, 1996.
     Hon. William V. Roth, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Roth: The American Association of Retired 
     Persons supports the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act--the 
     proposed increase in the Social Security earnings limit--on 
     the pending debt limit bill. We should be encouraging, not 
     penalizing, those who continue to work and contribute to the 
     economy.
       AARP has long supported an increase in the earnings limit. 
     The current level of $11,520 penalizes beneficiaries age 65 
     through 69 who desire to continue in the workforce. Your 
     proposal, which would increase the limit to $30,000 over a 7-
     year period, is a fiscally responsible way of enabling many 
     moderate and middle-income beneficiaries to improve their 
     economic situation. AARP commends you and your committee for 
     your leadership in the effort to finally address this long-
     overdue reform.
       AARP believes that the earnings limit increase should be 
     financed in an appropriate manner in order to maintain the 
     integrity of the Social Security trust funds. While trade-
     offs within the program are necessary, such financing is the 
     responsible course. Towards this end, the Association notes 
     that the Social Security actuaries have projected that your 
     proposal would result in an improvement in the long range 
     actuarial balance of the Social Security trust funds.

[[Page S3116]]

       The proposed increase in the earnings limit would also send 
     a strong signal to working beneficiaries that their skills, 
     expertise and enthusiasm are welcome in the workplace. The 
     public policy of this nation should be to encourage older 
     workers to remain in the workforce. Your proposal would 
     further that goal.
       The Association remains committed to increasing the 
     earnings limit, and we are pleased that Congress and the 
     Administration have agreed to raise the earnings limit in the 
     104th Congress. Again, we thank you for your leadership.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Horace B. Deets,
                                               Executive Director.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I express the appreciation and relief of 
all Members of this body and Americans everywhere that we shall, in 
very short order, under this agreement extend the debt ceiling to $5.5 
trillion. That will take us through this fiscal year and past the next 
election to about September 30, 1997. This particular drop-dead date is 
out of our way. We can have a good national debate on other issues.
  I make the point, Mr. President, that while, again, we have to extend 
the debt ceiling, for the first time since the 1960's, the United 
States has a primary surplus in its budget, which is to say that the 
revenues from taxes and other activities exceed the costs of the 
operations of the Federal Government.
  Debt service makes for a continuing deficit, but it is coming down. 
The total deficit this fiscal year will be approximately 2 percent of 
gross domestic product. It was 5.7 percent just a few years ago. This 
is a good development. It is a bipartisan one. The vote was bipartisan 
in the House. It is responsible behavior. I thank all concerned.
  Finally, Mr. President, I particularly want to thank my colleague, 
the chairman of the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. President, my friend and distinguished associate, Senator Jeff 
Bingaman, has some very laudable concerns to raise the earnings limit 
for the blind so that in future years it will increase in parallel with 
the increase for retirees under Social Security, a provision included 
in this bill.
  In that regard, I would like to take this opportunity to thank 
Senator McCain for his thoughtfulness in pressing a matter of concern 
to him. The earnings limitation is an obsolete provision from the 
1930's. We are gradually going to get rid of it now. Senator McCain 
deserves great credit for that, and I would like to so express my 
appreciation.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I thank the managers of this 
legislation for allowing us to interrupt. Otherwise, it was default by 
midnight--well, midnight tomorrow. Even so, we have averted that, and 
we can go on to the proper business of the Senate. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I certainly thank our colleague from 
New York for his cordial management of this very important issue that 
had to be resolved.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I had hoped to offer an amendment to the 
debt limit bill that would have rectified an unjust situation in the 
legislation concerning the Social Security earnings limit increase for 
retirees. My amendment would have reestablished the linkage between 
earnings limit increases for retirees and the blind, a linkage that has 
existed since 1977. Unfortunately the bill we are considering ends that 
linkage which I believe is unfair and not supported by adequate policy 
considerations. However, Mr. President, I understand that passage of 
this amendment would have potentially damaged completion of the debt 
limit bill, a bill that has too long been delayed by extremist 
politics, so therefore I do not feel that now is an appropriate time to 
pursue my amendment.
  However, Mr. President, it is my understanding that the ranking 
member of the Senate Finance Committee, Mr. Moynihan, has given me his 
commitment to support my efforts in the Finance Committee and on the 
floor of the Senate, if necessary, to support an amendment that 
reestablishes some linkage between the blind and retirees on the next 
bill reported out of the Finance Committee that amends the Social 
Security Act. Am I correct in that understanding?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Senator from New Mexico is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I also understand that my friend and colleague, Senator 
Moynihan, will work with me to develop appropriate offsets that will 
insure that this amendment will not violate the provisions of the 
Budget Act when the amendment comes before the Senate during this 
Congress. Am I correct in that understanding?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes, the Senator from New Mexico is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this bill to increase 
the public debt limit.
  Twice last year, Congress passed legislation that properly coupled a 
debt limit increase with the steps necessary to balance the budget and 
thus preclude the need for additional debt limit increases in the 
future. Twice, the President vetoed the bills.
  Let us be clear. If there is any possibility that the Federal 
Government will default on its obligations, it is a result of the 
President's insatiable appetite to spend the taxpayers' money.
  President Clinton opposed the Balanced Budget Amendment last year. He 
vetoed the Balanced Budget Act--the first balanced budget to have 
passed the Congress in 26 years. He vetoed appropriations bills that 
comply with the strict budget limits for the current fiscal year.
  It is the President's spending plan that, more than anything else, 
threatens to bankrupt the Nation and condemn future generations to a 
forever declining standard of living.
  Mr. President, there is nothing in this bill that will ensure 
progress toward a balanced budget. The only reason the debt limit 
increase is going to pass is that it has been coupled with an increase 
in the Social Security earnings limitation and regulatory reform for 
small businesses.
  Senior citizens and small businesses should not be held hostage to a 
debt limit increase. We should not have to vote to lead the Nation down 
the road to bankruptcy in order to ensure that seniors can keep more of 
their hard-earned income or to relieve small businesses of the 
regulatory burden that is hindering them.
  My constituents know where I stand on the earnings limitation. I have 
cosponsored legislation in the past to repeal it. I voted four times 
last year on proposals relating to the repeal or raising of the 
earnings test, most recently on November 2, 1995.
  No American should be discouraged from working, yet that is what the 
earnings limitation is specifically designed to do. The policy violates 
the very principles of self-reliance and personal responsibility on 
which America was founded. It is wrong. Not only does the earnings 
limit deny seniors the opportunity to work and supplement their 
retirement incomes, it denies American businesses a lifetime of 
expertise that many seniors bring to their work. The earnings 
limitation ought to be repealed.
  The regulatory relief provisions of this bill passed the Senate just 
last week by a vote of 100 to 0. The vote was unanimous. It was 
unanimous for a reason: small businesses are being overwhelmed by 
federal rules and regulations.
  Obviously, the regulatory relief measure could stand on its own 
merit. The only reason to include it here is that it will help win 
votes for the passage of the debt limit increase.
  Mr. President, senior citizens, and small businessmen and women 
deserve better than to be made scapegoats for another debt limit 
increase. The earnings limit and regulatory reform provisions should be 
stripped from this bill and passed on their own merit. We should not, 
however, agree to any further increase in the debt limit until we first 
put the budget on a path to balance, and obviate the need for future 
debt limit increases.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, once again we are debating whether or not 
to raise the Social Security earnings limit. The debt limit increase 
bill before the Senate contains what is basically the text of S. 1470, 
the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act.
  I have discussed this issue many times on the Senate floor and I do 
not want to force my colleagues to listen to the same arguments that I 
have

[[Page S3117]]

made here for the last 8 years. Therefore, I will be brief.
  Passage of this bill will change a depression-era law that is 
designed to keep seniors out of the workplace. It is long overdue that 
we take this action.
  Mr. President, this bill would raise the Social Security earnings 
limit from today's level of $11,280 per year to $30,000 per year over a 
7-year period. Currently, if a senior citizen earns over the $11,280 
earnings limit, the senior loses 1 of every $3 he or she earns. By 
raising the limit to $30,000, seniors who need to work would be allowed 
to do so without facing this onerous penalty.
  Let me emphasize, this bill does not repeal the earnings limit. 
Although I would like to see the limit repealed in its entirety, this 
bill does not do that. It merely raises the limit to $30,000. And, Mr. 
President, I don't think anyone here in the Senate believes that 
$30,000 per year is much money.
  Rich seniors--those who live of lucrative investments, stock benefit, 
trust accounts--are not effected by the earnings limit. Their income is 
safe and sound. The earnings limit only effects seniors who are forced 
to survive from earned income. Therefore, this bill has no effect on 
well-off seniors.
  On the other hand, a working senior--one who works at McDonalds, or 
Disney or anywhere just to make ends meet--will benefit greatly by 
passage of this bill. And the 1.4 million seniors who are burdened by 
this onerous earnings test will be able to use the money they save due 
to its change to make their lives a little better.
  Again, Mr. President, I don't want to belabor my colleagues with a 
long dissertation on this matter. They have all heard the arguments 
again and again. And I believe, if one is to believe the lofty 
statements that sometimes appear in the Record, that virtually every 
Member of this Senate supports taking action on this matter.
  But year after year there have been one reason or another for Members 
to defeat this bill. There is always some excuse. Well, Mr. President, 
the time for excuses is over.
  The bill before the Senate is not perfect. Many have concerns over 
technical aspects of it. But, Mr. President, now is the time to pass 
this measure. If any Members object to a pay for in this bill, then let 
them suggest an alternative. The sponsors of this bill are open to 
suggestions. But let me make the record completely clear, any Member 
who comes to the floor and argues on some technical parliamentary issue 
is working to defeat this bill.
  Unlike the last time this bill was brought before the Senate, we pay 
for this bill without touching discretionary spending.
  This bill is paid for. It is paid for 10 years. It is paid for out of 
mandatory spending. And specifically, it is paid for out of Social 
Security.
  This bill is paid for by the following changes I will outline:
  This bill pays for the increase in the earnings limit through two 
major changes in present law.
  First, the bill ends entitlement to SSDI and SSI disability benefits 
if drug addiction or alcoholism are the contributing factors material 
to the determination of disability. Those individuals with drug 
addiction or alcoholism who have another severe disabling condition 
will still be able to qualify for benefits based on that disability. So 
the only individuals who will lose benefits are those whose sole 
disabling condition is drug addiction or alcoholism.
  In fiscal years 1997 and 1998, $50 million of the savings from this 
change will be added to the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment 
Block Grant, providing additional funds for treatment services. This 
approach recognizes that while drug addicts and alcoholics need 
treatment, they are not in fact helped by cash benefits which can be 
used to pay for their addiction or drinking.
  I would like to emphasize that those individuals with a drug 
addiction or alcoholism condition who have another severe disabling 
condition will still be able to qualify for benefits based on that 
disability. In these cases, the bill requires that benefits be paid to 
a representative payee if the Commissioner of Social Security finds 
that this would serve the interest of the individual. In addition, the 
bill requires that individuals whose benefits are paid to a 
representative payee be referred to the appropriate State agency for 
substance abuse treatment services. This approach recognizes that such 
individuals not only need substance abuse treatment but often need the 
assistance of others to ensure that their cash benefits are not used to 
sustain their addiction. Over a 5-year period, this change will save 
approximately $3.5 billion.

  Second, the bill makes several changes in the entitlement of 
stepchildren to Social Security benefits. For a stepchild to receive 
benefits on the stepparent's account, the bill requires that a 
stepparent provide at least 50 percent of the stepchild's support, and 
for stepchildren to receive survivor's benefits, the bill requires that 
the stepparent provided at least 50 percent of the child's support 
immediately prior to death. In addition, a stepchild's Social Security 
benefits are terminated following the divorce of natural parent and the 
stepparent. These changes will ensure that benefits are only paid to 
stepchildren who are truly dependent on the stepparent for their 
support, and only as long as the natural parent and stepparent are 
married. Over a 5-year period, these changes will save approximately 
$870 million.
  Taken together, these two changes will not only offset the cost of 
raising the earnings test limit, but will also improve the long term 
solvency of the Social Security system. In addition, the bill permits 
adjustments to the discretionary spending caps, so that spending for 
Continuing Disability Reviews [CDR's] can be increased. If these cap 
adjustments are fully used and the additional reviews are conducted, an 
additional savings of approximately $3.5 billion could result. Although 
these savings are not needed to pay for the increase in the earnings 
test limit, they would also increase the long term solvency of the 
Social Security System.
  Mr. President, current law applies such an onerous and unfair tax to 
working seniors that they are effectively forced to stop working. This 
is unconscionable and it must be changed. Basically, passage of this 
bill will allow seniors who do not have enough in savings or pensions 
to work to make ends meet.
  It does not help rich seniors who have stocks and bonds. Money 
derived from those sources is currently exempt from the earnings limit. 
This limit only affects earned income--money earned by seniors who go 
to work everyday for an hourly wage.
  Mr. President, this bill would raise the Social Security earnings 
limit from today's level of $11,280 per year to $30,000 per year over a 
7 year period.
  I strongly believe this reform will result in a change in the 
behavior of our Nation's seniors. When we raise the earnings limit, 
seniors will work more, and thus pay more in taxes. I hope that all my 
colleagues understand this point. This bill will benefit working 
seniors--those most in need of our help.
  Unfortunately, under a static scoring model--one used by the 
Congressional Budget Office--this amendment would be scored at costing 
just over $7 billion dollars.
  And once again, I want to repeat, this bill is fully paid for without 
touching discretionary spending.
  Mr. President, the Social Security earnings test was created during 
the depression era when senior citizens were being discouraged from 
working. This may have been appropriate then when 50 percent of 
Americans were out of work, but it is certainly not appropriate today. 
It is not appropriate today when seniors are struggling to get ahead 
and survive on limited incomes. Many of these seniors are working to 
survive and make it day to day.
  Most people are amazed to find that older Americans are actually 
penalized by the Social Security earnings test for their productivity. 
For every $3 earned by a retiree over the $11,280 limit, they lose $1 
in Social Security benefits. Due to this cap on earnings, our senior 
citizens, many of whom are existing on low incomes, are effectively 
burdened with a 33.3 percent tax on their earned income. Combined with 
Federal, State, and other Social Security taxes, it will amount to a 
shocking 55- to 65-percent tax bite, and sometimes even more--Federal 
tax--15 percent, FICA--7.65 percent, earnings test penalty--33.3 
percent, State and local tax--5 percent. Obviously, this earnings cap 
is punitive, and serves as a tremendous disincentive to work. No one 
who is struggling along at $11,000 a year should

[[Page S3118]]

have to face an effective marginal tax rate which exceeds 55 percent.
  This is an issue of fairness. Why are we forcing people not to work? 
Why are we punishing people for trying to ``make it.'' No American 
should be discouraged from working. Unfortunately, as a result of the 
earnings test, Americans over the age of 65 are being punished for 
attempting to be productive. The earnings test doesn't take into 
account an individual's desire or ability to contribute to society. It 
arbitrarily mandates that a person retire at age 65 or suffer the 
consequences.
  Perhaps most importantly, the earnings cap is a serious threat to the 
welfare of low-income senior citizens. Once the earnings cap has been 
reached, a person with a job providing just $5 an hour would find that 
the after tax value of that wage drops to less than $3. A person with 
no private pension or liquid investments--which, by the way, are not 
counted as ``earnings''--from his or her working years may need to work 
in order to meet the most basic expenses, such as shelter, food and 
health-care costs.
  There is also a myth that repeal of the earnings test would only 
benefit the rich. Nothing could be further from the truth. The highest 
effective marginal rates are imposed on the middle income elderly who 
must work to supplement their income. Plus these middle income seniors 
are precisely the group that was hit hardest by the 85-percent tax 
increase included in President Clinton's Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1993. This tax increase hits hardest those seniors who were frugal 
during their working lives in order to save toward their retirement 
since the tax affects both their Social Security and their savings. The 
85 percent increase has hit a group of seniors who are far from rich 
with a triple whammy and is a further disincentive to these seniors who 
could further contribute to our economic growth by working.

  We have a massive Federal deficit. Studies have found that repealing 
the earnings test could net $140 million in extra Federal revenue. 
Furthermore, the earnings test is costing us $15 billion a year in 
reduced production. Taxes on that lost production would go a long way 
toward reducing the budget deficit. Nor, as it continues to become 
tougher to compete globally, can America afford to pursue any policy 
that adversely affects production or effectively prevents our citizens 
from working.
  Mr. President, let me also note that changes to the earnings test 
will in no way jeopardize the solvency of the Social Security trust 
funds. Let me clarify for the record that the Social Security system 
will in no way be at risk if we alter the status quo in regards to the 
earnings test. To claim it would is a red herring and is unfortunately 
nothing more than a cruel scare tactic.
  Let me also point out that one very disturbing consequence of the 
President's tax increase on Social Security is that it continues to 
punish those seniors who do work--what little they can due to the 
earnings test--in order to make ends meet. They are hit with both the 
tax on their benefits and the Social Security earnings test penalty. 
This is completely unfair.
  It is certainly true that our Nation's seniors--as a group --are 
better off today that they were when Social Security was created in 
1935. It is also true that many other groups in our society are 
suffering from declining standards of living. Deficit reduction and 
economic growth are of paramount concern for this Nation. But 
increasing the taxation of Social Security benefits is neither an 
appropriate nor effective way to achieve these goals.
  Finally, it is simply outrageous to continue two separate policies 
that both keep people out of the work force who are experienced and 
want to work. We have been warned to expect a labor shortage. Why 
should we discourage our senior citizens from meeting that challenge? 
As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which strongly supports this 
legislation, has pointed out, ``retraining older workers already is a 
priority in labor intensive industries, and will become even more 
critical as we approach the year 2000.''
  A number of our Nation's prominent senior organizations are lining up 
in favor of repealing both of these measures. Among these groups are 
the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and the 
Seniors Coalition.
  Mr. President, before I finish, I want to discuss the issue of 
delinking the blind. Let me clarify for the record that I support what 
my colleague from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman had wanted to accomplish. 
The Social Security earnings limit effects more than just the elderly, 
it also effects the earnings of blind individuals who receive 
Government benefits. Unfortunately, the provisions of S. 1470 which 
were added to the debt ceiling bill breaks the link between the blind 
and the earnings limit.
  Now we must act on the debt ceiling, which we must soon pass in order 
to ensure that the Government is not forced to close. There is not time 
to amend this bill and call a conference committee. We must send the 
debt ceiling to the White House as soon as possible. I was not pleased 
that the rule in the House did not allow for this issue to be fully 
addressed. But the House has acted and we are now limited by such 
action. This leaves us with few options.
  I would hope, Mr. President, that perhaps the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, and myself could agree on some 
date certain for the Finance Committee to address this issue. We could 
give our assurances to the blind community that the Finance Committee 
would act and that if they did not, then Mr. Bingaman and I would offer 
this amendment to another bill.
  I would hope that we could take that path.
  I know it is not the perfect solution. But I am doubtful that we will 
be able to solve this problem today.
  Further, the Senator from New Mexico's amendment would not have fully 
relinked the blind to the earnings limit. The provisions of the Senior 
Citizens Freedom to Work Act raises the earnings limit from 
approximately $11,000 to $30,000 over a 7 year period. The Bingaman 
amendment would only raise the earnings limit for the blind from 
$11,000 to $14,000. Although this amendment offers the blind some 
relief, it does not offer full linkage.
  I would hope that we could fully re-link the blind to the earnings 
limit at the appropriate time.
  I want all my friends in the blind community to know that I will work 
with them to see to it that this issue is properly addressed. I know 
that all of my colleagues are keenly aware of the problems associated 
with employment for the blind. But as I noted, we must pass this debt 
ceiling bill now. We cannot wait. We cannot risk closing the 
Government.
  And I again, give every assurance I can to the blind community that 
we will address this issue and we will do it very soon.
  Mr. President, in closing, America cannot afford to continue to 
pursue two separate policies that adversely effect production and are 
unfairly burdensome to one particular segment of society. Our Nation 
would be better served if we eliminate the burdensome earnings test and 
the grossly unfair tax increase and provide freedom, opportunity and 
fairness for our Nation's senior citizens.
  For 8 long years I have fought to relax the Social Security earnings 
test. When the President signs this bill tonight or tomorrow, the 
battle will have been won and America's seniors have a right to 
rejoice.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, today, we are considering legislation which 
will extend the current $4.9 trillion debt ceiling to $5.5 trillion. I 
am pleased that the administration and the leadership on both sides 
were able to come together to take permanent action on this issue. 
However, I want to focus my comments on another important change 
included in this bill: Senator McCain's proposal to raise the Social 
Security earnings limit.
  This has been a priority for many years because of the earning 
limit's detrimental impact on retirees with low and moderate incomes 
who have to work out of necessity to maintain a decent standard of 
living. I hope that raising the limit will help these senior citizens 
who are just barely getting by with a Social Security check and 
whatever other income they can scrape together.
  It is also clear that more and more retirees will need to work in the 
future. Retirement forecasters report that baby boomers did not get an 
early

[[Page S3119]]

start on saving for retirement, so even more senior citizens will find 
it necessary to supplement their retirement savings and benefits with 
work to maintain a decent standard of living in the future.
  To minimize the impact on the financial health of the trust fund that 
will occur when the limit is raised, we have had to accept tradeoffs. 
We will eliminate drug addiction and alcoholism as a basis for 
disability under the Supplemental Security Income Program and the 
Disability Insurance Program. This change is estimated to save about 
$5.5 billion in spending.
  The operation of these two programs has a direct effect on the 
stability of Social Security. The public's positive perception of 
Social Security as our most successful Federal program is being 
threatened--not only because of the risk of insolvency--but also 
because of fraud and program inefficiencies in the Federal disability 
programs.
  I want to remind my colleagues that we are already shifting payroll 
taxes away from the retirement side of Social Security to shore up the 
disability insurance trust fund. This reallocation has represented a 
shift of more than $38 billion in the last 2 years. By 2004, more than 
$190 billion will be transferred to the Disability Insurance Program. 
We must continue to guard against the abuse of these Federal benefits, 
particularly when we are taking funds out of retirement and putting 
funds into a program that is deeply troubled.
  A blatant example of how our Federal disability programs have gone 
haywire came to light more than 2 years ago in an investigation of SSI 
and SSDI benefits being paid to drug addicts and alcoholics. The 
investigation was conducted by my staff on the Special Committee on 
Aging with the General Accounting Office.
  We found that the word on the street is that SSI benefits are an easy 
source of cash for drugs and alcohol. The message of the disability 
programs had been: ``If you are an addict or an alcoholic, the money 
will keep flowing as long as you stay addicted. If you get off the 
addiction, the money stops.''
  Rather than encouraging rehabilitation and treatment, the disability 
programs' cash payments have perpetuated and enabled drug addiction and 
dependency.
  At a hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging I chaired, we 
heard from Bob Cote, the director of a homeless shelter in Denver. Mr 
Cote told the committee in riveting testimony that he personally knew 
46 drug addicts who had died from drug overdoses from the drugs they 
bought with SSI checks. Mr. Cote went on to testify that a liquor store 
down the street from his shelter was the representative payee for over 
$200,000 in SSI checks, and a bar just two doors down from his shelter 
was the representative payee for $160,000 in SSI checks.
  Taxpayers were outraged to learn that situations like these have been 
going on for years with almost no oversight by the Social Security 
Administration on how these tax dollars and trust fund moneys have been 
used.

  Congress took steps to place better protections on the disability 
payments made to addicts and alcoholics. We mandated that all persons 
receiving disability benefits due to alcohol or drug abuse must receive 
treatment, imposed a 3-year cutoff for benefits for addicts and 
alcoholics, and toughened the representative payee rules in order to 
get cash out of the hands of addicts.
  These reforms are now in effect and early examination suggests that 
this carrot and stick approach has worked to stem abuses in the 
disability program. The referral and monitoring system which was 
overhauled in 1994 more than pays for itself and will save the Federal 
Government more than $25 million in 1996.
  The legislation before us today allows the Commissioner of the Social 
Security Administration to continue to refer drug addicts and 
alcoholics to treatment. Eliminating drug addiction and alcoholism as a 
disability will result in only 25 percent of recipients diagnosed as 
drug addicts or alcoholics actually leaving the program. A substantial 
portion will stay on the rolls, continuing to receive checks without 
receiving treatment. It is very important that the treatment money be 
made available to the States to rehabilitate substance abusers.
  The legislation continues to require the use of responsible 
representative payees who will ensure that the Federal checks are being 
used for living expenses--not drugs and not alcohol.
  The legislation also takes the necessary step to allocate funding to 
conduct continuing disability reviews [CDR's]. Until now, our hands 
have been tied because of the appropriations caps on discretionary 
spending. I commend Senator McCain's acknowledgment that it is short-
sighted to ignore the need to provide more resources to SSA to comply 
with the mandate to perform CDR's. In the SSDI program, the agency is 
experiencing a backlog rate of more than 1.4 million cases. With that 
type of backlog, getting on disability means a lifetime of benefits, 
even for persons who could return to work. A recent HHS Inspector 
General report concluded that $1.4 billion could be saved if we could 
perform CDR's just on those backlogged cases.
  Finally, we need to turn our attention to the current return to work 
policies in these two programs. Last year, the Senate Aging Committee 
began to review the record of SSA to promote rehabilitation for people 
with disabilities. Appallingly, only about 1 in every 1,000 persons on 
the disability rolls gets off the program through the SSA's 
rehabilitation efforts. The Federal disability programs have failed to 
keep pace with a more accessible workplace being created through the 
Americans With Disabilities Act and advances in medical technology.
  More must be done to ensure that people with disabilities who can and 
want to return to the work force are given some assistance. There are a 
significant number of disabled recipients who want to work. 
Unfortunately, the program now discourages recipients from even trying 
to work, because they fail to take into consideration how recipients 
can be retrained and rehabilitated to eventually leave the rolls. I 
believe that we must pursue a policy which will put a greater emphasis 
on rehabilitation and return to work. At the same time we are 
acknowledging the benefits of allowing senior citizens to retain more 
of their earnings--a work incentive--we need to be open to the same 
ideas for people with disabilities.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is important that my colleagues 
recognize two very important aspects of the legislation we are 
considering today.
  First, this legislation increases spending on Social Security and 
offsets that spending, in part, by using savings that had been 
identified as necessary to bring about a balanced budget. The language 
was changed at the last minute so that a point of order against using 
non-Social Security savings to pay for Social Security spending could 
be avoided. But I do think my colleagues should be aware that this 
legislation uses savings that had been identified for reducing the 
deficit.
  Second, the savings in this legislation exceeds the level that is 
needed to pay for the spending increase. According to the Congressional 
Budget Office, this legislation achieves $3.5 billion in on-budget 
savings, and $1.8 billion in net savings over 7 years.
  The impact of these provisions on the deficit would actually be 
higher than the CBO numbers indicate. This is because the bill would 
allow the discretionary spending caps to be increased in order to 
conduct more continuing disability reviews. These reviews are conducted 
to verify that beneficiaries are still entitled to disability benefits. 
Because of budgetary pressures, and competing priorities, the Social 
Security Administration has not been able to conduct as many CDRs as 
they would like. CBO estimates that, if fully utilized, this provision 
could result in net savings of $800 million dollars by the year 2002.
  Finally, the savings are understated because CBO does not take into 
consideration the fact that raising the earnings limit means that 
beneficiaries who work will receive higher Social Security benefits. 
Under current law, if their income is high enough, they will be 
obligated to pay higher taxes. Actuaries at the Social Security 
administration estimate the impact to be $726 million over the 7-year 
budget window.
  In sum, Mr. President, the net impact of the legislation we are 
adopting today is, in effect, to make a down payment on deficit 
reduction of more than $3 billion over 7 years.

[[Page S3120]]

                   senior citizens' right to work act

  Mr. Graham. Mr. President, in this Congress, we have talked a lot 
about reforming welfare, about empowering people to help themselves, 
about removing disincentives to work for able-bodied citizens. Well, 
Mr. President, here is our chance.
  Here are citizens who are not looking for hand-outs, who are not 
looking for favors, who are not even looking for help. These people are 
not looking for anything but the right to contribute--as working, tax-
paying citizens--to their country. Are we going to continue to say, no, 
you cannot work. No, you cannot contribute. No, you cannot be 
considered a valuable part of our Nation's workforce?
  Mr. President, I submit to you that our senior citizens can be a 
valuable part of our workforce. They have the experience, the maturity, 
and the desire to contribute to the workforce. And many of them are 
able to work and contribute significantly.
  Mr. President, the Social Security earnings test may be our Nation's 
biggest disincentive to allowing those who want to work, who have asked 
to work, to continue to contribute meaningfully. Isn't it ironic that 
we have been talking about removing disincentives to work for those who 
are on welfare, yet preventing our Nation's seniors from contributing 
in any meaningful way?
  These seniors are not on welfare; rather, they have spent a lifetime 
contributing to the Social Security Program--they have earned their 
benefits. We should not use the reduction of these benefits to prevent 
our seniors from working.
  For every $3 that seniors aged 65 to 69 earn over $11,520 this year, 
the Federal Government takes away $1 in Social Security benefits. 
According to the Social Security Administration, about 930,000 seniors 
in this age group are affected by the earnings cap. But let me bring 
this policy issue away from the statistics.
  Each month, I take a different job to stay in touch with the people I 
represent. In 1991, I took a job bagging groceries at the Winn-Dixie 
supermarket in Pace, FL, which is near Pensacola. I worked with a man 
by the name of Jim Young, who is a father of three and grandfather of 
two. And Jim needs to work. Like many Americans, Jim is looking ahead 
to the legal age of retirement with full benefits, but without a big 
retirement savings account. Listen to Jim Young explain this issue: ``I 
don't have retirement savings, and there are a lot of other people who 
don't either.''
  Jim Young would like to work past the age of 65. He needs to work 
past the age of 65. And by current law, if Jim makes $18,000 when he 
turns 65--just $18,000, he will lose $1200 of his Social Security 
benefits. To people like Jim Young, to most older Americans, that's a 
lot of money. Why should the Government put up a barrier to block Jim 
Young from working, from supporting his family?
  Some opponents of this legislation may make the argument that reform 
isn't needed because older Americans are well-off and therefore, don't 
need to work. To those people, I say: Talk to Jim Young, who now works 
in the produce department at Winn-Dixie. Talk to Winn-Dixie and find 
out whether employers want to hire the talents of older Americans like 
Jim Young.
  True, when the Social Security earnings test was designed, it may 
have made sense to discourage older Americans from working, under the 
rationale that keeping seniors out of the job market would free up jobs 
for younger people who needed work.
  But times have changed. The declining birth rate after the post-World 
War II baby boomer generation means that fewer teens are in the job 
market. Many employers are looking for seniors to fill jobs. And people 
like Jim Young are ready to work. They need to work. And to these 
people, we should say, ``Go ahead. Support your family. Help yourself 
to improve your quality of life. We won't stand in your way.''
  Social Security was not designed to be the sole support of our senior 
citizens, but now, many seniors--like Jim Young--have little savings to 
supplement their benefits. And we have been saying to those seniors who 
can work, to those senior who want to work, that we want to penalize 
them for their efforts? This policy is unfair to our seniors. And even 
worse, it doesn't make sense.
  Without the earnings cap, more seniors would likely choose to 
continue working. Additional revenue would be generated through Social 
Security and income taxes paid on their wages. This would substantially 
offset the increase in benefit payments.
  In addition, we have been struggling to find ways to improve the 
long-term solvency of the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance 
Program. The Social Security Administration estimates that the offsets 
in this legislation would pay for the increase in the earnings limit. 
But the offsets would also improve the long-term solvency of the OASDI 
program by about 0.03 percent. That's not a lot, but it's a step in the 
right direction.
  So you see, Mr. President, we cannot afford to discourage our older 
population from working. We need their experience. We need their 
skills. And we need to allow them to provide for their families.
  When I go home to Florida and I see Jim Young and all of the other 
Jim Youngs who are working to support themselves and their loved ones, 
I want to say, we are proud of your efforts. We salute your efforts. 
And we thank you for your valuable contributions to this great Nation 
of ours.
  So as we continue to talk about welfare reform and look for ways to 
help able-bodied people get back to work, I say: Let us take this issue 
out of the welfare arena and apply it to those who are not on welfare, 
to those who simply want to receive the benefits they have earned while 
continuing to be a part of the workforce. Let us look to our mothers, 
our fathers, our grandparents. Let us look to Jim Young.
  Mr. President, approving this legislation to allow our seniors to 
work is good policy. It is fiscally sound. And it is the right thing to 
do.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, clearly, the American people believe that 
Washington has too much control over their everyday lives. They 
attribute much of this to a Federal bureaucracy that has grown out of 
control over the last several decades. Today, the Senate will take a 
major step toward holding regulatory agencies accountable for the 
rulemakings they issue. In an effort to return common sense to Federal 
regulations, we are sending to the President legislation which will 
provide a formal Congressional review process of regulations issued by 
Federal agencies.
  The Congressional Review Act before us is similar to S. 219, the 
Regulatory Transition Act that passed the Senate 100-0 a year ago this 
week. I fully concur with changes made by the House to the Senate bill 
and believe this represents a workable consensus agreement.
  It is estimated that the direct cost to the public and private 
sectors complying with Federal regulations was $668 billion in 1995. 
This translates into a cost of $6,000 annually for the average American 
household. This means higher prices for the cars we drive, the houses 
we live in, and the food we consume. It also means diminished wages, 
increased taxes, and reduced government services.
  The Congressional Review Act provides for a 60-day review period 
following the issuance of any Federal agency final rule during which 
the Congress may enact a joint resolution of disapproval, under a fast-
track procedure in the Senate. If the joint resolution passes both 
Houses, it must be presented to the President for his action.
  As in the Senate-passed version, the Congressional Review Act 
provides for a formal congressional review procedure following the 
issuance of any final rule by a Federal agency, during which the 
Congress has an opportunity to review the rule and, if it chooses, 
enact a joint resolution of disapproval. An expedited review procedure 
is provided in the Senate for 60 session days beginning on the later of 
the date Congress receives the agency's report on the rule, or the date 
the final rule is published in the Federal Register.
  Upon issuing a final rule, a Federal agency must send to Congress and 
GAO a report containing a copy of the rule and also send to GAO or if 
requested, to Congress, the complete cost-benefit analysis, if any, 
prepared for the rule and the agency's analyses required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility and Unfunded Mandates Acts.

[[Page S3121]]

  For major final rules, GAO shall provide within 15 days to the 
appropriate committee an assessment of the agency's compliance with the 
regulatory flexibility, unfunded mandates, and cost-benefit analyses 
performed by the agency.
  Any Senator or Representative may introduce a resolution of 
disapproval of an agency final rule. The joint resolution of 
disapproval, which declares that the rule has no force or effect, will 
be referred to the committees of jurisdiction.
  As provided in the Senate version the agreement contains the look-
back provision provided to permit congressional review of major final 
rules issued between March 1, 1996, and the date of enactment.
  With regard to concerns raised about unnecessary legal challenges to 
rules, this act, as in the Senate-passed version, provides that ``no 
determination, finding, action, or omission under this title shall be 
subject to judicial review.''
  The agreement does not provide for expedited procedures in the House, 
but terminates the use of the Senate procedures on the 60th session 
day, instead of the 45-calendar-day review that was provided in the 
Senate version.
  The Senate expedited procedures can be used to consider a resolution 
of disapproval that may be introduced with respect to most Federal 
agency final rules. All final rules that are published less than 60 
session days before a session of Congress adjourns sine die, or that 
are published during sine die adjournment, shall be eligible for review 
and for fast-track disapproval procedures in the Senate for 60 session 
days beginning on the 15th session day following the date the new 
session of Congress convenes.
  If the Senate committees of jurisdiction have not reported the 
resolution of disapproval within 20 calendar days from the date 
Congress receives the agency's report on the rule, or on the date the 
final rule is published in the Federal Register, whichever is later, a 
petition signed by 30 Senators may discharge the committee from further 
consideration and place the resolution of disapproval directly on the 
calendar.
  Under the Senate procedures, the motion to proceed to the joint 
resolution is privileged and is not debatable. Once the Senate has 
moved to proceed to the resolution of disapproval, debate on the 
resolution is limited to 10 hours, equally divided, with no motions--
other than a motion to further limit debate--or amendments in order. If 
the resolution passes one body, it is eligible for immediate 
consideration on the floor of the other body.
  As provided in the Senate version, the Congressional Review Act 
declares that no court or agency shall infer any intent of the Congress 
from any action or inaction of the Congress with regard to a rule 
unless the Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval regarding 
that rule. As all of my colleagues are well aware, the Congress at any 
time can review and change, or decide not to change, rules or their 
underlying statutes. Accordingly, it is my belief that the courts 
should not treat the mere introduction of a joint resolution of 
disapproval as grounds for granting a stay to any greater or lesser 
extent than the courts now take cognizance of any other bills that are 
introduced.
  Major final rules, which the Congressional Review Act defines as 
final rules that meet the criteria for ``major rules'' set forth in the 
Reagan Administration's Executive Order 12291, may not take effect 
until at least 60 calendar days after the rule is published. However, 
major final rules addressing imminent threats to health and safety, or 
other emergencies, criminal law enforcement, matters of national 
security, or issued pursuant to any statute implementing an 
international trade agreement may be exempted by Executive Order from 
the 60-day minimum delay in the effective date. The decision by the 
President to exempt any major final rule from the delay is not subject 
to judicial review.
  Major final rules would not go into effect after the 60-day period if 
the joint resolution of disapproval has passed both Houses within that 
time. If the joint resolution of disapproval is vetoed, the effective 
date of the final rule will continue to be postponed until 30 session 
days have passed after the veto, or the date on which either House 
fails to override the veto, whichever is earlier.
  To address statutory or judicial deadlines that apply to disapproved 
rules, these deadlines are extended for one year after the date of 
enactment of the joint resolution.
  Currently, Congress must approve tax increases, and thanks to the 
Unfunded Mandates Act passed last year must also focus its attention on 
any major unfunded mandate. But Congress has virtually no formal role, 
other than oversight, over the promulgation of a Federal regulation, 
even if its impact on the economy is measured in billions of dollars. 
There may have been a time in our Nation's history where congressional 
review wasn't important. But agencies are now very large, with broad 
authorities and individual agendas. This new act will help Congress 
carry out its responsibility to the American people to ensure that 
Federal regulatory agencies are carrying out congressional intent.
  Finally, I wish to extend my sincere appreciation to Senator Harry 
Reid who has worked tirelessly on this issue since its inception.


 mia's in north korea--section 1607--united states-north korea agreed 
                               framework

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we prepare to vote on the conference 
report on H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Revitalization Act of 1995, 
I would like to direct my colleagues' attention to one provision of the 
act that relates to what, I believe, is an often-overlooked issue. That 
issue is the fate of more than 8,100 American servicemen from the 
Korean war.
  We have always demanded the fullest possible accounting in Vietnam 
for those listed as missing in action, and the question that I think 
must be asked is, why not North Korea as well?
  Of the 8,100 servicemen not accounted for after the Korean war, at 
least 5,433 of these were lost north of the 38th parallel. In Vietnam, 
by contrast, the number of unresolved cases is 2,168, and Vietnam has 
cooperated in 39 joint field activities.
  The United States Government recently announced plans to contribute 
$2 million through United Nations agencies to relieve starvation in 
North Korea. The donation was consistent with other instances where the 
United States seeks to relieve human suffering, despite disagreements 
with the government of the receiving country.
  What is inconsistent with United States policy is our failure to 
ensure that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea addresses the 
humanitarian issue of greatest concern to the American people--the 
resolution of the fate of servicemen missing in action since the end of 
the Korean war.
  I think the families of the servicemen see that same inconsistency. I 
would refer my colleagues to a March 26, 1996, front page story in the 
Washington Post, ``The Other MIAs, Americans Seek Relatives Lost in 
Korea.'' In that story, the President of the Korean/Cold War Family 
Association of the Missing was quoted as saying: ``North Korea wants 
humanitarian assistance, yet they won't give it themselves. Our 
families are starving to know what happened to their loved ones. We 
want an accounting for these men. They deserve an accounting. It's 
grossly dishonorable to walk away from them.'' I could not say it 
better.
  I remind my colleagues that relations between the United States and 
Vietnam did not even begin to thaw until the Government of Vietnam 
agreed to joint field operations with the United States military to 
search for missing servicemen. The pace and scope of normalization was 
commensurate with Vietnam's cooperation on the MIA issue and other 
humanitarian concerns. In every discussion between United States 
Government officials and their Vietnamese counterparts, the MIA issue 
war paramount. The Vietnamese received very clear signals that progress 
in normalizing relations with the United States would come only after 
progress was made on the MIA issue.
  In contrast to our Vietnam policy, United States policy toward North 
Korea lacks this focus. The recent announcement regarding food aid did 
not mention our interest in the MIA issue. The agreed framework between 
the United States and the DPRK does not talk about cooperation on 
MIA's--even though the framework commits the United States to give the 
DPRK free

[[Page S3122]]

oil and supply two highly advanced light-water reactors; a total 
package that exceeds $5 billion--$4 billion for the reactors and $500 
million for the oil, not counting potential future aid for the grid 
system to distribute the power that the reactors will produce. The 
agreed framework also envisions the United States lifting trade 
restrictions and normalizing relations--regardless of any movement on 
the MIA issue.
  The most obvious difference between Vietnam and North Korea is North 
Korea's nuclear program. The United States has an overriding national 
security interest in stopping the North Korea nuclear program. 
Nevertheless, I do not believe we should have ignored the MIA issue. 
That is why I have introduced legislation (S. 1293) that would prevent 
establishing full diplomatic relations or lifting the trade embargo 
until the DPRK has agreed to joint field operations.
  The conference report before us is consistent with S. 1293. Section 
1607 states the sense of the Congress that:

       the President should not take further steps toward 
     upgrading diplomatic relations with North Korea beyond 
     opening liaison offices or relaxing trade and investment 
     barriers imposed against North Korea without . . . obtaining 
     positive and productive cooperation from North Korea on the 
     recovery of remains of Americans missing in action from the 
     Korean war without consenting to exorbitant demands by North 
     Korea for financial compensation.

  I urge the Clinton administration to pursue the policy that is laid 
out in section 1607.
  I recently had the opportunity to sit down with our dedicated armed 
services personnel in Hawaii who are responsible for negotiating with 
the North Koreans on the MIA issue. It was clear from that briefing 
that joint field operations would have a high probability of 
considerable success because, unlike Vietnam, the United States has 
concrete evidence of the sites of mass U.N. burial grounds and 
prisoner-of-war camp locations. But United States personnel have no 
access in North Korea to these sites. The only thing preventing our 
personnel from going in and making these identifications is the North 
Koreans.
  The North Koreans have been unilaterally turning over some remains. 
Unfortunately, the North Koreans, without training in the proper 
handling of remains, have turned over excavated remains that have not 
been properly handled, making identification vastly more difficult, if 
not impossible. Of the 208 sets of remains turned over since 1990, only 
5 sets have been identified.
  Despite United States aid flowing to North Korea, the Koreans have 
repeatedly attempted to link progress on the remains issue to separate 
compensation--amounts of money seemingly far in excess of reimbursement 
costs for recovery, storage, and transportation of remains. The U.S. 
Government must stand by its policy not to buy remains--this would 
degrade the honor of those who died in combat. Instead, the United 
States has offered to reimburse North Korea for reasonable expenses, as 
we do in Southeast Asia. Talks to try to move the MIA remains 
repatriation issue forward at this moment appear stalled.
  While the United States has been careful not to link the nuclear 
issues with other policy concerns in North Korea, it is not 
unreasonable for the United States to consider North Korea's behavior 
on other issues, such as the MIA issue, when considering whether to 
provide humanitarian aid to the closed nation. For the families of the 
5,433 soldiers and airmen still missing more than 40 years after the 
end of the conflict there is no more humane action that North Korea 
could take than to let America have sufficient access to try to resolve 
as many of these cases as possible.
  We have demanded fullest accountability from the Government of 
Vietnam on the MIA issue. We should demand the same of the Government 
of North Korea.


    congressional review and small business regulatory fairness bill

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it has been 17 years that I have fought for 
and supported a mechanism for congressional review of agency rules 
before they take effect. Believe it or not I ran for the Senate in 1978 
on the need for legislative veto. That's what we called the right of 
Congress to review important regulations and stop the ones that don't 
make sense before they take effect. After the Chadha case, we changed 
the name from legislative veto to legislative review since the Supreme 
Court ruled that legislative vetoes--involving only one or two houses 
of Congress without the President--were unconstitutional. This bill 
uses a joint resolution of disapproval which is a constitutional 
mechanism and which was the cornerstone of a bill I introduced with 
Senator David Boren from Oklahoma back in the early 1980's.
  My proposal was adopted with respect to the Federal Trade Commission 
and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It was passed by the 
Senate, with respect to all Federal agencies, on the omnibus regulatory 
reform bill, S. 1080, in the 96th Congress. But it didn't become law 
then, and despite repeated efforts over the year, it hadn't become law 
until this time.
  As a longtime member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have 
worked on various regulatory reform proposals, but none has been as 
significant to me as legislative veto or legislative review. That's 
because it, alone, puts important regulatory decisions in the hands of 
the politically accountable, only directly elected branch of the 
Government, and that is the Congress. And that's where I think these 
important public policy decisions belong.
  The provision we are adopting today, which is similar to the proposal 
we passed on S. 219 last year, is not exactly what I would have chosen 
to support, but it's close enough. I think it would have been wiser to 
have the legislative review apply only to major rules and not every 
rule issued by Federal agencies. We want to concentrate our energies--
at least in the beginning--on the rules that have the greatest impact 
and not be overwhelmed with requests to review hundreds of rules at the 
same time. It's been estimated that over 4,000 rules are issued in any 
1 year. That amount could simply overtake our ability to be effective 
with respect to any one rule. That is why I think it would be 
preferable to have this legislation apply to only major rules--that is, 
rules that have an economic impact of over $100 million of costs in any 
1 year.
  I am also concerned about the requirement that each agency physically 
send to each house of Congress and to the GAO a copy of the final rule, 
a description of the rule, and notice of the effective date. That is a 
large and unnecessary paperwork burden that must be met before any rule 
can take effect. That means for even a small, routine rule, the agency 
will have to send us the rule and required description. Almost all 
rules are already published in the Federal Register and we can read 
that as readily as the public can. I think this will prove to be an 
unnecessary requirement that needlessly generates paper, and takes 
precious staff time at both the agencies and in the office of the 
Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House.

  I am also concerned about the change the House made with respect to 
counting days as calendar days. The bill we have before us would allow 
a major rule to take effect within 60 calendar days, but would allow 
the expedited procedure for congressional review to occur within 60 
legislative or session days. That's a very big difference in time. At 
the end of a session of Congress, that could mean we would have the 
opportunity to disapprove a rule possibly 6 months after it took 
effect. I think that opens the rulemaking process to unintended and 
unnecessary mischief. The rule would be in effect, the regulated 
community would be expected to comply with the rule, and then Congress 
could come along, using expedited procedures, and repeal the rule. That 
will create a great deal of uncertainty for businesses and governments 
alike.
  Moreover, Mr. President, the fact that Congress retains the legal 
right, using expedited procedures, to overturn a rule should not be 
used by a court to stay the effective date of a rule or to allow a 
regulated person to delay compliance. That would violate the intent of 
this legislation. We are very clear in this legislation that major 
rules take effect within 60 calendar days and nonmajor rules take 
effect in after the rule is sent to Congress and in accordance with the 
agency's normal procedures. There is no basis in this legislation for 
delaying the effective date or

[[Page S3123]]

the requirements for compliance with a rule other than what I just 
described. So a court would not have any basis for delaying compliance 
based on the longer period for expedited procedures.
  The expedited procedures are Congress' internal mechanism for prompt 
consideration of a joint resolution to disapprove a rule. We could 
disapprove rules now, by using a joint resolution of disapproval. But 
being aware of that possibility does not permit a court to waive 
compliance or delay the effective date of a rule and it shouldn't just 
because we've added expedited procedures.
  I expect we will monitor the implementation of these requirements 
carefully and make the necessary changes as we identify real-life 
problems. That will certainly be my intention.
  These procedural problems aside, though, Mr. President, I am pleased 
with this legislation. No longer will be able to tell our constituents 
who complain about regulations that do not make sense, ``talk to the 
agency,'' or ``your only recourse is the courts.'' Now we are in a 
position to do something ourselves. If an agency is proposing a rule 
that just does not make sense from a cost perspective it will be easier 
for us to stop it. If a rule doesn't make sense based on practical 
implementation, we can stop it. If a rule goes too far afield from the 
intent of Congress in passing the statute in the first place, we can 
stop it. That's a new day, and one a long time in coming.
  How much time these new responsibilities will take and how often the 
resolution of disapproval will be exercised, no one can predict. We may 
be surprised in either direction. But as we work with this process and 
learn from this process, we can make the necessary adjustments in the 
law. The important thing is that we get this review authority in place 
and I am very pleased that we are going to be able to do that in this 
legislation.
  I'd like to comment on title III of this bill as well. As a member of 
both the Small Business Committee and the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, I am particularly familiar with and interested in the small 
business regulatory fairness provisions. I support adding judicial 
review to the Regulatory Flexibility Act and, like legislative review 
it's been a long time in coming. It will be the stick that forces the 
regulatory agencies to pay attention to their responsibilities with 
respect to small governments and small businesses
  I have previously commented on my concerns about the provision 
establishing the SBA Enforcement Ombudsman. While I can support this 
provision, I do not think it goes far enough in using the traditional 
role of ombudsman to resolve enforcement disputes, and I will be 
pursuing legislation in the vein in the Governmental Affairs Committee. 
I am relieved, however, that we have made it clear that while a 
responsibility of the ombudsman is to evaluate and rate agencies based 
on their responsiveness to small business in the area of enforcement, 
it is not the responsibility of the ombudsman to rate individual 
personnel of those agencies. This is an important issue because, while 
we certainly want to promote and ensure fair treatment of small 
business with respect to regulatory enforcement, we do not want to 
weaken or intimidate our enforcement personnel so they fail to do the 
job we require of them. Senator Bond made those assurances in a 
colloquy we had when this bill initially passed the Senate.
  I also want to note that the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Board 
created by this legislation is subject to the requirements of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act. This ensures that the business 
conducted by this panel is open to the public and that any potential 
conflicts of interest are known. Obviously, since the bill limits 
membership, the requirements of FACA for balanced membership would not 
apply. But to the extent the requirements of FACA can apply, they are 
expected to apply, and that is why this provision is acceptable.

  The provision granting the small business advocacy review panel the 
opportunity to see a proposed rule before it is published in the 
Federal Register is a novel step. While the panel is comprised of 
Federal employees, the panel is directed to obtain comments and input 
from small entities. The purpose of this comment and review is to 
assess whether the agency lived up to its responsibilities under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. It is my understanding that the panel is 
not permitted or expected to share a copy of the draft proposed rule 
with the small entities with whom it confers, but rather to field 
comments and concerns about the nature of the rulemaking and its 
possible effects on small entities. This is an important limitation 
because to allow otherwise would be to give a unique advantage to one 
group that is not permitted to other persons affected by the proposed 
rule.
  Mr. President, because this bill is attached to the debt ceiling 
bill, some of these provisions will take effect immediately. There will 
be start-up problems with some of these provisions, in particular the 
congressional review process, because there is no preparation time. We 
should recognize the reality of these problems and work diligently to 
mitigate them.

                          ____________________