Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 21 (Wednesday, March 1, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 21 (Wednesday, March 1, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H580-H582]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1030
MAKING IN ORDER AT ANY TIME CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5, SENIOR CITIZENS'
FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 1999

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at
any time to consider in the House without intervention of any point of
order the bill (H.R. 5) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to
eliminate the

[[Page H581]]

earnings test for individuals who have attained retirement age; the
bill be considered as read for amendment; the amendment recommended by
the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill be considered
as adopted; the bill, as amended, be debatable for 2 hours, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Ways and Means; and the previous question be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will not
object. I strongly support repeal of the Social Security earnings limit
and do not intend to unduly delay action on this bill. In fact, repeal
of the earnings limit has been part of the comprehensive Social
Security reform legislation that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe)
and I have introduced in the last two Congresses.
However, I rise in reservation to this unanimous consent request to
express my disappointment that we are considering legislation that will
increase Social Security benefits without even discussing the long-term
financial challenges facing Social Security. We should have spent the
last year working on a comprehensive plan to strengthen Social Security
that would restore solvency, reduce unfunded liabilities, give workers
greater control of their retirement income, improve the safety net, and
reward work; but we, both the President and Congress, have ignored our
opportunity to deal with the long-term challenges facing Social
Security.
If we are going to pass this legislation increasing costs outside of
the context of reform, we should at least be talking about ways to
bring more attention to the challenges that remain. The gentleman from
Arizona and I had hoped to offer an amendment regarding the recent
recommendations of the Social Security advisory board which would more
directly confront Congress with the true scope of Social Security's
financing challenges. Our amendment would have made a modest step in
advancing the discussion about the challenges facing Social Security
among policymakers and the public.
Last November, the Social Security Advisory Board Technical Panel
released a report outlining a variety of recommendations about how we
measure the problems facing the Social Security trust fund, how we talk
about those problems and criteria for evaluating reform proposals. Our
amendment would have taken the good work of the Technical Panel to
encourage a more honest and accurate discussion of the challenges
facing Social Security.
The Technical Panel report suggested that the challenges facing
Social Security may be even greater than reported. While there has been
a lot of discussion about the possibility that a stronger economy will
reduce the shortfalls facing Social Security, the Technical Panel
warned us that the projected shortfall could increase as life
expectancy increases faster than expected.
The panel also made a variety of useful recommendations about
additional information that should be included in the trustees' report
regarding the size of the unfunded liability and other information
illustrating the nature of the problem in greater detail. This type of
information would improve the quality of the Social Security debate
tremendously, because the facts of the debate would be more clearly
established and stated.
Finally, the panel made several recommendations for the evaluation of
Social Security reform proposals. In particular the panel suggested
that we should look beyond simply determining whether or not a plan
restores trust fund solvency and consider other criteria that are as
important as, if not more important than restoring solvency over the
75-year period such as the effect on the rest of the budget.
Unfortunately, today we do not have time to discuss any of these
issues. I would respectfully encourage the chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means and the subcommittee on Social Security to conduct
hearings on these recommendations so that they may receive the
attention they deserve. I also hope the Social Security trustees
seriously consider all of the recommendations of the technical panel.
Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to my
colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) with whom I have
worked closely on strengthening the future of Social Security, a Member
who has been a leading advocate of comprehensive Social Security reform
legislation that repeals the earnings limit and ensures that Social
Security will be strong for our children and grandchildren.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas
yielding to me under his reservation. I will be very brief. Let me just
say I feel very privileged today and am proud to be associated with the
remarks that the gentleman from Texas just made. The gentleman from
Texas has been and continues to be a leader in the fight to have a
responsible Social Security reform. The integrity and the unwavering
commitment that he has shown for preserving Social Security for future
generations are worthy of the respect of all of us in this body.
I am a longtime advocate of repealing the earnings limit. It is a
remnant of depression-era policies that have no place in a 21st century
economy. I have supported similar measures in the past and as the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has said, it is a cornerstone of
the Kolbe-Stenholm Social Security reform legislation.
However, I am disappointed that Congress is passing this important
reform without at least confronting the impact the change is going to
have on the trust fund. Like it or not, election year or not, sooner or
later this House, this Congress, this Nation must address the financial
crisis that looms over Social Security. The longer we wait, the tougher
the choices are going to be.
The legislation we pursue today must become one part of a
comprehensive reform package. There are no shortage of reform options.
There is the one that I mentioned myself that the gentleman from Texas
and I have proposed. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) have another one. The gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), those are
just a few of the reform proposals that have been offered in this House
but have yet to come to the floor, have yet to be really debated. What
we lack is will and leadership in this country and we have seen that at
both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
We should pass this bill today. But I do not think we should be
content with this effort. We must recognize that we have an obligation
to preserve Social Security for our children and our grandchildren. Mr.
Speaker, only real reform will do that.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I
yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the
subcommittee dealing with Social Security.
Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me under his
reservation. I would like to compliment the gentleman from Texas as
well as the gentleman from Arizona and many more Members of this body
for having a genuine desire and actually having stepped forward with
regard to some genuine steps to prolong the life of Social Security and
even to bring it about as a permanent program that would no longer be
concerned about the amount of funding.
The gentleman has taken some bold steps, and he is to be complimented
on that. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the
full committee, and I have also put a plan on the table that has a
great deal in common with the Stenholm-Kolbe plan, and we had hoped to
bring this forward.
History tells us, however, that there is no genuine Social Security
reform without the inclusion of the President. Every single major
change that has been made in Social Security has been made with the
encouragement and the joinder of the White House. Also, it would be
wrong and extremely difficult for one party to reform Social Security
without being joined by the other party. We have sent out many, many
feelers to the White House. I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Archer) has been down and talked personally with the President. He is
well aware of your plan, and he is well aware of our plan.

[[Page H582]]

We have also spoken with members of the leadership on the Democrat
side and we have also spoken to organized labor and various senior
groups. We find now that everything seems to be getting down into
presidential politics and to actually quote the President from an
interview he had, I think it was a Wall Street Journal some weeks ago,
he said that this reform would be left to the next President.
I regret that. But I think that that is a fact of life and it is
something that we are going to be faced with. I look to next year,
perhaps we could still do it this year. I would like to reach out to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and
all those who want to reform Social Security.
We are going to have more hearings. We are not going to waste the
rest of the year. However, I will say this, and I think this is
tremendously important. Part of Social Security reform has been to lock
away the Social Security surplus so it cannot be spent. The House has
done that. Also, an important part is a bill that we have today, and
that is to get rid of this shameful earnings penalty that should have
been done away with many, many years ago and was not.
This is a great day, and it is a day for us to celebrate that we are
coming together, we have a piece of Social Security reform. This is a
very important piece for our seniors. I compliment the gentleman from
Texas, and I look forward to continuing to work with him for the rest
of the year.
We are going to have hearings; we are going to have hearings on this
and many issues pertaining to Social Security between now and the end
of this term, and we all will come back next term and really put it
away. We are not wasting time, we are going ahead with the hearing
process.
However, we need a coming together, we need a joinder, we need to get
the presidential election behind us. I would hope whoever the President
is, the next President is, that that President, that he will be
anxious, willing and reach out to the House and the Senate to reform
Social Security for all time.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I will take just a moment, but I would like
to commend the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Arizona. I
looked at their proposal. It has been out there now for a year and a
half. I have to say it is a very credible proposal. It is probably one
of the most realistic proposals that we have before us.
The fact that you have raised this before this matter is brought to
the floor is timely, and I am very pleased that you have done so. I
would want to say, however, that both the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Archer) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) have a proposal, the
President has a proposal, and perhaps there will be a time in the next
few months where we can bring a number of them, all three, four or five
of them, whatever number there are, together to begin to discuss them.
Obviously the solving of the Social Security deficit problem is the
number one problem we are all facing. But I appreciate the fact that
the two gentlemen have raised this issue.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, and
I will conclude by this observation. I would very muchly associate
myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Florida. He has been a
true worker in this endeavor. He points out some of the pitfalls and
the difficulties that we would have this year. But by the same token,
and I will have more to say about this in the 2 hours of general
debate, I would hope that everybody would recognize that there are
those on this side of the aisle that are prepared to reach out in the
hands of friendship and bipartisan work to deal with the tough
questions and that how we handle this debate politically on both sides
of the aisle can again do the kind of damage to the process of which I
know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Archer), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) do not
wish to see happen. So I would hope that we could cushion and caution
and soften our words as we debate today about this issue since there is
unanimous agreement that this issue needs to happen.

{time} 1045

It is the context in which we bring this reservation up.
Mr. Speaker, with those comments, I encourage Members to unanimously
support this very good piece of legislation today.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.

____________________