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

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 21 (Wednesday, March 1, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H582-H603]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SENIOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 1999

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent request of
earlier today, I call up the bill (H.R. 5) to amend title II of the
Social Security Act to eliminate the earnings test for individuals who
have attained retirement age, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today,
the bill is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 5 is as follows:

H.R. 5

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Senior Citizens' Freedom to
Work Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EARNINGS TEST FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE
ATTAINED RETIREMENT AGE.

Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``the age of
seventy'' and inserting ``retirement age (as defined in
section 216(l))'';
(2) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2) of subsection (d), by
striking ``the age of seventy'' each place it appears and
inserting ``retirement age (as defined in section 216(l))'';
(3) in subsection (f)(1)(B), by striking ``was age seventy
or over'' and inserting ``was at or above retirement age (as
defined in section 216(l))'';
(4) in subsection (f)(3)--
(A) by striking ``33\1/3\ percent'' and all that follows
through ``any other individual,'' and inserting ``50 percent
of such individual's earnings for such year in excess of the
product of the exempt amount as determined under paragraph
(8),''; and
(B) by striking ``age 70'' and inserting ``retirement age
(as defined in section 216(l))'';
(5) in subsection (h)(1)(A), by striking ``age 70'' each
place it appears and inserting ``retirement age (as defined
in section 216(l))''; and
(6) in subsection (j)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Age Seventy'' and
inserting ``Retirement Age''; and
(B) by striking ``seventy years of age'' and inserting
``having attained retirement age (as defined in section
216(l))''.

SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS ELIMINATING THE SPECIAL EXEMPT
AMOUNT FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ATTAINED
RETIREMENT AGE.

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

[[Page H583]]

(b) Conforming Amendment to Provisions for Determining
Amount of Increase on Account of Delayed Retirement.--Section
202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
402(w)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``either''; and
(2) by striking ``or suffered deductions under section
203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal to the amount of such
benefit''.
(c) Provisions Relating to Earnings Taken Into Account in
Determining Substantial Gainful Activity of Blind
Individuals.--The second sentence of section 223(d)(4) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(4)) is amended by striking ``if
section 102 of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996
had not been enacted'' and inserting the following: ``if the
amendments to section 203 made by section 102 of the Senior
Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996 and by the Senior
Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 1999 had not been enacted''.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments and repeals made by this Act shall apply
with respect to taxable years ending after December 31, 1998.

SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment printed in the bill is adopted.
The text of H.R. 5, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 5

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Senior Citizens' Freedom to
Work Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EARNINGS TEST FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE
ATTAINED RETIREMENT AGE.

SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS ELIMINATING THE EXEMPT AMOUNT
FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ATTAINED RETIREMENT
AGE.

(a) Uniform Exempt Amount.--Section 203(f)(8)(A) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(A)) is amended by
striking ``the new exempt amounts (separately stated for
individuals described in subparagraph (D) and for other
individuals) which are to be applicable'' and inserting ``a
new exempt amount which shall be applicable''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 203(f)(8)(B) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(B)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking
``Except'' and all that follows through ``whichever'' and
inserting ``The exempt amount which is applicable for each
month of a particular taxable year shall be whichever'';
(2) in clause (i), by striking ``corresponding'';
(3) in clause (ii), in the matter preceding subclause (I),
by striking ``corresponding'' and all that follows through
``individuals)'' and inserting ``exempt amount which is in
effect with respect to months in the taxable year ending
after 1993 and before 1995 with respect to individuals who
have not attained retirement age (as defined in section
216(l))'';
(4) in subclause (II) of clause (ii), by striking ``2000''
and all that follows and inserting ``1992,''; and
(5) in the last sentence, by striking ``an exempt amount''
and inserting ``the exempt amount''.
(c) Repeal of Basis for Computation of Exempt Amount
Affecting Individuals Who Have Attained Retirement Age.--
Section 203(f)(8)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
403(f)(8)(D)) is repealed.

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Elimination of Redundant References to Retirement
Age.--Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (c), in the last sentence, by striking
``nor shall any deduction'' and all that follows and
inserting ``nor shall any deduction be made under this
subsection from any widow's or widower's insurance benefit if
the widow, surviving divorced wife, widower, or surviving
divorced husband involved became entitled to such benefit
prior to attaining age 60.''; and
(2) in subsection (f)(1), by striking clause (D) and
inserting the following: ``(D) for which such individual is
entitled to widow's or widower's insurance benefits if such
individual became so entitled prior to attaining age 60,''.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Provisions for Determining
Amount of Increase on Account of Delayed Retirement.--Section
202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
402(w)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``either''; and
(2) by striking ``or suffered deductions under section
203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal to the amount of such
benefit''.
(c) Provisions Relating to Earnings Taken Into Account in
Determining Substantial Gainful Activity of Blind
Individuals.--The second sentence of section 223(d)(4) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(4)) is amended by striking ``if
section 102 of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996
had not been enacted'' and inserting the following: ``if the
amendments to section 203 made by section 102 of the Senior
Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996 and by the Senior
Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000 had not been enacted''.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--The amendments and repeals made by this
Act shall apply with respect to taxable years ending after
December 31, 1999.
(b) Special Rule Applicable to Individuals Who Attain
Normal Retirement Age During the First Taxable Year Ending
After December 31, 1999.--Sections 202 and 203 of the Social
Security Act, as in effect immediately prior to the
amendments and repeals made by this Act, shall apply to any
individual who attains retirement age (as defined in section
216(l) of such Act) during the first taxable year ending
after December 31, 1999 (and to any person receiving benefits
under title II of the Social Security Act on the basis of the
wages and self-employment income of such individual), but
only with respect to earnings for so much of such taxable
year as precedes the month in which such individual attains
retirement age (as so defined).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) each will control 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer).

General Leave

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 5.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today is an exciting day for me personally, and it is a
great day for the hundreds of thousands of working seniors across this
country. It is the culmination of my personal 29-year effort to repeal
the earnings penalty.
I launched this effort as one of the first bills that I introduced
after being sworn in in 1971. The reason then to repeal the earnings
penalty is the same as it is today: the earnings penalty is simply
wrong. I also thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson); the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Social Security; and the Speaker for their tireless efforts on this
bill.
The Social Security earnings penalty, like the marriage tax penalty,
like the death tax, like the capital gains tax, like the tax on
savings, like the alternative minimum tax and so many other taxes, is
simply unfair and wrong. It is unfair; it is backwards. The earnings
penalty actually cuts Social Security benefits for many working seniors
over the age of 65, and it discourages them from working. It increases
their effective tax rate to the highest percentage of a lifetime for
many of them, and that is wrong.
Now, why in the world would we want to discourage any American,
whether they are 17 or 67, from working?
Today this Congress will once again do the right thing and repeal the
earnings penalty for those hard-working and deserving Americans. I am
proud to be a part of a Congress that fixes what is wrong and does what
is right.
It was right to balance the budget and to pay down the debt, and we
did that. It was right to strengthen Medicare, and we did that. It was
right to cut taxes for families and to promote higher education and
expand health care, and we did that. It was right to fix the broken
welfare system so that Americans can discover the freedom of work,
independence and the power of responsibility, and we did that. It was
right to reform the IRS, and we did that. It was right to expand
educational opportunities for school children and give more flexibility
to parents, teachers and local school boards, and we did that. It was
right to stop the raid on the Social Security trust fund and protect
every dime of Social Security from being spent on other programs, and
we did that.

[[Page H584]]

Now it is right to repeal the earnings penalty for working seniors.
They deserve to be treated fairly. After all these years, it is
heartening that this effort is finally bipartisan and the President
will sign this bill. Clearly it is the right thing to do.
The Social Security earnings penalty punishes seniors who choose to
keep working. More seniors are choosing to work past their retirement
for many reasons: for their own financial needs, because Social
Security benefits for most are not adequate by themselves to support
retirement; to help their families or their grandchildren through
school; and for their own personal fulfillment. The point is, Americans
are living longer now and older Americans can work, they want to work,
and they should not be punished by an outdated law if they choose to
work.
In addition, repealing the earnings penalty now will unleash the
productivity of one of the most experienced and talented workforces in
this country at a time when our growing economy needs it. This is
clearly a win-win for everyone, which is why the bill now enjoys
widespread bipartisan support.
In summary, repealing the earnings penalty is based on the
fundamental principles of fairness and freedom. Seniors should be free
to work without penalty and treated fairly by a program they paid into
all of their lives. Working seniors across this country have waited
long enough; and they deserve the action now, and they will get it now.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel),
certainly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and members of the
committee, and also the two prime sponsors of this bill, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Peterson). They have obviously done a great job in getting cosponsors
of this bill and explaining it to Members of this institution.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reiterate some of the words of the
chairman of the committee. The earnings test is obviously something
that has been misunderstood over the years. It is basically a penalty
on those senior citizens that have earned their Social Security benefit
but want to stay in the workforce beyond the age of 65.
The fact that we have had this earnings test actually has deterred
over 800,000 Americans a year from the workforce. In fact, we have had
some studies done by a University of California San Diego professor
that has said that this will actually, by eliminating the earnings
test, increase the labor pool in America by 5 percent.
In addition, the Social Security Administration has estimated that
the administration of the earnings test plus the delayed earnings
credit essentially costs $100 to $150 million a year; and because of
the earnings credit, we have seen errors in the range of $500,000 to
$600,000 per year just in administering this program. As a result of
that, it is obvious we should repeal it at this particular time.
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope also as we talk about repealing this
earnings test, which will be done, we not be unmindful of what the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Kolbe) said in terms of some of the long-term issues of Social Security
that I am sure all of us in this institution want to deal with.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) yesterday when we marked up
this bill indicated he will be holding in the month of March, this
month, some additional hearings dealing with poverty among women, the
blind and the disabled, and I want to thank the gentleman for holding
those hearings as well, because I think that will further the
procession of making sure that we create incentives for work under the
Social Security system for those that need to work and receive benefits
at the same time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this particular bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the highly respected chairman of the Subcommittee
on Social Security.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I obviously strongly support H.R. 5, legislation that
would repeal the earnings penalty for hard-working seniors age 65 and
over. Many seniors are shocked to learn that if they work past the age
of 65 they may lose some or even all of their Social Security benefits.
This is due to something called the Social Security ``earnings limit''
or ``earnings penalty.'' This rule has been in place since Social
Security started in the 1930's, but that does not make it right.
Because of this rule, many older people left the workforce, making
their jobs available for younger workers. That policy may have made
sense during the Great Depression when those jobs were needed. However,
that clearly does not apply today.
Today's economy needs the experience and ability of seniors; yet the
earnings penalty has lived on. Seniors affected by this penalty lose an
average of $8,000 in benefits per year. Nationwide, about 800,000 lost
benefits just last year, and thousands more avoided losing benefits by
cutting back on how much they worked in order to avoid this unfair
penalty.
Some might recall that in 1996 we eased the earnings limit for
seniors who reached the full retirement age. As a result, seniors aged
65 through 69 have been able to earn a bit more each year since then
without experiencing the cut in their benefits. While that was a
positive step, many of us have long felt that it was wrong to punish
hard-working seniors, period, many of whom just want to work, and many
of whom have to work.
Mr. Speaker, what message does the earnings penalty send? That the
contributions of seniors are no longer needed? That seniors should head
for the sidelines of the economy due to age alone? That seniors do not
deserve the benefits that they paid for simply because they continue
working? I do not think anybody in this chamber or in this Congress
feels that way. That is why so many of us have expressed support for
H.R. 5, this bipartisan bill before us today, that will eliminate this
penalty for good.
A broad spectrum of business and senior groups, including the AARP,
support this bill. They know it is good for seniors, it is good for
business, and it is good for this country and its economy.
I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the original sponsors of the
bill. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer)
for his years of tireless work in relaxing and now repealing this
earnings penalty. The gentleman has been a personal testament to what
hard-working seniors can do. The gentleman especially should be
gratified that all of his years of hard work to repeal this unfair
limit are paying off.
Mr. Speaker, eliminating the earnings penalty is the right thing for
seniors who have spent a lifetime working for their Social Security
benefits. They should get all the benefits they earn and that they have
paid for. Today we are taking one major step closer to seeing that
occur. I encourage the Senate to approve this legislation quickly so it
can be signed into law as promised by the President.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark).
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time
and join in the accolades to those who have brought this bill to the
floor today, which addresses a problem probably for 5 percent of the
wealthiest beneficiaries under Social Security. It is a vestigial
prohibition on getting retirement income. No other retirement plan
denies that.
I was intrigued this morning as we had all of this bipartisan self-
congratulation. The fact is that while we do this, there are partisan
rumblings in attacking members of the Democratic Party for sometime in
the past perhaps having voted against this procedure in another bill.
So I would just as soon unmask for a while, in the most partisan way I
can, the Republican charade, because while we are doing this, we are
still denying under the Republican leadership the chance for the
Patients' Bill of Rights bill to go forward.

[[Page H585]]

It is a bill that was passed in a bipartisan way; yet it is being
stalled by the Republicans.
Last year in October in the Committee on Ways and Means, in a
bipartisan attempt to pass the Balanced Budget Act, we offered an
amendment that would have given a discount on pharmaceutical drugs to
every senior, a substantial discount, at no cost to the Federal
Government, and every Republican voted to deny the seniors this
opportunity to get a discount on their pharmaceutical drugs. So as we
talk later today, I hope that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw)
will explain to me why that is a good bipartisan thing for the seniors
in Florida to be denied a discount, and I hope the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) will come down and explain to us why he voted to
deny seniors in Arizona a discount on their pharmaceutical drugs.

{time} 1100

Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a respected member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding time to me. I appreciate what he has been doing on this bill.
I know he has been working on it for many, many years. We truly
appreciate it coming up today.
Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago I introduced H.R. 5, the Freedom to Work Act.
Yesterday, every member of the Committee on Ways and Means voted to
send the bill to the floor to repeal the social security earnings
penalty.
Under current law, our seniors age 65 to 69 can earn only $17,000
before they lose $1 in social security benefits for every $3 they earn.
This limit is unfair, outdated, and bad for the economy. This obsolete
social security earnings penalty must be eliminated.
As we all know, our seniors have earned social security benefits
through a lifetime of contributions. They have worked for them, and
they are entitled to their full benefits. It is their money, it is not
Washington's money. It should not be taken away from them just because
they choose to work after they reach normal retirement age.
The earnings penalty adversely affects 800,000 seniors who reach the
normal retirement age. It discriminates against our senior citizens who
must work in order to supplement their benefits. That is just not
right. The earnings penalty is a Depression-era law whose time has long
since come and gone. Today, with unemployment at record lows, seniors
are needed in the work force, so the last thing we ought to do is
discourage them from working.
Senior citizens who work not only lose a large percentage of their
social security benefits today due to the earnings penalty, but they
pay social security taxes, Medicare taxes, Federal taxes, and probably
State income taxes, as well. Combined with the earnings penalty and
these other taxes, our seniors may face a marginal tax rate as high as
80 percent.
The earnings penalty is complicated and difficult to understand. In
addition, the earnings penalty is complex and costly to the Federal
government to administer. For example, the earnings penalty is
responsible for more than half of the social security overpayments.
The Social Security Administration estimates that administering the
earnings penalty takes 1,200 people and costs $150 million a year.
Repeal of the earnings penalty would allow our senior citizens to work
more, the American economy would benefit from their experience and
skills, and it does not cost anything.
According to the Social Security Administration actuaries, a repeal
of the earnings penalty will not affect the social security trust fund.
Two weeks ago, the President finally agreed to sign the bill. I am
pleased that he has decided to help us fix this unfair penalty.
Mr. Speaker, I fought for freedom in two wars, Korea and Vietnam. I
believe that freedom entitles our seniors the ability to work without
penalty. America's seniors want, need, and deserve a repeal of this
penalty.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, last year almost 800,000
seniors had their social security benefits reduced because of this
earnings test. Next year, over 600,000 seniors will be forced to defer
their benefits because they had earnings over $17,000.
Today we are passing a commonsense change that allows seniors to be
able to earn, be able to continue to work, and be able to collect their
social security checks. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson)
pointed out, it will have no effect on the long-term solvency of social
security.
For the first time, we allow seniors to continue to earn a paycheck
without taking it out of their social security check. Seniors who want
to continue working should be able to stay in the labor force without
losing their hard-earned social security benefits. At a time with a
tight labor market and historically low personal savings, it does not
make sense to discourage our most experienced workers from staying
productive. Yet, the earnings penalty amounts to a 33 percent marginal
tax rate on work.
This change will particularly help women workers, who have
historically had lower earnings and an uneven work history. Work for
women becomes even more important, and they should not be penalized by
the social security system.
Mr. Speaker, let me point out, as my friend, the gentleman from
Texas, pointed out during an earlier discussion, yes, many of us would
like to see comprehensive reform of our social security system. We
should be doing that. But we should not stop making changes that are
commonsense, that we can get done, such as removing the earnings test.
I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the same
logic should apply to Medicare. If we are unable to bring forward
comprehensive Medicare reform, let us at least agree on prescription
drugs. We know in a bipartisan way that we need to do that.
The example that we have used on this earnings test, a bipartisan
agreement between the Democrats and the Republicans to move this bill,
let us do the same on other issues that are important to all of our
constituents.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), another respected member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding time to me, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means, who has labored so hard for this commonsense reform so
greatly needed for so long.
History reminds us that Arizona's favorite son, Barry Goldwater, in
the other Chamber, brought this idea forward long ago. I am so glad, in
the spirit of bipartisanship now, that others in previous Congresses so
reluctant to address this commonsense reform would join with us today
for this landmark legislation.
Almost 20,000 seniors in Arizona, 1.1 million seniors nationwide, are
being penalized because they choose to work, are being penalized
because they bring to the workplace maturity and experience and energy.
Mr. Speaker, we need those experienced workers in our work force. One
thing I have learned in representing the Sixth Congressional District
of Arizona, with so many seniors, is that these folks have so much to
contribute, so much to give, yes, as volunteers in retirement age, but
also active in the work force. That is what they bring and that is what
we celebrate today.
So again, we welcome the converts to this, and we are at long last
addressing this issue. This is a great day for America's seniors, for
all Americans, because today we throw off the yoke of unfairness: an
important first step which we must follow in many other ways, but it
begins here, it begins now, and we welcome the cooperation.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in 1996, I voted to increase the Social
Security earnings limit to $30,000, effectively the year after next. In
1998, I voted to increase it even further, up to $39,000. So I am, of
course, supportive when the Republican leadership finally gives us an
opportunity to take the cap off entirely. This bill may help as many as
5 percent of our most successful seniors.

[[Page H586]]

But amid all the self-congratulatory back-slapping that we see here
today, let us be sure to understand what this bill is and what it is
not. It represents well-justified relief for the top 5 percent. It
represents top-down reform, but it does nothing for the 95 percent of
the remaining Americans who rely on social security. It does nothing
for those seniors whose health does not permit them to work, and who
would benefit more from getting access to prescription drugs and an end
to the discrimination they face with huge prices they are charged by
the pharmaceutical companies.
This legislation is very significant to older Americans who have the
capacity to keep earning more than $30,000 a year, but in terms of
overall reform of the Social Security system, to preserve it for future
generations, it is a very modest change.
Of all the changes that we can make in this Congress, interestingly
enough, this is one of the few that is politically painless. It
represents essentially an eat-dessert-first approach to reform.
Congress should be grappling with the tough choices that we face on how
to extend the solvency of Social Security for all Americans and for
future generations of Americans, not just the politically easy step
that primarily puts more benefits in the pockets of the most successful
seniors, coincidentally, during an election year.
I would say this morning, better a reform for 5 percent than no
reform at all. But for most Americans who are counting on Social
Security, this change makes no real difference in their lives. It is
long past time that this Congress got about doing something for them.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley), another respected member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. I thank the chairman for his hard work on this bill. Since 1986 the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of our committee, has
been working on this product, joined with the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hastert), now, and with the leadership of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), we
see victory today for senior citizens.
But even in light of victory, we have to have a little bit of a
political zinger put on the floor by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett). He has to drill a little needle there into this debate,
rather than celebrate the rewards of senior citizens across America.
At 65, under this policy that was maintained by 40 years of
Democratic leadership, we were telling seniors, get out of the way, you
are too old and you are too tired. Modern-day America recognizes, and
particularly our party recognizes, that seniors 65 are in the prime of
their lives.
My father at 77 years of age retired as a principal of a high school
in Lake Worth, Florida. He contributed to the children of Palm Beach
County schools, and he did it because, first and foremost, he loved
children, and secondly, he had a lot to give to our community.
But no, for many, many years they blocked the attempt to reform this
crazy notion of retirement at 65, or penalizing, should one work.
Mr. Speaker, let us face reality. Just like social security predicts
that more retirees than active workers will exist in 10 or 20 years, so
will be the notion of less workers available for active duty. This bill
provides relief for the baby boomers who will retire to stay engaged
and stay working.
So today, rather than taking political shots across the aisle, let us
join hands in this bipartisan spirit. But I must insist on commending
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), because he has been working on
this when he was in the minority, and finally now has had comity from
the other side of the aisle to bring this measure to the floor; the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) in the same period, and again,
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) from my district.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I have probably the 6th and
7th oldest Medicare recipient districts in the Nation. So today I join
my good friend, the gentleman from south Florida, in saluting our
retirees who worked so hard to pay to run the government of the United
States of America.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), the original sponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here today, along with my good friend,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), bringing this bill forward.
This is something that I have been for for a long time. I used to do
tax returns for a living, and saw firsthand the impact this had on
people. This is something that probably made sense back in the
thirties, but its time has past. It is time for us to get rid of this
penalty, which causes these people to pay some of the highest marginal
tax rates in this country.
My district is a very rural district. We are having a lot of trouble
out in the farm part of the district. In the cities, St. Cloud is a big
city, and Moorhead, which is a middle-sized city, or Aurora, which is a
small city, the problems we are having is getting enough workers to
fill the jobs that we have out there.
In this pool of workers that are being penalized, we have a lot of
people that have talent that want to work, and this is going to free up
a lot of folks to do what they want to do. It makes sense.
One other thing I want to focus on. One of the things this will solve
is, part of the problem our farmers are having is with their being
taxed on the rent that they are charging for their farmland. The IRS,
because apparently one word was left out of a statute, are forcing
farmers to pay self-employment tax on their rent. These are the only
businesspeople in America that are doing this. If you are in the real
estate business, if you are a CPA, if you rent a building or land to
your kids or to anybody else, you do not pay self-employment tax, but
farmers do.
If they pay this self-employment tax, they can also be subject to the
self-employment tax penalty that we are getting rid of here today, so
this is going to solve part of the problem.
We appreciate the chairman's leadership on this issue, and we hope
the gentleman would look at the other part of the problem, because it
really is crazy, what we are doing to farmers. They have tremendous
pressure on them now. In my district, none of them are making any
money.

{time} 1115

The last thing they need is to have another tax put on them. So we
would appreciate a look at that.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SHAW. The gentleman has brought up a very sensitive point.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The time of the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) has expired.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Houghton), another respected member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield briefly to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson)
brought up a point that we are waiting for the Commissioner of Social
Security to reply to, because he has raised a very good point and
something that our committee intends to address. I thank the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Houghton) for yielding to me.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Archer) for yielding me this time. It is sort of too
bad that certain people on the other side take a partisan view of this
thing. It is not partisan; it is bipartisan. It makes sense. The timing
is right. There is overwhelming support for this.
When I started to work in the early 1950s, 47 percent of the people
over 65 were working. Today, only 17 percent. That is not very good.
I always think as the speed of light and communication and data
processing is sort of inevitable, so is the fact that people are living
longer.
I have a mother who is 99 years old, born in 1900. When she was born,
the actual actuarial age of women was

[[Page H587]]

about 47. That was the life span. Today, it is in the 70s. Tremendous
difference.
We need able people. Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway has a lady
over 90 years old working in his company. When companies get somebody
good, they want to hold on to them. And people who work longer, they
live longer, they feel healthy and want to make a contribution. So
anything standing in the way, which is this double taxation of their
Social Security benefits, is wrong and is not fair and it will be
scrapped, and should be scrapped, if H.R. 5 goes through.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say one other thing. There was a
lady called Marijo Gorney, and she has worked around here for 35 years.
She is now retired. Mr. Speaker, this was her baby. This was her
concept. She pushed it. She is now retired; and I hope she is watching
this, because a lot of the success of this program is due to her.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) a member of the committee.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my
voice in support of repeal of the earnings test, and I am certainly
pleased that the Committee on Ways and Means acted so quickly, once
President Clinton urged us to do so on February 14. I only wish that at
the committee level we could be as accommodating on some other issues.
The retirement test is clearly a provision which has outlived its
usefulness. With senior citizens living longer and longer, we should
encourage those who want to continue to work, rather than discourage
that effort. I do wish that we had the ability in committee to make
some additional changes, however, such as offering the government
pension offset that was sponsored by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Jefferson).
Mr. Speaker, this unfair provision affects the spousal benefits of
State and local workers and was enacted in response to a Supreme Court
case that dealt with an entirely different problem. It is now time for
that provision to be repealed as well, or at least significantly
modified.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bipartisan bill. I hope it reaches the
President's desk soon, and I hope it will serve as an example that
reaching an agreement when we can is far better for the American people
than producing what is oftentimes so much unnecessary conflict in this
institution. I am pleased to lend my name in support of this
initiative. It is long overdue, but the point is that we are acting on
it today. I think that there is an opportunity here for a lot of people
to take some satisfaction from this initiative.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss).
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer),
my friend and the distinguished chairman, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise, obviously, in strong support of H.R. 5. As just
one of many on this side of the aisle who has worked hard to eliminate
the archaic and punitive Social Security earnings test since coming to
Congress 12 years ago, I am delighted that today we are finally going
to right this wrong.
I represent many seniors in southwest Florida who have eagerly
awaited this moment and I know are going to be very happy. Last year,
over 800,000 seniors across America were penalized simply because they
chose or needed, needed, to remain productive members of our workforce.
In an ever-expanding economy where employers increasingly lack capable
and experienced employees, the Federal Government contrarily sends a
message that our seniors need not apply.
I know it is true, because I hear it firsthand from working seniors
in southwest Florida who choose to stay active and supplement their
retirement, perhaps as a cashier at the local grocery store or perhaps
as a substitute teacher at the middle school.
Proud Americans who survived the Depression and defeated Hitler's
Germany are punished for displaying the same self-reliance,
perseverance, and individual responsibility that defines them as our
greatest generation and, frankly, has made our Nation as great as it is
today. It is a national embarrassment that we will end today.

Today, finally, and I say finally, the White House and congressional
Democrats will apparently join with us in ending the unfair earnings
tax. But it was not always so. Just 2 years ago, only 19 Democrats
voted to end the earnings limit. But in the best spirit of our
representative democracy, we have made our case and we have persuaded
them, or at least most of them, to join us. This has been a long and
trying fight. And besides the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer)
and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), my Florida colleague, and
the gentleman from Texas (Sam Johnson), courageous souls like Jay
Rhodes no longer here, Jim Bunning in the other body, who should be
here to celebrate with us today I hope are taking joy in this.
Above all, we should cheer our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hastert) who led the fight for incremental reform before it was
fashionable and who appropriately will preside over this Congress today
as we end this tax on working seniors once and for all. I urge a
``yes'' vote.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
Seniors Freedom to Work Act. More than 800,000 senior citizens aged 65
to 69 in our country lose part or all of their Social Security benefits
each year because of this so-called earnings test.
Currently, the Social Security earnings penalty takes $1 in Social
Security benefits from Americans 65 through 69 for every $3 they earn
above the $17,000 per year limit. When Americans turn 65, they ought to
be able to count on the Social Security benefits they have earned, and
this bill would repeal the earnings test once and for all.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. But unfortunately, there has
been a little partisan byplay here today; not from our side of the
aisle, but from our friends on the Republican side. They are accusing
us of reversing ourselves on this issue. They are referring to what in
1998 we aptly termed the Raid Social Security for an Election Eve Tax
Cut Act. I would like to just read what I said at the time we debated
that bill:
``The problem is not with the specific tax cuts, but with using the
Social Security Trust Fund surplus to pay for them. These tax cuts are
also contained in the Democratic substitute'', in fact, it included
exactly identical earnings test provisions, ``but they are paid for in
that substitute and they maintain the trust in the trust fund.''
So what we have before us right now, Mr. Speaker, is clean
legislation that addresses the earnings test issue, unencumbered by
controversial or extraneous provisions. Today, we have an opportunity
for a bipartisan bill, a bipartisan result, and I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), Majority Leader of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer)
for yielding me this time. I just wanted to take a moment to add my
word of appreciation for everybody's good work on this. There can be
nothing I can imagine that can be more unfair to our working senior
Americans than to be told that under the law of this land that they are
required to pay into the Social Security program all their working
years, and then at that time in their life when they are entitled to
withdraw the benefits that they paid for, that the government of the
United States is going to take those benefits away if they have the
audacity to continue work.
Many of us have seen the injustice of this, and so many of us have
worked on it over the years and had so many years of frustration.
Mr. Speaker, I always like to remind people that this is the very
first bill that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) introduced in
Congress in 1972. I studied it as an undergraduate. I understood at the
time how important it was. I have watched the gentleman from Texas (Sam
Johnson), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), and the Speaker
himself and others, and it is just such a heart-warming thing for me
today to see us passing this legislation with such bipartisan support.

[[Page H588]]

The President committed to sign it, and we will finally have a real
act of justice and fairness for today's working seniors. I just wanted
to share in that moment with all of our body.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) the ranking member on the Committee on the
Budget.
(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Matsui) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of this bill, the retirement
earnings test is an old vestige of the 1930s, created when Social
Security was born as a way of telling who was truly retired and,
therefore, qualified for benefits. It was looked upon as good policy
then because it spurred older workers to stop working and take their
Social Security benefits and, therefore, freed up jobs for younger
workers in what was then, the 1930s, a period of high unemployment.
Today, we do not have a labor surplus in most parts of the country;
we have a labor shortage. For example, I had an owner of a trucking
company call me a few months ago and tell me in desperation that this
offset policy in Social Security was causing him to lose drivers. They
would not work upon reaching the age of 65, and he could not replace
them. He saw no reason for this policy, and I can tell from talking to
other workers in my district neither do they.
We can explain all the reasons behind it, going back to 1935, but
most people see this as a stiff, unfair, tax on hard-working people. I
think it is time for us to repeal these offsets all together for those
people who have reached retirement age. The question arises: Why did we
not do this in 1998? There has been some accusation here that some of
us who voted for that particular tax bill then, which was an $8.1
billion tax bill in 1998, voted against the elimination of the
threshold. That bill would not have eliminated the threshold. It would
have raised the threshold to $39,750 by 2008.
But in 1996, almost all of us came out here and voted for H.R. 3136,
the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996. This bill raised the
limit in annual steps from $12,500 to $30,000 by 2002, and indexed the
threshold after 2002 to rise with the rate of inflation. Had we simply
followed the course of that law, by 2008, the threshold would have been
about $38,000, just a little bit less than the bill in 1998 provided.
So this argument is really not a fair argument. I am glad to see us
bring something to the floor that is bipartisan. Let us keep it
bipartisan. I do not think I need to encourage anybody to vote for
this. The vote is going to be overwhelming. And any time we get this
kind of bipartisan consensus on an issue of this substance, it is a
sign of an idea whose time has come.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is right that we repeal today, right now, as
soon as possible, this old and outdated vestige of the Social Security
system and say this is something on which we all agree.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), one of our great committee
members.
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, today's debate is all about fairness. This
Congress has accomplished so much over the last 5 years, and I am proud
that just in the past year we have accomplished our goal of stopping
the raid on Social Security for the first time in 30 years and we
balanced the budget without touching one dime of Social Security, paid
down $350 billion of the national debt, and 3 short weeks ago this
House passed with 268 votes, 48 Democrats joining with every House
Republican, legislation wiping out the marriage tax penalty for 25
million married working couples who pay higher taxes just because they
are married.
Like the marriage tax penalty, the earnings limit on our seniors is
an issue of fairness. And I want to commend the Speaker of the House,
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the gentleman from Texas
(Chairman Archer), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw), and the
gentleman from Texas (Sam Johnson) who have been tireless leaders and
fighters for this effort to bring fairness to seniors.
Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that this effort to repeal the
earnings test on seniors was part of the Contract with America. It is
unfinished business. For far too long, seniors who work after age 65
have been punished. Since the 1930s, seniors who live longer, want to
be active longer and work longer, have been punished. 800,000 seniors
in America, 53,000 seniors in my home State in Illinois, are punished
just because they want to work when they are age 65 or older.
I think of my own parents, farmers in their early 70s today who want
to work and be active longer. Like millions, they suffer.
Mr. Speaker, the earnings limit on seniors is wrong. Let us repeal
it. I appreciate the fact the President now says he will sign it into
law. That makes it a bipartisan effort. I commend the chairman and
commend the Speaker and commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam
Johnson) my friend, for their leadership. Let us get the job done. I
ask for an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, success has many fathers; failure is an
orphan. This bill is an outstanding bill and we are all fighting over
paternity.
It is a bill that will help our economy by bringing experienced
workers into a labor shortage work environment. It is a bill that will
help 800,000 seniors and it is a bill that will actually help Social
Security by bringing additional Social Security revenue and income tax
revenue into the Federal Government as additional seniors enter the
workforce.

{time} 1130

As to the fight over paternity, it is a Democratic President who
stood here in his State of the Union message and urged us to pass this
bill and the Democratic alternative bill in 1998 which provided an
increase in this limit which we are now going to repeal, and that
alternative bill would have been signed into law. We voted for a bill
that would have dealt with this issue in 1998 and would have become
law.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Sweeney).
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly to congratulate the
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer). I rise in strong support to
repeal the earnings limitation for Social Security recipients. I am
particularly pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation.
And I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Johnson).
We have had a lot of debate and discussion over whose idea this was,
but I think the record is very clear and will very clearly show that
we, the majority in Congress, over the last 5 to 6 years have really
begun to move forward in a meaningful way to bring steps towards
comprehensive reform of Social Security. I am proud to join that
effort. This is good for senior citizens, and it is good for America.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support us in this endeavor.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the committee.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5,
bipartisan legislation, to repeal the Social Security retirement
earnings test. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation which has the
backing of so many of us on the Committee on Ways and Means.
This legislation is supported by the Clinton administration. Indeed,
the President called for repeal of the test more than a year ago.
As the Subcommittee on Social Security learned during the hearing on
this bill on February 15, the retirement earnings test is both
confusing to beneficiaries and difficult to administer. It discourages
older people from remaining in the workforce and contributing to our
country's economic growth. It is past time to eliminate this
disincentive to work.
The bill repeals the test for workers who attained the normal
retirement age. Its repeal will allow literally hundreds of thousands
of Social Security recipients to work without a reduction in their
benefits. This is an idea whose time has come.

[[Page H589]]

It is important to note that the repeal does not adversely affect the
long-term financial health of Social Security.
This bill shows that members of the committee can work in a
bipartisan way. I hope this effort remains such.
Let me stress that passage of H.R. 5 today is not in any way a
substitute for comprehensive Social Security reform. Congress must
redouble its efforts to pass legislation to extend solvency of the
fund.
Again, the President has proposed legislation that would defeat the
interest savings earned by paying down the publicly held debt to make
Social Security stronger. This would extend the solvency of the program
to 2050.
There is an old proverb that says that a journey of 1,000 miles
begins with a single step. We are taking a good first step with the
passage of H.R. 5 today. It should not, Mr. Speaker, be our last.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Herger), an esteemed member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, what could be more fair than allowing
seniors to continue working without losing Social Security benefits?
Today we are voting on legislation to end the outdated Social
Security earnings limit. Under this legislation, more than 800,000
seniors nationwide will have the opportunity to work without seeing
their Social Security benefits reduced.
Consider a senior in my district in northern California who is
between the ages of 65 and 70 and who earns $20,000 a year to
supplement their Social Security benefits. Under current law, this
senior will lose $1,000 in Social Security benefits due to the earnings
limit.
At a time when our U.S. workforce needs the skills seniors have to
offer, this disincentive to work makes absolutely no sense. Our seniors
deserve the freedom to work without being penalized for it.
This legislation before us today is based on the principles of
fairness and freedom. Seniors should be treated fairly after paying
into Social Security all their lives. They should have the freedom to
work without worrying about losing their benefits.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this legislation is
fiscally responsible. It does not affect the long-term solvency of the
Social Security trust fund.
I commend the President for supporting our position to end the
outdated earnings limit. Mr. Speaker, let us give all our seniors the
freedom and the fairness they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support
this legislation.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank not only the gentleman from
California (Mr. Matsui) but also the members of the Committee on Ways
and Means for allowing me to speak.
I rise in support of the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, a
legislation that I am proud to be a co-sponsor of and will vote for
today.
It seems hard to believe that our tax law actually punishes people
for working. Yet under the current law, 48,000-plus Texans lose all or
part of their Social Security payments each month simply because they
want to work. Now if one can work after one is 70 years old, one is not
penalized.
Seniors who have worked hard their whole lives and paid into the
Social Security system for decades should get their Social Security
benefits regardless of whether they continue to work. This important
legislation puts an end to the inequitable treatment of seniors.
My only concern, Mr. Speaker, is that, hopefully, this is not a step
toward increasing the retirement age, Congress already did that once,
instead of using 65. So hopefully this will not happen.
This is a clean bill. It is not loaded down with other provisions. So
it does not bust the Federal budget caps that we have talked about.
Hopefully, this Congress can address other senior citizens issues,
providing prescription medication for seniors, because allowing them to
work still may not pay for it.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a respected member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to congratulate the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), chairman of the Subcommittee on
Social Security, for his extraordinary leadership, not only on this
issue, but in moving forward to make Social Security more solvent.
Mr. Speaker, today Congress says to seniors, you may choose to work,
choose to remain part of the productive economy, and choose to share
your talents. Right now the Social Security system places a higher tax
penalty on working seniors than on billionaires. We have been sending
seniors the message that when they hit retirement age that we do not
want them anymore. We need to change that.
The earnings limit was created 60 years ago, and it is a relic of
Depression-era economics that says seniors should make room for younger
workers. We now know that seniors add more to the workforce and more to
the economy than they can ever take away. They add their years of
experience, their expertise, their talents.
This legislation repeals the earnings limit that unfairly punishes
seniors who earn more than $17,000 a year. This arbitrary limit serves
as a barrier to many low- and middle-class seniors who take on a job
because they need to work in order to improve their quality of life or
even just to make ends meet. They must not lose Social Security
benefits that they earn simply because they choose to work.
The Social Security Administration reports that more than 800,000
working seniors between the ages of 65 and 69 lose part or all of their
Social Security benefits due to this outdated limitation. That is an
outrage.
In Pennsylvania, we are sixth in the number of seniors adversely
affected by the earnings limit; 48,000, over 48,000 Pennsylvania
seniors are penalized for working.
I urge my colleagues to join the AARP, join the Subcommittee on
Social Security, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and vote in
favor of this legislation. It is important that Congress protect the
dignity of retirement and unshackle the creative energies of America's
seniors.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Matsui) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Archer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for the leadership
in working to bring to the floor this very important piece of
legislation.
We are focusing on reforming our existing Social Security program,
correcting an unfairness that impacted 800,000 seniors last year. It
provides an incentive for those skilled, dedicated committed workers to
continue to work and enhance our society.
I want to bring one thing, Mr. Speaker, to the attention of the folks
here today; and that is this, we have been told by Mr. Greenspan that
one of the greatest threats to the growth in the economy is we do not
have enough workers, skilled workers, to produce the supply for the
demand that is out there.
This is a very unusual situation that we are in. Thank God for the
seniors who are going to bail us out, because this will be an incentive
for them. This is critical. This is something that we need, and we are
working together finally. By the way, does it not feel good to work
well on things that America needs?
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.
(Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Shaw) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the genesis of an idea, why a bill
like this comes into being, sometimes it has not just happened
overnight. This particular bill, this has been worked on for almost 20
years.
I remember the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) when he first came

[[Page H590]]

to Congress talked about this. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey)
tried to push this concept. He brought together economists that shows
there is really a positive effort when people work. The positives, when
one does dynamic scoring, really has outshone what the negatives were,
and that was the payment is out of the Social Security trust fund.
Then 14 years ago, the 100th Congress decided that this was a project
that was something that was important for people. For 14 years, we have
been trying to get the Social Security earnings limit, as we call it,
changed. We did change it. Twelve years ago, one could earn $10,000;
and anything over $10,000, every $2 that one earned one lost a dollar
in one's Social Security. Then we kind of phased it out to $3, and it
went up from $10,000 to $13,000 to $17,000 today.
But the fact is, when a senior citizen goes to work at McDonald's or
starts his or her own little business or, like the lady 10 years ago
when I bought Valentine flowers for my wife at the florist shop, she
said, Congressman, I had just came back to work in January. I had
stopped work last October because I was up against the earnings limit,
at that time about $10,000. I had to leave my job. Or the seamstress at
the little corner dress shop that the owner came out to me and said, I
am going to lose my seamstress because she has reached that earnings
limit. That was in November just at a busy time.
So the unfairness of the earnings limit for today's worker certainly
has been apparent, and it has been apparent for a long time.
Slowly, but surely, we have been able to move this bill to a point
where we can pass it and we can give equity to seniors, people who are
over the age of 65 that do not want to relegate themselves to a rocking
chair.
Now, quite frankly, some seniors at age 65 want to retire, and God
bless them. They should be able if they have had that productive life.
But the issue is that seniors who maybe did not have to work by the
sweat of their brow their whole life, that they have unearned income,
if they have pensions and they have retirement accounts, they were not
penalized by the earnings test.
The people that were penalized by the earnings test were people that
had to go out and earn by the sweat of their brow, people that were
never to save up, never to have an IRA, never to be able to have a lot
of money in pensions, people that had to go out and work every day to
feed their families, to make ends meet. Now they are 65 years of age
and, all of a sudden, they have a big government tell them, oh, by the
way, you can get Social Security, but you cannot work anymore.

{time} 1145

``You cannot work to send your grandchild or child on to college; you
cannot help earn that tuition for your family and, by the way, you
cannot have that car that you would like to have to go on vacation
because you cannot earn more than this amount of money because you are
going to be penalized.''
This is wrong. It has been wrong for a long, long time. And
especially in today's economy, when seniors are valued, because it is
the seniors that have work ethics. It is the seniors that put in a full
day's work, and they know the value of work. People like Sears Roebuck
and J. C. Penney and McDonald's, and on and on, have been telling me
for over a decade that they want those seniors in their ranks. Because
not only are they good workers, people they can depend on, but for
people entering the work force they are great people to train. It is a
good ethic to pass on.
So we cannot afford to keep this resource, these people who have
built this country, these people who want to contribute, even into
their retirement, to what America is all about, we cannot afford to
keep them out of this process.
I want to again say that I urge everybody to vote for this bill. And
I am very pleased that the President has endorsed this piece of
legislation. I think it is good, as the gentleman said, that we have
found something that we can work on, something that lifts the American
people and gives them a better future.
I want to also thank certainly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw)
for bringing this legislation up, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam
Johnson), who has worked on this as a pioneer for years, and Jim
Bunning, who used to be a Member of this body worked on it for years
and years. There are a lot of people and a lot of history here.
I think it is time that this bill passes, and I urge everybody to
stand up and vote ``yes.'' Thank heavens this is here, a time of
salvation for our seniors.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for
H.R. 5, to repeal the Social Security earnings limit.
I am pleased finally to have the opportunity to bring this to a vote.
After all, House Democrats have long supported repealing the earnings
limit, but within the framework of comprehensive Social Security
reform, to protect the Social Security Trust Fund and make sure it is
there for seniors who need it.
The Republican tax cut actually held the Social Security earnings
limit hostage to election year politics. Their proposals would have
raided the Social Security surplus to fund huge ill-conceived tax cuts,
of which repeal of the earnings limit was one small part.
Seniors will not be fooled by a political effort to tie repealing the
Social Security earnings limit to a tax cut that would have been funded
by raiding the Social Security surplus.
I support eliminating the earnings limit. More than that, I support
being honest with our seniors.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, bipartisan common sense
legislation to repeal the Social Security earnings test.
I believe the Social Security earnings test should be eliminated.
Simply put, this provision of the Social Security law has outlived its
usefulness. It is a relic from another time. It survives only to punish
older Americans for their productivity.
Today, most seniors continue to work at least part time after
retiring. These men and women have some of the most dedicated and
experienced skills to bring to our work force. And, as a Nation, we
should be doing everything we can to encourage them to continue to
contribute their time and their talents, not penalize them for doing
so.
H.R. 5 would repeal this limit entirely, effective immediately. It is
a bill that is worthy of our unanimous support. The President proposed
it; both parties support it. It is simple, we need to pass H.R. 5.
We also need to undertake a comprehensive legislative fix that would
use the projected budget surpluses to extend the life of Social
Security and Medicare and pay down the debt.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of repeal of the earnings limit for
Social Security recipients between 65 and 70 years of age.
When I talk to employers in Maine, many cannot find all the employees
that they need. Many seniors between 65 and 70 want to work but are
discouraged from doing so by the Social Security earnings limit. This
bill will help seniors who want to work and employers who want to hire
them.
This bill is also an example of what Republicans and Democrats can do
when we bring to the floor legislation on which we can agree. In 1998,
I voted for a Democratic proposal to lift the earnings limit, but I
pointed out at that time that the competing 1998 Republican plan
included tax cuts that did not protect Social Security surpluses. That
was the wrong approach and I opposed it. This bill is the right
approach, and I am proud to support it.

[[Page H591]]

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, to
repeal the Social Security earnings test. It is long overdue.
It makes absolutely no sense to penalize older Americans for
participating in the work force at any time. It makes particularly no
sense to penalize older Americans at a time when businesses are
clamoring for qualified workers. Our most experienced workers should
not be left out of America's work force, out of America's future.
Many of the seniors in the district I represent in southern Nevada
have asked me to champion this issue on their behalf. They have so much
energy, so much talent, so much to continue to give this great country.
Congress must repeal this obsolete earnings limit and give seniors the
freedom to work without penalty.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
(Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this proposal and
commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for their efforts in this endeavor.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the committee.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, if we are to climb the mountain of tax
reform, we have to take it one step at a time; and I think the right
approach is to aim first at individuals and remove the burden of
excessive taxation and complicated regulations.
The very first place to start is by scrapping tax penalties. Why hit
people with a heavier tax burden for being married, for working after
retirement, or for building a family business or farm? The Senior
Citizens Freedom to Work Act is an important step to remove one of
those penalties. It will end the Social Security earnings limit which
discourage seniors from continuing to work.
This legislation follows an important first step we took a couple of
weeks ago with the passage of the marriage penalty tax relief. Finally,
I hope that we will take a third step, and that is by helping families
by eliminating the death penalty tax which hammers families, family-
owned businesses and farms.
Mr. Speaker, let us keep moving forward, making progress in tax
reform and support H.R. 5.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost).
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5,
legislation that is long overdue for our Nation's seniors.
In 1999, an estimated 1.2 million beneficiaries had some or all of
their benefits withheld for some portion of the year under the Social
Security earnings test. About 800,000 beneficiaries lost some or all of
their benefits under the test as a result of their work at ages 65 to
69. Additionally, the benefits of 150,000 family members were limited
or withheld due to the earnings of the primary beneficiary.
Mr. Speaker, for many seniors, working after the age of 65 is not an
option. Facing mounting bills for prescription drugs and the increasing
cost of living, it is something they must do to continue to pay their
bills. We should be doing everything we can to increase the standard of
living for these valuable employees.
Older women in particular face a major hardship from the earnings
test. The poverty rate for women is higher than the poverty rate
overall, and women have a greater reliance on their Social Security
benefits for income. Widows account for 66 percent of aged women in
poverty. There are 1.2 million aged widows who receive Social Security
benefits and have had incomes below the poverty line.
Because women live longer, have lower lifetime earnings and,
therefore, for dependent on Social Security benefits, they are more
likely to be working well past the traditional retirement age. We need
to boost the Social Security earnings for this most vulnerable group of
seniors rather than putting roadblocks in their path.
Mr. Speaker, repealing the earnings limit is good for seniors and
good for employers too. Older workers are exactly the type of employees
that businesses want. They are dependable, experienced, and have a
strong work ethic. We should be encouraging these workers to remain in
the work force instead of trying to force them out. As the number of
older workers grows, and the need for quality employees becomes more
acute, we need to take advantage of the experience and skills that
older workers provide.
Eliminating the earnings test is not only the fair thing to do for
working seniors but it will improve the quality and efficiency of the
Social Security program as well.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill to get rid
of the Social Security earnings limit. I have been an original
cosponsor of this bill many times, and I am pleased that we have gotten
to this point today.
The need for this bill was really brought home to me last Friday. In
my district office in Bloomington, Minnesota, a woman named Anna Marie
came to see me and said she needed to talk to me about a very personal,
very important matter related to Social Security. When she came into my
office she was noticeably upset and apprehensive about her situation.
She sat down and explained to me that $4,000 had been taken out of her
retirement benefits and she desperately needed that money today. In
fact, she needed the money for dentures, and if she did not get those
new dentures she would be placed on a liquid diet, unable to eat solid
food. The $4,000 she had lost would help her afford these dentures and
maintain the independence and life-style that she deserves.
When I told her about what Congress would hopefully do today, about
the bill before us to remove the Social Security earnings limit, she
started to cry. Her eyes welled up with tears, she clasped her hands
together and she said, ``Praise Jesus. Thank you, God.''
Well, this is an important bill in the lives of real people, real
seniors who need that $4,000, who need the money that has been taken by
the Federal Government. In voting for it, my colleagues, we help Anna
Marie, we help many others like her across the country. In voting for
it, to remove the Social Security earnings limit, we will make a real
difference in the lives of real seniors, ensuring that not only can
they keep the money they earn, that they need, but also the
independence that these seniors deserve.
So I hope in a bipartisan way we overwhelmingly pass this legislation
before us today.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of
H.R. 5 today. This bill is a win-win situation, not just for seniors
but for the country as a whole as well.
Clearly, it is to the great advantage of seniors to have the
opportunity to continue to work, to bring in income and not have their
Social Security cut.

{time} 1200

It is the right thing to do. Seniors, particularly between 65 and 70,
still have a lot of bills and a lot of concerns that Social Security
cannot meet. Allowing them to work is a way to help them make that up.
But it is also a great benefit to our economy. If there is one thing I
hear from every business in my district, it is that they cannot find
enough workers. It does not matter what the job is; they cannot find
enough people to do the jobs they need.
Well, we have a wealth of talent out there with great experience, and
that is our seniors who can fill those jobs and help our economy. This
bill is fair to seniors, excellent for the economy, and I recommend
that we support it strongly.
I also think it is great that it is a bipartisan piece of
legislation. It shows an example of where the House can work together
to solve real problems for real people in this country, and I am very
proud to support it.

[[Page H592]]

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Portman), an esteemed member of the Committee on Ways and Means
and a member of the Subcommittee on Social Security.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the
time; and I want to thank him and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer)
and other members of the Committee on Ways and Mean who have put this
legislation forward. I rise in very strong support of it, the Senior
Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, properly named, as well.
The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) talked earlier about a
constituent who had come into his office and talked about the penalty
that she now lives under, which is about 4,000 a year, and does not
enable her to do things she needs to do for herself.
Let me tell my colleagues another story. And there are so many out
there. Each of us knows people in our districts, maybe in our family,
who are affected by this. But Marjorie Thompson is a dear friend of
mine back home. She is a caregiver. She is a nurse. She takes care of
elderly patients primarily. She is a compassionate, a skilled person
who has a very strong work ethic and wants to work.
Marjorie is in her late sixties, and she wants to go to work every
day. She has come to me and she has said, Rob, should I work? And I
have to tell her that her marginal tax rate for every additional dollar
she earns now is about 80 percent. She is getting advice now from
everybody she knows that say, of course she should not work, not with
that kind of penalty.
If we could take away the earnings penalty from her, she would work
and she would work a full year and she would not stop when she has
reached that cap.
People like Marjorie Thompson are needed. They are needed to care for
our elderly. They are needed throughout our economy. These are people
that have a lot to contribute. And it is not just economically. They
have a lot to contribute to our society. They want to work. They want
to have the dignity and the self-respect that comes with work.
The last thing that this Congress and this Government should be doing
is discouraging them from working. We have to remove this penalty from
the Tax Code. It is overdue.
Again, I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and others,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) who put this forward. And I
am really looking forward to its being enacted into law.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
repealing the earnings test for Social Security beneficiaries between
the ages of 65 and 69.
There is currently a shortage of workers in the U.S. There is no good
reason for Social Security to punish people who want to work. These
more mature workers are some of our Nation's most skilled.
Mr. Speaker, the earnings limit is a relic of the Depression era.
With Americans living longer, Social Security should not dictate their
life-style choices to them. This bill is good social policy and good
economic policy. It does not make sense to punish Americans for working
when Congress is being lobbied to allow additional workers into the
country from other countries.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are approaching this in a
bipartisan manner; and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle can use this year to address broader reform.
When discussions turn to handling the budget surplus, we must insist
that the solvency of Social Security and Medicare are addressed first
and that our older citizens have a prescription drug benefit. We should
be addressing this now, not adjourning.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Kuykendall).
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
legislation. It is important legislation for our seniors.
Incredibly, seniors between the ages of 65 and 70 currently lose a
dollar's worth of Social Security benefits for every $3 earned over
$17,000. Seniors should not be penalized for working. It is just plain
unconscionable that the Government would take away these hard-earned
benefits.
With our powerful economic growth continuing, the need for skilled
workers in the workforce is increasing. To have any disincentive to
work is bad policy. More than 800,000 working senior citizens lose part
or all of their Social Security benefits due to this obsolete
provision. And today we can remove the earnings limit.
I am glad to hear also the President recognizes this unfairness in
this earnings limit. Ending the earnings limit is good for seniors,
good for the Nation; and it is the right thing to do. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 5,
legislation to repeal the earnings test for Social Security for the
ages 65 through 69. It is time to get rid of this penalty, and I am
glad that we are finally debating this issue.
The earnings limit originated in the 1930s, but today people remain
healthy and vigorous longer than they did then; and it makes sense to
repeal this obsolete and punitive limit.
It makes no sense to penalize seniors, some who still have to work in
the workplace, some who want to contribute their skills to the
workplace, especially in a time when businesses are finding it
difficult to recruit enough qualified workers to fill the jobs that
remain vacant.
The current system is a disincentive for seniors to continue to work,
and it needs to be changed. And this legislation is long overdue.
But there are a lot of other things we also need to work on. We need
to help retirees by using the surplus to extend Social Security and
Medicare, to provide a prescription drug plan for all seniors, and to
lift the limit on outside income for beneficiaries of Social Security.
I have supported raising the limit in the past, and I support
repealing it today.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Crane) a respected member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding to
me this time.
I want to say to my colleagues that all of us understand the meaning
of the phrase ``an honest day's pay for an honest day's work.''
Because of the many, many decades of hard work in all kinds of jobs,
our older Americans appreciate that adage more than most. They know
what it means to expend a lifetime of dealing with the uncertainties of
living paycheck to paycheck. They got up early every morning, went to
the assembly line, the office, the shop, and came home at night to
enjoy some time with family and friends.
When they were rearing their families, they simply hoped to make life
a little better for their children; and when they reached retirement
age, they hoped to collect the money they contributed to Social
Security and a pension. But if they continue to work after 65, they are
forced to watch the Federal Government continue to try to squeeze every
cent it can from their paycheck; and to add insult to injury, even
their Social Security is affected until they turn 70.
So I proudly stand before my colleagues today because, after decades
of trying to eliminate the Social Security earnings limit, it is
finally happening on the floor of the House today. This means that the
over 42,000 seniors living in my district, many of whom continue
working beyond the average retirement age, will be getting a little bit
of a break.
On behalf of my 8th District constituents, I want to thank and
commend my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), for
his persistence in getting H.R. 5 to the floor for a vote. I want to
commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), our chairman, who was
pioneering in this effort years ago. And I want to commend the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), our distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee, for all of his

[[Page H593]]

efforts. And I commend all of our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis,
for joining as cosponsors of a bill that my colleagues, I know, will
want to unanimously support and eliminate this obscene tax.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today that H.R. 5 is
moving.
I have been in Congress for several years now, and this is a piece of
legislation that I have felt like should have been passed many years
ago. And I know senior citizens that have quit work simply because the
penalty was too high.
Now they will be able, after this legislation passes the House and
Senate and signed by the President, and I expect it all to happen this
year and very soon now, where senior citizens will have an opportunity
to make some decisions and whereby they can have some structure in
their lives, where they can have some peace of mind, knowing that if
they want to continue to work, and many of them want to do that, they
will be able to accomplish those goals and objectives for themselves
and their families.
It is estimated that, under current law, about 4 percent of Social
Security recipients will exceed the $17,000 earnings limit and will
have the benefits reduced by an average of $8,154. That does not have
to happen now with this legislation.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the gentleman from
Texas (Chairman Archer) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw)
and in support of the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act.
The Members of this body have different philosophies about the role
of government. Some want an expansive, activist government. Others,
like myself, believe that government should have a much more limited
role. But I think everyone agrees that the Government should not
discourage hard work and self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, we do just
that. And nowhere is this more evident than with the so-called Social
Security earnings limit.
Incredibly, more than 800,000 working seniors between the ages of 65
and 69 lose part or all of their Social Security benefits simply
because they choose to work in their golden years. This is wrong.
No matter what the rationale for the earnings limit was during the
Great Depression, this is the year 2000. We should not stand for a Tax
Code that penalizes hard work and responsibility.
I urge all my colleagues to support the Senior Citizens' Freedom to
Work Act.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I want to say how glad I am that today we
have an opportunity to vote to repeal the earnings test for Social
Security beneficiaries between the ages of 65 and 69. This action is
long overdue.
The earnings limit originated in the 1930s when the Social Security
program was started during the Depression, and it remains despite the
vast changes in the economy and the lives of senior citizens that have
taken place over the last 60 years.
It makes no sense to penalize seniors for participating in the
workplace, especially at a time when businesses cannot find enough
qualified workers to fill jobs that remain vacant. People remain
healthy and vigorous longer than they did in the 1930s. So it makes
perfect sense to repeal this obsolete and punitive limit.
By passing this bill, seniors who need or want to work can now do so
without the fear of being punished by an outdated law.
I am glad that today we, both sides of the aisle, can all be on the
same page and finally take this action. Let us vote ``yes'' to pass
H.R. 5.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from
California for yielding the time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I join in the parade of Members who support this
legislation. Previously, this proposal to lift the earnings limit has
been used as a partisan Trojan horse. It included tax cuts that were
controversial, and it would have required raiding the Social Security
trust fund.
Today we have a balanced budget, we are not engaged in a raid on the
Social Security trust fund, and we can approve this proposal on its
merits. It is not a Trojan horse. It is not accompanied by other
controversial Internal Revenue Code changes.
Strong policy considerations support this legislation. They have been
amply stated by previous speakers. I would just like to say them
briefly: fairness to seniors who wish to work. We should encourage a
work ethics. Two, it is budget neutral. This proposal does not cost
money. Three, we have a labor shortage. We need additional workers in
America.

{time} 1215

I am pleased to join in supporting this legislation.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of H.R. 5, the
Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. Under current law, seniors who
earn more than $17,000 per year are penalized $1 for every $3 of
additional earnings. This is wrong. We should not penalize hard work.
It makes no sense to penalize seniors who are participating in our work
force, especially at a time when we cannot find enough workers to fill
a burgeoning economy.
I have heard from many small businesses in my district that are very
excited about the possibility of hiring additional workers, workers who
have solid work values, who are responsible, experienced and eager to
fill the positions which are currently available.
As we vote on this important bipartisan legislation today, I want to
encourage my colleagues to continue work in assisting our seniors to
retire so they are not forced to work. However, I strongly believe that
those who choose to work should not be penalized. And this bill solves
that.
I urge my colleagues to support this long-needed legislation.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on
Agriculture.
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation and encourage all of my colleagues to support it. I have
been a strong supporter of legislation to repeal the earnings limit for
several years. In fact, repeal of the earnings limit was part of the
comprehensive Social Security reform package that I introduced, along
with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) in 1998.
Our legislation though contained several other provisions that
rewarded individuals who continued to work after retirement age. While
I am disappointed that Congress is not acting on the other parts of our
proposal to strengthen Social Security, I am very pleased that this
part of our legislation is going to be enacted today.
Senior citizens are some of our most valued workers, contributing a
wealth of experience that can be gained only through years of dedicated
service. For this reason, I agree wholeheartedly with the statement of
former Senator Bentsen that discouraging seniors citizen from working
is ``like keeping your best hitters on the bench.''
Our society should not overlook the contribution of our seniors.
Unfortunately, press reports suggest that some in the Republican party
intend to use this vote on the earnings limit for partisan political
purposes. I would ask a reconsideration of those who choose to do that.
As Democrats who have worked in a bipartisan way on comprehensive
Social Security reform, I am extremely disappointed by these reports
and hope that the Republican leadership will repudiate these tactics.
The suggestions that Democrats have opposed repeal of the Social
Security earnings limit are completely false.
Democrats have supported repeal of the Social Security earnings limit
as part of a comprehensive legislation that keeps Social Security
strong for those currently retired or close to it, and everyone knows
that.

[[Page H594]]

In fact, the reported line of criticism being suggested by some
actually raises questions about their commitment to the integrity of
the Social Security trust fund. The votes being cited to criticize
Democrats were on bills that would have raided the Social Security
surplus to fund tax cuts, in which repeal of the earnings limit was one
small part.
Seniors will not be fooled by a political effort to use the issue of
repealing the Social Security earnings limit to advocate a tax cut that
would have been funded by raiding the Social Security surplus.
The past votes that some Republicans seek to exploit for political
purposes were on bills that would have threatened the integrity of the
Social Security trust fund. The $80 billion tax cut considered by the
House in the fall of 1998 that included repeal of the Social Security
earnings limit would have been funded entirely out of the Social
Security surplus.
The Republican leadership at that time did not even allow a vote on
the Stenholm-Neumann amendment, which provided that the tax cuts could
not be funded with a Social Security surplus. Likewise, the tax bill
considered by the House last year would have dipped into the Social
Security surplus by more than $70 billion and would have exploded in
costs at the same time the Social Security system is projected to begin
running shortfalls.
Let us use today to set aside the bipartisanship. Let us recognize
that today we are reaching out in a bipartisan way in order to do what
everyone has agreed. While I am critical of the fact we are not doing
more, we accept this today, let us put the partisanship aside. Let us
continue to reach out for a long-term solution for Social Security.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Dunn), a respected member of the committee.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the seniors and near seniors in
the Congressional district that I represent, I rise today in
enthusiastic support of H.R. 5, the Seniors Citizens' Freedom to Work
Act.
The Social Security earnings limit is another aspect of a 60-year old
Social Security system that no longer applies to modern society. These
days seniors are living longer. They are healthier, and yet too many of
our Nation's best workers are sitting in rocking chairs.
We need their strength. We need their experience in our communities.
And young people starting new jobs need their example, their example of
the value of work and the discipline of work. Unfortunately, by denying
retirement benefits for those who choose to work, Social Security
penalizes seniors who want to be productive and teach the values of
hard work to younger generations.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is also very important to women who, 75
percent of the time, live longer than their spouses. And they ought to
be able to have the peace of mind that they can supplement their
retirement earnings if they wish without being penalized.
In Washington State alone, more than 13,000 seniors have been forced
to choose between keeping the job they love or losing the retirement
income for which they worked all their lives. This is wrong. It also
keeps an intelligent and productive part of our work force at home.
Seniors who are currently retired have been called the greatest
generation, for the sacrifices they made in defending freedom and
building America into the world's only remaining superpower. It is time
that we honor the contributions to America, their contributions, by
allowing them to work, if they wish, and to give one of the most
precious gifts of all, that they can offer their work ethic.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) for persevering in this cause. I
want to urge my colleagues to support this bill and the President to
sign it.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, today we are taking the first step towards
strengthening retirement security for all seniors and moving closer to
putting Social Security on a firmer footing for the rest of the
century. This time, we are doing it in a fiscally responsible way.
I am gratified that Republicans are joining with us to repeal the
earnings test for Social Security. This is truly a bipartisan effort.
Democrats have overwhelmingly voted three times in recent years to
raise the limit and President Clinton has requested repealing this
earnings limit in his last two budgets. The sooner we send this to his
desk, the faster we will be able to deliver this relief to seniors who
want to continue making a real contribution to our society and our
economy.
Unlike a Republican attempt to raise the limit in 1998, the bill we
debate today does not hurt the long-term solvency of Social Security to
do so. This reform is long overdue. It is about time that we stand up
for America's seniors.
According to Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, we are beginning to
suffer from a serious worker shortage that threatens our economic
expansion. This bill will play a major role in protecting our economic
gains of the last 7 years. It will not only help raise the standard of
living for many of our seniors but it will also help us keep the
strongest economic growth of our lifetime on track by keeping a
generation of skilled workers in the economy.
I met with a number of small business owners in South County St.
Louis in my district this past weekend and they talked about their need
to hire workers over the age of 65 because they are having such trouble
finding skilled workers for jobs that are available right now. This
bill will encourage seniors to return to the workplace and enable
business owners to fill vacant jobs.
This earnings limit is a relic of the great depression when we
experienced double-digit unemployment among young people. The limit
does not make any sense in the year 2000. It needs to be relegated to
the dustbin of economic history. This is just the first step towards
strengthening retirement security for all seniors. Now it is time to
take the next step, using the surplus to extend the life of Social
Security and Medicare.
Today, we are voting to allow working seniors to fully enjoy their
Social Security benefit, but that very benefit will be in danger if
Republicans do not join with Democrats to take immediate action to
strengthen the Social Security trust fund with an infusion of financial
support.
I hope my Republican colleagues will join us over the next several
months in using the surplus to strengthen both Social Security and
Medicare. This bill shows that Democrats and Republicans can work
together to rebuild and build retirement security. I hope that we can
build on this foundation and work together to put Social Security and
Medicare on a sound financial footing well into the next century.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman).
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr.
Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Senior Citizens' Freedom to
Work Act. This bill is simple and straightforward, removing the
earnings limit for working seniors receiving Social Security. Seniors
aged 65 to 69 who have chosen to continue to work have had their Social
Security benefits reduced by $1 for every $3 earned when their total
earnings went over $17,000 annually.
The 104th Congress made a long needed change, raising the annual
earnings limit to $30,000 by the year 2002. More needed to be done on
this issue. Ever since coming to Washington in the 93rd Congress, I
have introduced legislation to either raise the earnings limit or
eliminate it altogether. These earnings limits have discouraged seniors
from working and diminished their potential productivity, conveying a
message that seniors have nothing to contribute and are better off not
working in the workforce. It is gratifying that the President has
stated his support for the elimination of the earnings limit, and I
commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) for their attention to this important issue.

[[Page H595]]

Accordingly, I urge our colleagues to join in supporting this timely,
important senior legislation.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Lucas).
(Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky. I thank the distinguished gentleman from
California for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens'
Freedom to Work Act. The elimination of the Social Security earnings
limit is a reform that is long overdue.
Under the current system, senior citizens are forced to choose
between the loss of their Social Security benefits and dropping out of
the workforce. What a terrible message to send to our seniors that
their work is not valued. With their wealth of information and
experience, senior citizens are a truly vital part of the stability of
our workforce and the development of the workforce of tomorrow.
The current limit takes away the benefits from those who have
rightfully earned them through a lifetime of hard work. We should not
be punishing our senior citizens for continuing to work but, rather,
encouraging them. That is just common sense.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
(Mr. RUSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the gentleman from California for yielding
me this time, and I want to commend him for his leadership on this
very, very important piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens'
Freedom to Work Act. This Social Security earnings limit is wrong and
archaic. Why penalize able-bodied senior Americans who can work? At a
time when our economy is in need of an experienced workforce, we should
not be turning our backs on seniors who have valuable experience and
skills.
The worst part of the earnings limit is that it penalizes poor senior
citizens. Mr. Speaker, not every senior who retires has private
pensions to supplement their Social Security benefits.

{time} 1230

Health costs are rising; prescription drugs are unattainable. Seniors
need to work to supplement their Social Security benefits. No longer
should we force seniors to choose between food and medicine. Do not
deny our seniors their basic rights. We must do away with this archaic
earnings limit which deprives our seniors of their earned benefits.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ose)
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5. I came to
this Congress recently following in the great footsteps of my
colleague, the gentleman from Sacramento, California (Mr. Matsui), and
I want to specifically applaud the fact that after 40 years of
Democratic majority here and 6 years of Republican majority, we finally
have been able to move a bill out of the House, hopefully on to the
Senate, and then to the President for signature.
This particular issue, where we in effect tax the ability of our
seniors to contribute to our workforce disproportionately, has needed
to be changed since it was first passed in the Depression. There is no
argument about that. There is no getting around that fact.
Again, we spent 40 years under the tutelage of one party, and now 6
years we have been at it here. We finally have agreement, and I am
happy to be part of this. This is one of the things I campaigned on, to
try and get this tax off the backs of our seniors. I welcome my friends
on the other side to this. I am very, very pleased to be here with the
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Shaw) in this effort.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I would echo the comments just made by my friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose). It is fun for a change to
participate in a debate on a bill that enjoys broad bipartisan support,
improving the Social Security program that we have for our seniors.
It is time we lift the earnings limit. We need to do this as part of
a multifaceted approach at improving income in retirement years. This
approach needs to include other activity by this Congress, activity
where hopefully we would come together also in a bipartisan way to
strengthen Social Security, making certain that it is going to be there
for the long run, and coming together in a bipartisan way to help
additional employers offer retirement savings opportunities for their
workplace. Presently, only half the workers have retirement savings at
work. We need to do better, and there are strategies introduced and
supported by Members of both parties to get this done as well.
Finally, we need to come together to add additional savings
incentives, targeted specifically at middle-income and lower-income
households, so that they might save for retirement.
But back to today's bill. Today's bill really is for those that hit
retirement years without enough savings already accrued. Those years,
65 to 70, represent an important last opportunity to get some
additional income, even while the Social Security checks start coming,
so that they might build that nest egg, to meet their needs, to keep
them comfortable as they go on.
Do you know that today someone reaching the age of 65 has an
additional 15 years of life expectancy if they are a male, and 19 years
if they are a female? Surely there are substantial needs for a
retirement nest egg in light of that kind of life-span opportunity. In
addition, we know that people reaching the age of 65 today are
healthier, more engaged and want to work than ever before; and we ought
to give them that opportunity.
Additionally, we know that in light of our strong economy, the needs
in the workforce are intense, and this potential source of labor can
help employer after employer, right across the country.
In my own State, the State of North Dakota, people over the age of 60
represent 18 percent of our population. Clearly we need their
participation. That is important today, but it is only going to grow
more important, because this over-60 segment will swell by 60 percent
in North Dakota by the year 2025. Quite frankly, I do not know how we
will keep our schools going. I do not know how we will keep some of the
businesses going if we do not have workers in this age span, 65 to 70,
participating if they want to in the workforce without the absolutely
ruinous penalty presented by the tax on earnings today.
For every reason I have mentioned, I urge a unanimous vote on this.
What a pleasure it is to have this bipartisan achievement.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Horn).
(Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, today this House of Representatives will take
a real step toward tax reform for America's working retirees. By
repealing the so-called Social Security earnings test, we are doing
away with an outdated law that affects over 800,000 seniors who have
been denied the needed income to survive in their golden years.
Created in the Depression to encourage older workers to move out of
the job market, the earnings limit is an antiquated solution to a
problem that no longer exists. Many of today's seniors want to take
part in this economic boom, but are penalized $1 in Social Security
benefits for every $3 they earn beyond $17,000. My State of California
is hit hardest by the earnings test, affecting over 161,000 seniors.
When seniors are denied the opportunity to work and governments are
denied income taxes generated by seniors working, we all lose.
Mr. Speaker, I have long believed the outright repeal of this law was
the right thing to do, and I am pleased to have an opportunity today to
be part of the team that will send the bill to the Senate and the
President that lowers the tax burden for so many working retirees.

[[Page H596]]

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me congratulate my two
friends, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Matsui), for their fine work in bringing this forward
today.
Mr. Speaker, today we have the chance to take action to repeal the
Social Security earnings limit, a law so outdated few can remember how
it ever got on the books.
What is the Social Security earnings limit? Well, ask any senior and
they will tell you the earning limit is a Catch-22 of the Social
Security system. It is a law that actually punishes older people for
working. In fact, it forces them, literally forces them, to become more
dependent on Social Security than they need to be.
Now, why would anybody want a law like that? Well, Mr. Speaker, I do
not know any of us who want a law like that, and it is time for a
change. That is why we are repealing it today.
Our message for every American, no matter how old, ought to be that
if you want a job and you are able to do a job, by God, this government
is never going to try to stop you from getting a job.
We are voting to repeal the earnings limit because in this incredible
economy, there is more than enough work that needs to be done, and
older Americans may be just some of the people who can do it and do it
well in a labor market that is struggling for good, competent,
qualified people.
We are voting to repeal the earnings limit not only because we
believe older people ought to have the right to earn higher incomes,
but because they deserve the opportunity to live richer lives, lives
made better by the opportunity to join the world of work. But, Mr.
Speaker, the truth is that it is not just seniors who win if we repeal
this foolish law; we all win. We all win because this Nation needs the
experience, the skill and the maturity of older people that they can
bring to the American workplace.
Older Americans today are one of this Nation's greatest resources. It
is high time we take advantage of it. This is a win-win proposition for
America.
Again, I want to congratulate my colleagues for bringing this to the
floor.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, back in the 1930s the reason for starting the earnings
test the Democrats said it was necessary to allow younger workers to
work. Today what we have is a shortage of qualified and experienced
workers, so it is very appropriate that we are getting around to
enacting this legislation.
I might point out I am glad to see the minority party supports this
piece of legislation. For almost 4 decades the Democratic party did not
seem to want to initiate and to pass this legislation; and the chairman
here, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), and others on this side,
worked so hard to try and pass this. So this is a great day, to see the
folks on the other side of the aisle say let's pass it by unanimous
agreement.
There is no good reason, of course. There is no longer a reason for
this antiquated law to be on the books. It is discriminatory.
So I support the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. I am an
original cosponsor of it. It is a law we have to be very joyful this
afternoon for, because it is a law that is needed.
Mr. Speaker, since the Social Security program was created in 1935,
it has always included an earnings test. There have been many efforts
through the years to eliminate the earnings test, but none were
successful.
Back in the 1930's the reason given for starting the earnings test
was to ``open up jobs'' for younger workers. What we are currently
experiencing is a shortage of qualified and experienced workers. The
time to act is now.
In 1996 I voted to increase the earnings limit for seniors who chose
to continue working. We were able to increase the earnings limit for
those aged 65-69 to $30,000 by the year 2002. At the time this
legislation was passed, a working senior who reached $11,280 in earned
income lost $1 in Social Security for each $3 earned thereafter. That's
a marginal tax rate of 33%! That's a high price to pay for merely
wanting to work.
Let's take a look at how the current law affects our nation's seniors
who are receiving Social Security benefits and also working. This year
beneficiaries aged 65-69 can earn up to $17,000 without being
penalized. They lose one dollar for every three of earnings that exceed
this limit.
Beneficiaries aged 62-64, those individuals who retire early, are
allowed to earn up to $10,080 this year without a penalty. They lose
one dollar of Social Security benefits for every two dollars they earn
above the imposed limit. While the measure we passed in 1996 made vast
improvements to the earnings test, our real goal at that time was to
repeal the law outright. I believe that we will be successful this time
around.
What's wrong with giving elderly workers who either want to work or
must work in order to maintain a decent lifestyle the ability to do so.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 5 that would repeal the Social
Security earnings test entirely. I have long been a proponent of
repealing this outdated provision and shall continue to support such
proposals until we succeed in changing this law.
The earnings test limit is unjust. It treats Social Security benefits
less like a pension and more like welfare. It represents a Social
Security bias in favor of unearned income over earned income.
It is effectively a mandatory retirement mechanism our country no
longer accepts or needs. It precludes greater flexibility for the
elderly worker and also prevents America's full use of eager,
experienced and educated elderly workers. Finally, it deprives the U.S.
Economy of the additional income tax which would be generated by the
elderly workers.
There is no good reason to keep this antiquated and discriminatory
law in existence any longer. I support swift passage of the Senior
Citizen's Freedom to Work Act and call upon my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to vote for this very important and long overdue change in
the law.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and join my colleagues in
strong support of this legislation, and I commend the leadership of
this House, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Matsui). It is a good day when we can be so united
in a bipartisan way to end an unfair tax on our working seniors.
Mr. Speaker, many seniors work because they need to. They should not
be penalized for trying to put food on their table. They should be
supported. Seniors in my district have been telling me this is
something that they need. Some seniors work because they want to. They
should not be penalized for remaining active and involved. These
seniors should be supported as well. Our country is the richer for it.
It is time to act in this way. Today we will have, I hope, unanimous
support to remove this onerous burden on working seniors and end the
earnings limit. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago this House voted to right a wrong. Most
of us agree it is unfair for a married couple to be penalized by the
Federal Government just simply because they are married, so we passed
legislation to fix that unfairness. Today it is time to fix another
long-standing unfairness, the Social Security earnings limit.
Mr. Speaker, it is about time. For too long we have penalized our
most experienced workers, created disincentives for them to work,
oftentimes when their employers need their expertise the most. No
American should be penalized for their desire to work and contribute to
the economy and strength of our country, least of all our seniors.
In 1987, my class in Congress, the Republican members of my class,
voted to take this on as a project, to try to eliminate the earnings
limit. We met with Dan Rostenkowski. I think it was the only time he
ever spoke to me, but we met with Dan Rostenkowski, and he said, ``No,
we won't do it.'' So over the years we have picked away at it with the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Archer) and various ones, and with their

[[Page H597]]

help picked away at it and made it better. But today is a chance to get
rid of it.
For the sake of simple fairness, it is time for this body to
eliminate the earnings limit. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Traficant).
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, Dan Rostenkowski would not do it. He is a
Democrat. I am embarrassed by it.
I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) and the
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw). I want to commend the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Matsui).
But, Mr. Speaker, this is not enough. Everybody is reaching into that
Social Security trust fund and they are raiding it. I have a bill and
it calls for a constitutional amendment, and it says you cannot touch
the Social Security trust fund. It can only be used for Social Security
and Medicare. If we pass that, we would have enough money to provide
health insurance for every American.
But I want to pay tribute to the Republican Party today. Rostenkowski
did not do it, Rostenkowski would not do it, and the gentleman from
Texas (Chairman Archer) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw)
did it. But the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) deserve a lot of credit for making
it happen as well.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

{time} 1245

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
I would like to add my applause and appreciation to the gentleman
from Texas (Chairman Archer) and the ranking member, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel), to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw),
and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), for
their vision.
This bill spells relief. I have spent some time with seniors, most of
us do as we visit our senior citizen centers, as we work with seniors
in our respective religious communities, as we work with seniors as our
neighbors.
I can actually say that the retirement earnings test keeps good
talent away from the job market. This legislation will allow thousands
of social security recipients to work without a reduction in their
benefits, to work in child care, to work in volunteer programs, after-
school programs.
In fact, as I visited the Latino Learning Center and their Senior
Citizen Center, they were making crafts. Although that is not
employment per se, it still might have impacted their income by way of
the income being attributable to each individual from the crafts that
they made.
The repealing of this will in fact increase work incentives; will put
good, strong, valued seniors in the workplace, and will add to the
value of what they have already given to the workplace and this Nation.
Repealing the RET will not affect social security's finances over the
long run, and in particular, repealing the RET will make the social
security program easier and less expensive to administer.
This is long overdue. As I have said when I have come to the floor
before, this spells relief. It is relief for seniors, for the social
security program, for the community where these valuable seniors can be
out and about in the work force contributing to this Nation as they
have done in the past.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as I may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).
(Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this
legislation. It is a bill we have worked on for many years.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I just again would like to thank
Members for the bipartisan atmosphere that occurs on the floor of the
House, as it did in subcommittee and in the full committee. The fact
that we have moved this bill in an expedited fashion certainly means
that we should get it to the President in a timely fashion so that it
will become law in the year 2000. Again, this is a much needed change
in the social security system.
I might just add, just so there is no misunderstanding, that this
will have a $23 billion revenue loss out of the social security system
over the next 10 years. But over the life of the social security system
itself, because of the delayed credit, it will have no impact on the
solvency of the social security system, so this has no impact on the
social security system nor on the Medicare system.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking Democrat on the
Committee on Ways and Means.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Matsui) for the way he has handled this, not only on the floor, but
certainly, as the ranking member of the subcommittee on social
security.
It gives me an opportunity to once again congratulate my long and
dear friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), who showed an
interest in social security generally, and this type of cooperation
between our parties still gives me some ray of hope, no matter how
small that glimmer may be, as we move forward on our political
calendar, that there are many other things that we can accomplish in
working together.
For those people who believe that it is in our best interest to have
confrontation and do nothing, I suggest that at the polling places,
both Democrats and Republicans may suffer. It seems to me that there
have been enough suggestions made by the President that Republicans can
pick and choose those that they feel comfortable with, those that they
think are in the best interests of the people of this great country,
and to be able to work with us to do it.
This is a classic example of the leadership of the chairman and the
subcommittee chairman, in working with us so that we can get things
done. I laud the Members for this effort, and I look forward to working
with them on other issues that remain within the budget, as this has,
that do not invite and encourage a veto, but those things that we know
that we can work out our differences on, not only on both sides of the
aisle but also on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an observation which I think is
something that all of us have sort of made reference to, but not
particularly in this regard. Some who are looking on today, tuning in
on C-Span, probably think they have the wrong channel.
This has been, I think, a real landmark in what we can accomplish in
this Congress by working together.
My good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and we use
that phrase a little flip around here, because when we refer to someone
as our good friend, that is about the time we are about to drop a
hammer on them, but we are good friends. We are very good friends. We
have been for many years, as I am with the gentleman from California
(Mr. Matsui).
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) I think has been an incredible
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and we have brought things
together that have made a real difference, and we do come together on
things that we can politically agree upon.
There should be no disagreement in this country, no disagreement,
that people who work their entire working lives, when they reach
retirement age, just simply because they have to work beyond that or
just simply want to work beyond that, that they should not be
penalized. We agree on that. We ought to constantly look out and reach
out for things that we agree upon, because it is so important to such
an important segment of our population. It is so important.

[[Page H598]]

So this bill is going to pass. I am going to ask for a recorded vote,
because I want all the Members to have the opportunity to step forward
on the Democrat and the Republican side and cast their vote, a recorded
vote, to say they are in favor of American seniors. They are working
with us, and we are working together to make a better life for the
senior citizens of the country.
This bill takes effect on January 1 of the year 2000. That means
exactly 2 months ago this bill comes into effect. The senior citizens
of this country will enjoy the fruits and labor of what we have started
here today.
I am pleased to say that the President is with us. Yesterday, while
we were marking this bill up in the Committee on Ways and Means, the
President was in Miami Beach doing a fundraiser for my opponent at a
cocktail party. In fact, I thought it was rather ironic, because it was
taking place at the exact time we were voting on this bill.
That is the way the system works. There is nothing wrong with that.
There is nothing wrong with Democrat presidents supporting Democrat
candidates and Republican presidents supporting Republican candidates.
I will tell the Members that I would certainly guess, and as
tradition has it, just as we did in welfare reform and other pieces of
meaningful legislation that has come out of this Congress, that the
President will invite the Republicans down to take part in the bill's
signing. That is the way it should be.
So many people here can take credit for what is going on here today.
I am very pleased and proud that it happens during the Republican
majority, but we have come together. We have locked away the social
security surplus so we are no longer spending it. This makes America's
great pension program available for the seniors without penalty.
This is a wonderful thing that has happened. This country has gone
through a great transition, and when it comes to working together to
make things happen, the best of us comes out when we work together.
I want to publicly thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and of course, my chairman,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sam Johnson) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) for
the work that they did in bringing this thing together. This is truly a
bipartisan effort. It is truly in the best tradition of the American
democracy.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer my support to the Senior
Citizens Freedom to Work Act (H.R. 5), which repeals the Social
Security ``earnings limitations.'' During a time when an increasing
number of senior citizens are able to enjoy productive lives well past
retirement age and businesses are in desperate need of experienced
workers, it makes no sense to punish seniors for working. Yet the
federal government does just that by deducting a portion of seniors'
monthly Social Security check should they continue to work and earn
income above an arbitrary government-set level.
When the government takes money every month from people's paychecks
for the Social Security Trust Fund, it promises retirees that the money
will be there for them when they retire. The government should keep
that promise and not reduce benefits simply because a senior chooses to
work.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by providing a disincentive to remaining in
the workforce, the earnings limitation deprives the American economy of
the benefits of senior citizens who wish to continue working but are
discouraged from doing so by fear of losing part of their Social
Security benefits. The federal government should not discourage any
citizen from seeking or holding productive employment.
The underlying issue of the earnings limitation goes back to the fact
that money from the trust fund is routinely spent for things other than
paying pensions to beneficiaries. This is why the first bill I
introduced in the 106th Congress was the Social Security Preservation
Act (H.R. 219), which forbids Congress from spending Social Security
funds on anything other than paying Social Security pensions.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate my strong support for
the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. Repealing the ``earnings
limitation'' will help ensure that America's seniors can continue to
enjoy fulfilling and productive lives in their ``golden years.'' I also
urge my colleagues to protect the integrity of the Social Security
Trust Fund by cosponsoring the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R.
219).
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for
H.R. 5, The Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 1999. This long
overdue measure would allow persons aged 65 through 69 to continue
working without losing some of their Social Security benefits.
Today, our seniors are more healthy and vigorous than ever. Many
seniors who choose to continue to work find that working greatly
enhances their retirement years. They are living longer and often
finding that they either need or want to work well beyond traditional
retirement age. Further, the time has come to stop penalizing seniors
who need to keep working to supplement their Social Security incomes.
This legislation, which I cosponsored, would do away with this
antiquated and obsolete punitive limit to Social Security payments.
Under current law, senior citizens in this age group lose $1 in Social
Security benefits for every $3 they earn each year above a certain
level, which is $17,000 this year. The earnings test was designed
during the Great Depression to encourage older workers to leave the
workforce to create more jobs for younger workers. Today, we are
experiencing a labor shortage, not a surplus. With our economy's
emphasis on increased productivity, older workers have the years of
experience and work ethic that are in great demand.
It is estimated that initially about 600,000 seniors would be
affected by the elimination of the earnings test. According to the
Social Security Administration, H.R. 5 will increase Social Security
outlays by $17 billion over 5 years and $26 billion over 10 years.
However, in the long term, the measure's cost would be negligible
because of offsetting effects because retirees would no longer receive
delayed retirement credits, which under current law compensate for the
benefits lost to the earnings test applied to workers above the full
retirement age, and the savings from this would offset the cost from
eliminating the earnings test.
Lifting the limit on outside income for beneficiaries of retirement
security is a key component of my initiatives to extend the life of
Social Security and Medicare. H.R. 5 is crucial as part of a broader
plan that uses the opportunity of a surplus to extend the life of
Social Security and Medicare and pay down the debt.
In 1998, the Republican leadership brought an increase in the
earnings limit to the floor attached to a tax bill that would have been
financed by borrowing directly from the Social Security Trust Fund. I
opposed this bill funded by the Social Security surplus, and supported
an alternative that provided for an increase in the Social Security
earnings limit identical to the one in the Republican bill, but not
from the Social Security surplus. Unfortunately, the bill failed to be
enacted.
H.R. 5 builds upon a bipartisan measure enacted in 1996 which I
supported, the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act (H.R. 3136), which
provided for increases in the amounts of allowable earnings under the
Social Security earnings limit for individuals who have attained
retirement age. Now we are going a step further and eliminating the cap
altogether. This is the right policy at the right time.
The earnings test is a relic of the Great Depression and the time has
come to terminate it. The test is a severe disincentive for older
people to work. Not only do older workers suffer a reduction in their
standard of living because of the test, the nation's economy loses
valuable experience and skills as well.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the Senior
Citizens' Freedom to Work Act.
This important legislation is long overdue. The earnings limit is a
relic of an era when America was in a state of extreme economic
despair. Mr. Speaker, today we are experiencing unprecedented
prosperity. Our economy is booming. Our unemployment rate is lower than
it has been in 30 years. It just doesn't make sense to discourage our
nation's seniors from continuing to contribute to our economy by
reducing their Social Security benefits.
Many of the seniors in my home state of Illinois continue to
contribute to their communities through hard work. Repealing the
earnings limit will have a very real impact on these seniors. Instead
of being punished for their participation in the workforce, seniors
should be encouraged to remain working. Eliminating the earnings test
makes sense. It will be good for our seniors and good for our economy.
And most importantly, we can do it without jeopardizing the future of
Social Security. It is something that all of us, on both sides of the
aisle, should be able to agree on.
But, once again, Republicans are playing politics with the issues
that affect our nation's seniors the most. They are clamoring to point
fingers at Democrats who have long been in support of amending the
archaic earnings limit. But our nation's seniors cannot be fooled.
Democrats support repealing the earnings limit while protecting the
integrity of Social Security.

[[Page H599]]

In the 105th Congress, the Republicans brought an increase of the
earning limits to the floor but attached it to a risky tax cut package
that would have put Social Security in severe jeopardy. Democrats
strongly opposed that bill and offered a measure to raise the earnings
limit and make the remaining tax cuts contingent on protecting the
solvency of Social Security. This Democratic alternative was a
responsible tax cut package that did not raid the Social Security Trust
Fund. Not one Republican voted for this measure. This is just one of
many cases that demonstrates who is on the side of seniors in this
fight.
We must stop the finger pointing and come together to protect Social
Security for generations to come. This is not the time for politics as
usual. The livelihood of our nation's senior citizens is at stake.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, the
Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000.
Under current law, over 8,000 Kansas seniors lose some or all of
their Social Security benefits due to the Social Security earnings
limit because they choose to continue to work. Seniors aged 65 to 69
have $1 of their benefits reduced for every $3 they earn over the
current earnings limit of $17,000. Simply, current law penalizes
seniors for working. I do not believe it is fair to punish those
seniors who want or need to participate in the workforce by having this
disincentive to work.
Eliminating the earnings limit is not only fair for working seniors,
it will improve the quality and efficiency of Social Security since the
program will be easier and less expensive to administer. Furthermore,
repealing the Social Security earnings limit is fiscally responsible.
While the bill would increase Social Security spending by $22.7 billion
over the next 10 years, the resulting lower long-term benefit payments
will more than offset the costs.
Mr. Speaker, by allowing seniors who want to work to retain their
benefits, Congress will take an important step towards strengthening
retirement security for all seniors. This step, however, should not be
our last. I urge my colleagues to begin working with me, in the same
bipartisan manner that we worked on today's bill, to put Social
Security on a firm financial footing for future generations. We need to
build on today's success by dedicating a substantial portion of the
budget surplus to pay down debt and strengthen Social Security and
Medicare.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5 and to join me in the larger
challenge of strengthening Social Security and Medicare for our seniors
and for generations of future retirees.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, today, we take an important step forward
in addressing a Social Security inequity that is an injustice to
working seniors. Under the Social Security Earnings Limit,
beneficiaries aged 65-69 can earn up to $17,000 a year--but for every
$3 earned over this amount $1 of benefits is lost.
The cap has always been one of the most unpopular parts of the Social
Security program--and for good reason. It penalizes older people for
working--and deprives the nation of the talent of working seniors. It's
time to get rid of it, once and for all.
The earnings cap is a relic of the Great Depression, when concern
over massive joblessness led to a perception that retirees should be
discouraged from rejoining the workforce. Today, people are living
longer and working longer--and are as entitled as the rest of us to
fair wages for their labor.
At a time when unemployment is at a 30-year low and we face acute
labor shortages, this Depression-era work disincentive for seniors no
longer makes sense.
Older Americans possess enormous talent and experience. It boggles
the mind why we'd want to maintain disincentives for them to work. The
earnings test not only erodes seniors' standards of living, but also
costs the nation valuable skills in the workforce, as well as tax
revenue generated by this income.
Retirees who receive income from other sources such as pensions or
capital gains do not have any benefits reduced. Why should income from
pensions or investments be treated more favorably than earned income?
I received a letter last summer from a retiree from my home town--
Quincy, Massachusetts. He wrote: ``I would like to retire with dignity
and only want what I deserve. I feel that with your support of this
bill, it would enable me to live without worries of finances and
diminish the concerns of my family.''
That is what this legislation is all about--simply giving seniors
what they deserve.
While this is a step in the right direction, seniors deserve more--
and we could and should be doing more--much more.
During Committee deliberations on this legislation last night, an
amendment was offered to restore some of the benefits that are reduced
due to the Government Pension Offset. This provision would have made
widow's benefits more fair, and helped reduce the high rates of poverty
that especially face elderly women.
Unfortunately, the Chairman passed on this opportunity--even though
the Social Security Administration stated that the costs of adding this
provision would be negligible.
Mr. Speaker, removing the earnings limit is progress--but is this all
that we are going to do for seniors this year?
Are we going to address other inequities in the Social Security
system--like the government pension offset, windfall reductions, duel
entitlement provisions--or even the long-term solvency of the program?
Will we finally reauthorize the Older American Act?
Will we enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit?
Our senior citizens deserve more--much more. Passing this bill is the
very least we can do. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation--and invite you to join me in efforts to ensure retirement
security for all older Americans.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 5, the
``Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act.''
For years my constituents have raised concerns about unfair Social
Security earnings limit. Finally, the House is going to eliminate this
unfair penalty.
Whenever a working retiree earns more than $17,000 per year, they
lose $1 of Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn above the
limit. We penalize senior citizens who want to continue to participate
in the work force.
There are 800,000 senior citizens who lose part or all of the Social
Security benefits they've worked hard for because they earn ``too
much'' money in retirement.
The Social Security earnings limit was created during the Great
Depression and it punishes senior citizens for their work ethic and
desire to be self-reliant in their ``golden years.''
Today unemployment is at an all-time low. The experience and skills
developed by older workers during a lifetime in the workplace are being
recognized and are in demand.
Social Security recipients are entitled to their benefits because
they earned them during a lifetime of hard work. The government should
not take those benefits away because individuals want to work. That's
why I strongly support the passage of H.R. 5 today.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the
Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act (H.R. 5). The Social Security
earnings limit discourages those on retirement from remaining in the
work force and contributing to the country's economic growth. Due to
the longer life-spans and the improved quality of health among
retirees, the advent of an aging society, and decreasing work force
growth numbers, it is imperative that we explore better ways to tap the
vauable and often underutilized resources of older Americans.
Due to the retirement earnings test, Social Security beneficiaries
who have attained the normal retirement age (presently age 65) have
their benefits reduced by $1 for every $3 that they earn in excess of
$17,000. Similarly, Social Security beneficiaries between age 62 and
the normal retirement age have their benefits reduced by $1 for every
$2 that they earn in excess of $10,800. Although both groups of
beneficiaries receive benefit increases once they stop working in order
to compensate for reductions while they were working, there are a
number of good reasons to support repealing the earnings test for
beneficiaries who have reached the normal retirement age.
Repealing the retirement earnings test will allow thousands of Social
Security recipients to work without a reduction in their benefits. The
Social Security Administration estimates that, in 1999, 793,000
beneficiaries aged 65 through 69 had some or all of their benefits
withheld because of the retirement earnings test.
Repealing the retirement earnings test may create positive work
incentives. Because many Social Security beneficiaries are unaware that
the benefit reductions they experience when they are working are offset
by benefit increases once they stop working, they may perceive the
retirement earnings test as a tax. In response, they may reduce the
number of hours they work or they may decide to leave the labor force
altogether.
The most recent economic research indicates that repealing the
retirement earnings test for beneficiaries between the normal
retirement age and age 69 may encourage work. In a 1998 study, Leora
Friedberg, an economist at the University of California, San Diego,
found that repealing the retirement earnings test for those
beneficiaries would increase their labor supply by about five percent.
Repealing the retirement earnings test will not affect Social
Security's finances over the long run. Repealing the RET for
beneficiaries who have reached the normal retirement age would not
change (for better or for worse) Social Security's currently projected
long-range financing shortfall. Repealing the retirement earnings test
for beneficiaries above the normal retirement age has a significant
short-run cost ($22.7 billion over the next 10 years), but, over the
long run, that cost is offset by lower benefit payments.

[[Page H600]]

Again, under current law, workers who have their benefits reduced due
to the retirement earnings test receive an actuarial adjustment that
increases their benefits once they stop working. Repealing the
retirement earnings test would mean that such workers would no longer
receive that actuarial adjustment and that benefit payments would be
lower.
Repealing the retirement earnings test will make the Social Security
program easier and less expensive to administer. The Social Security
Administration estimates that the cost of administering the earnings
test in 1999 ranged from $100 to $150 million.
Since those costs include administering the earnings test for workers
between age 62 and the normal retirement age, repealing the retirement
earnings test for workers above the normal retirement age would save
less than that amount.)
In addition, Social Security Administration estimates that it
overpaid $787 million in benefits due to the retirement earnings test
in 1997. Payments to beneficiaries aged 65 through 69 accounted for 63
percent of retirement earnings test related overpayments in 1998.
If older Americans have the capacity to earn more money without
penalty, there will be a greater incentive for them to work. Working
older Americans contribute additional money to the economy and provide
more revenue for the treasury. Furthermore, with advances in medical
technology older Americans will remain healthy longer and live longer
productive lives.
I join with my Democratic colleagues and strongly support eliminating
the retirement earnings test that penalizes and discourages workers age
65 through 69 from remaining in the workforce and contributing to our
prosperous economy.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, later today, the House of
Representatives will pass H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work
Act. This Act will eliminate the current tax law which penalizes senior
citizens between 65-69 who continue to work. The Senior Citizens
Earnings Test taxes senior citizens up to 33 percent of a senior's
Social Security benefits.
One of the most egregious elements of our tax code is the continued
over-taxing of American senior citizens who want to continue working.
Repealing this tax on working seniors was the first bill I cosponsored
when I was sworn into office in 1995, and, finally, I think we see
light at the end of this tunnel. I would like to thank Speaker Hastert
for his leadership on this issue for more than a decade.
This Social Security Earnings Test has two adverse effects: it
discourages seniors from working and for those who do work, it takes
away a portion of the Social Security benefits they have earned. With
today's labor shortage, this policy is greatly outdated and needs
changing.
The Senior Citizens earnings tax penalty takes $1 of working seniors'
Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn over a federal imposed
income limit. Seniors earning more than $17,000 are subject to the
earnings tax. In 1999 there were over 4 million working senior
citizens, at least 800,000 of them lost some of their Social Security
benefits because of the earnings test. By repealing this tax penalty,
the ten year benefit to senior citizens would be about $23 billion.
Seniors can use this extra money for helping with their grandchildren's
education, a trip to visit their family or other loved ones, a car,
medical expenses, and prescription drugs.
Republicans have ended 40 years of raiding the Social Security Trust
Fund to fund pet projects by tax and spend politicians. Repealing this
seniors' tax builds on that commitment to senior citizens by making
sure they get the benefits they have worked for, even if they choose to
continue working. In Florida, over 80,000 seniors could be able to take
advantage of this tax fairness package. This bill ensure that they get
the money they have earned as well as the Social Security benefits they
deserve.
A similar bill introduced in 1998 as part of the plan to abolish the
Social Security earnings limit only received support from 19 House
Democrats. This year the President has indicated his willingness to
sign such a bill, but he did not include it in his recently submitted
FY 2001 budget. The measure enjoys support from such groups as AARP,
United Seniors Association, and the 60 Plus Association. Let's do the
right thing and pass this bill.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, millions of older Americans are
penalized every year simply because they set their alarm clocks to get
up early in the morning, get dressed and head off to work. But unlike
the rest of us who pull into rush hour traffic in the morning, that 65
year old in the car next to yours is paying the government a fee to go
to work that day. That fee is called the Social Security Earnings
Limitation.
My colleagues, today we can eliminate that fee and undo that
injustice. Today we can begin to give America's senior citizens equal
treatment under the nation's tax laws. Today we can guarantee that
those senior Americans who want to continue to work--and can continue
to work--today we can guarantee that they won't be penalized for making
that contribution to their families, to their communities and to
society in general.
By allowing older Americans the opportunity to stay in the workforce
without penalty, we are allowing them to supplement their incomes, we
are helping them to stay healthier, and we are giving them the
opportunity to add to their later retirement. This is especially
important as we see more and more Americans living into the eighties,
their nineties and even into their hundreds.
So I encourage my colleagues today to give their older neighbors a
fair break. Vote for the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that another popular tax
relief proposal, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, is coming up
for a vote today. First, let me point out that the debate over H.R. 5
should contain no rhetoric that this repeal of the Social Security
earnings limit will break the bank. The Social Security actuaries have
confirmed that repeal of the earnings limit maintains the current
projected solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund.
The repeal of the Social Security earnings limit for individuals who
have attained the full retirement age has been a very high priority of
mine and for my Republican colleagues elected to the House in 1986.
Although we were able a few years ago to secure a gradual increase in
the earnings limit for seniors who were 65 to 69 years old, the
complete repeal of the earnings limit for this group is a big victory.
I am pleased that so many senior citizens' groups have joined us in
this fight, and I welcome President Clinton's announced support for
this repeal as well.
The Social Security earnings limit is a relic of the Great Depression
when it was necessary to entice older workers to leave the work force,
making more jobs available to younger workers. Today, many businesses
and communities face a serious worker shortage. My congressional
district has an especially low rate of unemployment now: a meager 1.6
percent. This means that opportunities for older workers abound,
providing earning potential and related benefits to the seniors willing
and physically able to meet the challenge. Further, I am pleased that
H.R. 5 provides immediate relief by covering income earned after
December 31, 1999.
For those in the 10th Congressional District and elsewhere who do not
know me well, I am proud to report that I am a working senior. Too old
now to benefit from this change in the tax code, I nevertheless enjoy a
higher quality of life--and perhaps better health--which comes with
being more active. In addition, I feel that my many years of experience
add to my job performance as a long work history does for so many
seniors.
Again, let me say that I appreciate the support of our colleagues in
getting this repeal bill before the House today. Our Nation's seniors
deserve this extra incentive to remain productive in their later years
and our work force needs them.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the
Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. I have long supported repeal of
this onerous, burdensome rule on this nation's working seniors.
The earnings limit penalty requires seniors age 65 to 69 who earn
over $17,000 to forfeit 33% of their Social Security benefits. Seniors
with golden parachutes or extensive investments do not face such a
penalty . . . only those who get up every morning, head off to work,
and make valuable contributions to our labor force. This is unfair.
As a relic of the Great Depression, Congress is overdue to reform
this antiquated law. The earnings limit is a great disincentive to
seniors to remain in the workforce if they so choose. In reality, it is
the imposition of a high marginal tax rate on productive seniors in the
workforce, who are also paying federal and state income taxes, and
Social Security payroll taxes.
I'm pleased to see this legislation come to the floor in a bipartisan
fashion. I'm pleased the President has indicated he will sign it. I
look forward to lifting this burden from working seniors.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering very important
legislation which will eliminate one of the most unfair tax burdens
even placed on Americans and give our senior citizens the freedom to
work.
The high tax rate on the earnings of older Americans has created a
significant roadblock at a time when workforce participation by these
individuals is extremely important to the continuing growth of the U.S.
economy. Economists and Federal Reserve Board officials, including
Chairman Alan Greenspan, have expressed concern that the shrinking pool
of available workers cannot satisfy the surging quantity of goods and
services demanded by the American people and people around the world.

[[Page H601]]

I have heard a number of stories, some during a hearing I held as
Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee for the Education & Workforce
Committee, and others more recently during town hall meetings I held
last week in West Michigan. In each case the message was the same: the
current system discourages older Americans from re-entering or
continuing in the workforce. We need to keep these individuals in the
workforce and the repeal of the earnings limit will be an essential
step in encouraging their participation.
Mr. Speaker, I should also note that as seniors and others enter the
workforce, there is one thing they do not know--the true costs of
Social Security and Medicare. Currently, an employee's W-2 lists his or
hers withholdings for Social Security and Medicare. What the employees
don't know, is how much their employer also pays for these programs.
This is another unfairness we need to correct by passing the Right To
Know National Payroll Act, which would require the employers share of
Social Security and Medicare taxes to be disclosed on each employee's
annual W-2. American workers have a right to know the true costs of
Social Security and Medicare.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, we are witnessing the best of
Congress as Members of different ideologies and political parties come
together for the benefit of the American people.
Today, the House of Representatives will pass the Senior Citizens
Freedom to Work Act (H.R. 5) which will repeal the Depression-era
earnings limit imposed on Social Security recipients between the ages
of 65 and 69 who decide to supplement their retirement income by
working. Under current law, seniors who work lose $1 of their Social
Security benefits for every $3 they earn outside earned income beyond
$17,000 a year.
In the real world, this outdated law has adversely affected several
thousand of my constituents in Queens and the Bronx. A number of
seniors in my district have gotten part-time jobs to supplement their
income so as to improve their quality of life, offset some of their
expenses such as the high costs of their prescription drugs and remain
active.
Unfortunately, once many of these seniors recognize how much they are
losing in their Social Security benefits by working, they quit their
jobs.
I believe it is both foolish and counterproductive to punish working
people.
This legislation will assist people like Mr. Christopher Christie, a
constituent of mine from the Bronx, New York. He was punished by the
earning limit. After he retired, he spent several weeks working in a
small business she operated and as a doorman on Park Avenue. He saw his
Social Security check garnished monthly because of his outside jobs.
Therefore, I am pleased that the House is debating this legislation
to repeal the earnings limit and allow our seniors the freedom to work
and attain some financial independence.
This bill represents a solid first step in improving the quality of
life of America's seniors. I hope that Congress will now address the
other issues of importance to seniors, such as the inclusion of
prescription drug coverage under Medicare.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the bill H.R. 5, The
Senior Citizens Freedom to Work act.
Under current law, seniors who claim Social Security benefits before
they reach 69 are subject to a reduction in benefits if they continue
to work. For seniors 65 to 69, benefits are reduced by $1 for every $3
that their earnings exceed the limit, which was $17,000 in 2000, and
which rises to $30,000 in 2002 and is indexed after that. This bill
would repeal these limits entirely, effective immediately.
The earnings limit originated in the 1930's and has remained in
effect because Congress never changed it, despite the vast changes in
the economy and the lives of senior citizens that have taken place in
the last 60 years.
Nearly 50,000 senior citizens in Texas are currently being penalized
for working, a prospect that does not bode well for the economic
circumstances for those in the twilight of their lives. We should not
punish senior citizens for participating in the workforce; we should
reward that. People remain healthy and vigorous much longer than they
did in the 1930's.
It makes sense to repeal this obsolete and punitive limit. I have
supported raising the limit in past years and support repealing it now.
Today's legislation is important to consider as part of a broader plan
to use the surplus to extend the life of Social Security and Medicare
and pay down the debt.
Today, we can take the first step towards strengthening retirement
security for all seniors. But this step was just the very beginning of
what we must do in order to put Social Security on a firm financial
footing well into the 21st century. I hope the House of
Representatives, which showed such passion today when talking about
removing the earnings limit will show the same kind of passion over the
next few months as we debate the proper use of the surplus. We must use
the budget surplus to strengthen Social Security and Medicare.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong and stringent
support of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. Current
law limits the income of retirees ages 65 to 69 to $17,000. Social
Security benefits are reduced one dollar for every three dollars earned
above $17,000. Social Security Administration statistics show that
nearly ``690,000 beneficiaries between 65 and 69 lose some or all of
their benefits because of excess earnings resulting from their work.''
This bill, which repeals the earnings limits imposed under Social
Security on our nation's working senior citizens, is a welcomed measure
which will allow our seniors to continue to contribute to our growing
economy.
The earnings limit is an outdated relic of the depression era social
security program. It was instituted based on a policy that addressed a
problem of that time; however, times have changed. Then, our nation was
worried about moving seniors out of the work force to make room for the
growing number of younger workers. Now, labor statistics indicate that
as our nation's population ages, there will be a shortage of workers
available to meet our future labor needs. H.R. 5 is needed to provide
incentive to seniors to help supplement the nation's future need for
workers.
Past Social Security policy overlooked the valuable assets that
senior citizens bring to our nation's workforce. Seniors have a wealth
of wisdom and experience to offer the workforce. Most enjoy bestowing
the benefit of their experience and wisdom on younger workers and
generally offer their knowledge for reasons other than the sheer
pursuit of wealth. Seniors tend to exemplify the attributes of hard-
work, punctuality and patience. In this time of instant gratification,
I can think of no better teachers of the value of a work ethic which
developed over time can be passed on to future generations. Seniors
have much to offer and this bill will make it easier for the workforce
to receive the benefit of their wisdom and experience.
Seniors have worked long and hard to earn and they should not be
deprived of the fruits of their labor. Today, seniors are living longer
and healthier lives and they are more fit and willing than ever to
contribute to our nation's workforce. Many view working as a necessary
part of their well-being and quality of life. As a society we should
not handicap the lifestyle of those who choose to work into their
silver years. H.R. 5 reconciles past policy that punished seniors by
forcing them to sit on the sidelines of the workforce.
There are also many seniors who have no choice but to work.
Skyrocketing, pharmaceutical prices have left seniors struggling to
meet the financial burden of much needed medicine. Every year we listen
to the stories of seniors who die in their home due to their inability
to meet the heating or air-conditioning costs. How can we continue to
penalize them for their necessary efforts to meet those costs?
Unfortunately, many of the seniors who need to work most are our
nation's women, who outlive their male spouse 75% of the time. Indeed,
``103,000 dependent and spousal beneficiaries are affected by the
limit.'' Widowed women often are forced to reenter the work force in
order to meet their basic needs. They should not be forced to lose some
or all of their retirement benefits, while striving to secure the
simple necessities of living.
While I support and applaud this effort on behalf of our nation's
seniors, I would be remiss not to mention the continued problem facing
Social Security. Ensuring the future solvency of the Social Security
Trust Fund is a problem this Congress still must address. It is my hope
that H.R. 5, is simply a stepping stone along the path of addressing a
problem that is not going to go away. I urge the leadership of this
House to bring forth legislation that seeks to make the tough decisions
necessary to address the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund
before we are faced with even tougher more painful decisions.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Speaker of the House,
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), for his long commitment to
repealing the punitive tax on seniors. One of the first bills I
sponsored way back in 1989, during my first year in Congress, was Denny
Hastert's ``Older Americans' Freedom to Work Act.'' I'm delighted that
we are finally moving forward with this historic legislation. It is
long overdue.
I recently pointed out, while arguing for repeal of the marriage
penalty tax, that in America you should not be discriminated against by
our tax code solely because of your status. We have civil rights laws
in America to make sure that each of us is protected against unfair
treatment by our government. Yet, just as the marriage penalty
discriminates against people who are married, the earnings test
discriminates against people over 65 who choose to stay productive.
This costly and regressive tax forces many seniors from the job
market. Whereas 50 years ago 47% of men over 65 were employed in the
labor force, today it is only 16.5%.

[[Page H602]]

A senior who chooses to work after the retirement age of 65 faces a
tax burden that amounts to government confiscation. A senior who
chooses to work loses $1 in Social Security benefits for every $3 in
wages and salaries he or she earns over $17,000. Yet $17,000 is close
to the official U.S. government poverty level for working families.
When one adds the burdens of income and payroll taxes, this amounts to
a marginal tax rate on working seniors as high as 80%--higher than the
rate for billionaires.
The government should not penalize working seniors by canceling their
Social Security benefits. These benefits are not welfare; they have
been earned over a lifetime of hard work.
Repeal of the earnings test is also another important step toward
ensuring that Social Security is always there for seniors. I am hopeful
we can bring the same bipartisan support we have today to the upcoming
debate on supplementing Social Security benefits through personal
retirement accounts.
The Clinton-Gore administration has had eight years to repeal this
discriminatory burden on seniors. The Democratic Congress has 40 years
to do it. Not only did they fail to do so, they raised taxes on working
seniors. The 1993 Clinton tax increase included a 70% increase in
income taxes on Social Security benefits, for seniors earning as little
as $34,000.
In 1996, for the first time ever, the new Republican majority in
Congress provided relief to seniors by reducing the Social Security
earnings penalty. The new law more than doubled the amount a senior
citizen could earn without losing his or her Social Security benefits,
from $11,280 to $30,000 in 2002. This change has already had a positive
effect: the number of senior citizens choosing to remain in the labor
force has increased by 7%. Today's long-overdue step--passage of H.R. 5
to completely repeal the unfair earnings test--finally finishes the job
Congress started in 1996, and that Speaker Hastert started more than a
decade ago.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with members
of Congress who have introduced bills that advocate comprehensive
reform of Social Security. We understand the immensity of the challenge
facing the country as baby boomers retire, how demographics result in a
huge responsibility for future generations, and the importance of
preparing Social Security for the future. You will find repeal in the
Social Security Solvency Act for 2000, which I introduced in November.
Bills that I introduced this year and last year, including the Social
Security Solvency Act for 2000, included elimination of the earnings
limit, plus another provision that I consider to be the counterbalance
to the earnings test--accelerating the increase in the ``delayed
retirement credit'' or DRC.
If a worker decides to continue working after 65 and defer his
monthly benefit, the DRC increases the size of his monthly check he
will ultimately receive from Social Security. A worker who turns 65
this year will see his benefits increase 6 percent for every year he
defers his benefit. Current law allows a worker to delay retirement for
up to five years, working until he reaches 70. If that retiree's
monthly benefit was $1,000 when he turned 65, it will be $1,300 if he
puts off receiving a Social Security check until he's 70--that's an
extra $3,600 a year. However, if that worker enjoys an average length
of retirement, this delay puts him at a disadvantage. He should be
receiving an extra $4,800 a year, not $3,600.
Under current law, the DRC is set to rise to 8 percent in 2008. This
is the amount that Social Security considers to be ``actuarially
sound.'' That means that a retiree who delays receiving his benefit is
getting proper compensation in the future for the money he does not get
today. As we eliminate the earnings limit, it is reasonable to include
an increase in the DRC. Retirees deserve a fair deal today--not in
2008. Now that we are taking away the earnings limit that discourages
senior citizens from working, we should accelerate the DRC and
encourage them to ``save'' so they have a higher benefit during the
years they no longer have outside earnings. The accelerated DRC will
encourage people to work as long as they choose. The Social Security
actuaries have examined my proposal to accelerate the DRC, and they say
it is actuarially sound. It doesn't cost taxpayers or weaken the Social
Security trust fund.
There are three reasons to accelerate the DRC:
1. Fairness--Give workers who choose to delay receiving their Social
Security benefit an increase that is consistent with actuarial
assumptions.
2. Choice--Give senior citizens more options to manage their
retirement--they choose when they retire and when they should apply for
benefits.
3. To Fight Poverty--Give a higher survivor benefit to widows whose
spouses took benefits based on the DRC.
When I learned of the Ways and Means markup of H.R. 5, I approached
Representative Shaw and Representative Archer, and presented my
amendment to accelerate the DRC. After careful consideration by the
Social Security subcommittee, I received agreement to add this
amendment. Gene Sperling called me on the evening of Feb. 28 to tell me
that the President had agreed to support it, and the minority gave
their consent on Tuesday.
This amendment is to too important to be stalled by politics. I will
continue to fight for its inclusion, and I remain optimistic that I
will see the DRC acceleration language in the bill that President
Clinton finally signs into law.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of bringing relief to
thousands of seniors who are unfairly punished by the Social Security
earnings penalty. For too many seniors, working after they turn 65
isn't an option--it is a necessity. They can ill afford a smaller
Social Security check each month. We should fix this inequity and do
what is fair and right for our seniors. They deserve nothing less.
Last week, I met with a group of working seniors in West Haven,
Connecticut. One was Mary Grabowski. Mary recently retired, but she
quickly realized she had to continue to work after she turned 65
because she simply couldn't afford not to. It wasn't a choice. It
wasn't so she could make a little extra money on the side. It was about
being able to pay her bills.
I also listened to the story of Estelle Stuart. Estelle is also a
recent retiree who came to realize that Social Security simply isn't
going to be enough for her to get by. In particular, Estelle is forced
to work in order to pay for the prescription drugs she desperate needs.
Mary Grabowski, Estelle Stuart, and the thousands of other seniors
like them who must continue to work after 65, are perfect examples of
why the earnings penalty is wrong and why we need to end it. I want to
thank both of them for sharing their story with me.
Ending the earnings penalty today is a good start. It's important to
thousands of seniors. But tomorrow, let's get to work and pass a
responsible plan that will strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and
provide our seniors with a prescription drug benefit. It is a plan that
honors our seniors and protects our values. We've taken a positive
first step today. Let's get to work and finish the job.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, the second session of the 106th
Congress has been off to a quick start passing landmark legislation
that directly impacts millions of Americans and improves our quality of
life.
First, we repealed the Marriage Penalty Tax, and today, we will
ensure that older men and women still in the workforce will be able to
keep more of their hard-earned money without losing important Social
Security benefits.
Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, the golden years for many older
men and women in America involve all types of activities. More and
more, older Americans are sharing their lifelong experience in business
and industry with a new generation of Americans in the workplace.
Benefiting from tremendous advances in health care and increasing life
expectancy rates, our older people--the generation of men and women who
carried our nation through World War II, and beyond--continue to
contribute to the economic well being of our state and nation.
While some older men and women are working because they need the
paycheck to put food on the table, others keep working simply because
they like what they do and see no reason to stop doing it just because
they have reached their sixty-fifth birthday.
Right now, the tax code penalizes older Americans who choose to keep
working. Over 800,000 seniors today lose part or all of their Social
Security benefits because of the Social Security ``earnings limit.''
Almost 37,000 older men and women in New Jersey alone are hit by this
unfair penalty.
The present limit cuts or entirely eliminates Social Security
benefits for working older men and women whose yearly incomes exceed a
certain amount. In 2000, working Americans between the ages of 65-69
will lose $1 in Social Security benefits for every $3 in earnings over
the limit.
The Social Security earnings limit was created during the Great
Depression when jobs were scarce. It was designed to encourage older
workers to leave the workforce to free up jobs for younger workers.
What may have been good policy during the worst economic downturn in
American history is bad policy today during one of the best economic
cycles with more challenges and opportunities for everyone.
Our economy is booming and unemployment is at a record low. These
working older men and women are an important part of that success. They
should be encouraged to remain a vital part of the work force rather
than be penalized for their labors. In addition, people today are
living longer and healthier lives. Soon, millions of baby boomers will
reach retirement age. If these people wish to remain productive members
of the workforce long past their sixty-fifth birthday, their
experiences, industry, and productiveness should be rewarded.

[[Page H603]]

The Social Security earnings limit penalty is wrong, unfair, and
should be scrapped. With the President in agreement, and my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle in full support, let's pass ``The Senior
Citizens Freedom to Work Act'' (H.R. 5), after so many years of
inaction.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate having
expired, pursuant to the order of the House of today, the previous
question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The Chair announces that the vote on the Speaker's approval of the
Journal, if ordered, will immediately follow this vote, and will be a
5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 422,
nays 0, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 27]

YEAS--422

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Bliley
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Cook
Horn
Kilpatrick
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Norwood
Spratt
Vento
Waters

{time} 1316

Mr. DIXON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the bells on rollcall 27. I
spoke in support of the bill, H.R. 5, and I would have voted in favor
of the bill had I been present.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, the Senior Citizens'
Freedom to Work Act, on which I addressed the House, I was regretfully
delayed on official business with a visiting delegation from the German
Bundestag. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, I was
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''

____________________