[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1533-S1541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              SENIOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 2000

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 5, which the clerk will report by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5) to amend title II of the Social Security 
     Act to eliminate the earnings test on individuals who have 
     attained retirement age.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 15 
minutes of debate equally divided for closing remarks.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, it has been agreed that I will begin 
these brief remarks in order that our chairman might conclude the 
debate and proceed to the vote which I think has every prospect of 
being prodigious in its majority.
  We have heard the compelling arguments to eliminate the so-called 
earnings penalty for persons 65 years and older. There is a short-term 
cost that is followed by a long-term payback, if you like, such that in 
a 20- to 30-year period the Social Security trust funds will not in any 
way be affected. The present practice is to decrease benefits to 
persons who continue working after their technical retirement age is 
reached, and then to compensate them after they reach age 70 or stop 
working. It is a complicated calculation. It is a cause of much 
distress, if you like, within the Social Security Administration--about 
$100 million a year just in sorting out the claims. It is not 
understood. There is the elemental fact that, although at 65 if you 
continue to work you know you will get back your benefits, that is in 
actuarial terms. For the cohort of several million persons, it will all 
be evened out. You may not be. So why not get rid of this archaic 
complexity? It is a remnant of Depression legislation of the 1930s.
  In that regard, however, we do have the question attending the long-
term deficit of the Social Security system. Yesterday our friend from 
Arizona, Senator McCain, spoke eloquently

[[Page S1534]]

about that matter, having raised it during his primary campaign on his 
side of the aisle. Senator Kerrey spoke with equal eloquence. Senator 
McCain was kind enough to note legislation that Senator Kerrey and I 
have introduced in this matter.
  In very short order, I would simply like to recapitulate the four 
simple steps which put Social Security on an actuarially sound basis 
for the next 75 years. They are:
  No. 1, provide for an accurate cost-of-living adjustment. In 1996, 
the Boskin Commission originally estimated that the CPI overstates 
changes in the cost-of-living by 1.1 percentage points; now they say it 
is 0.8 of a percentage point.
  No. 2, normal taxation of benefits.
  No. 3, extend coverage to all newly hired State and local workers.
  I might interject, if ever there was a holdover from the 1930s, it 
was this. It was not clear at that time whether the Federal Government 
could tax a State entity, so they were left untaxed. A great many 
workers in civil service positions pay no taxes on their principal 
jobs, but qualify for benefits from ``side'' jobs, and it is just not 
fair. We are not taking away anything, but just covering newly hired 
workers like everyone else.
  No. 4, increase the length of the computation period from 35 to 38 
years.
  We now have a 75-year, long-term actuarial deficit of 2.07 percent. 
This would bring that down by 2.05 percent, leaving an inconsequential 
.02 percent over the 75-year period.
  These are data based on actuarial calculations and they are clearly 
within our capacity. Let us hope one day we do it before it becomes too 
late. That time will come sooner than you may think.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the table be printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            ELIMINATING SOCIAL SECURITY'S LONG-TERM DEFICIT

            [Numbers expressed as a percent of payroll] \1\

Long-term (75 year) actuarial deficit..............................2.07
                                                               ========

Reduction in deficit due to:
  0.8 percentage point cost of living correction..................-1.16
  Normal taxation of benefits..................................\2\-0.43
  Extend coverage to all newly hired State and local workers...\3\-0.21
  Increase length of computation period from 35 to 38 years.......-0.25
                                                               ________
                                                               
      Total reduction in deficit..................................-2.05

\1\ Estimates are based on the intermediate assumptions of the 1999 
Trustees Report and ignore interactions among the provisions.
\2\ Social Security benefits would be treated like income from a 
private pension so that benefits that are attributed to employer 
contributions and interest earnings would be subject taxed, while 
benefits attributed to employee contributions would not be taxed. 
Currently, benefits are taxed only if income exceeds certain thresholds 
and, depending on some complex formula, only up to 50 or up to 85 
percent of the benefit is subject to taxation.
\3\ This is the rule that applied to newly hired Federal workers in 
1984 and thereafter.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I look forward to the statement of our 
revered chairman, who is going to have a historic triumph this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first let me thank and congratulate my 
distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from New York, for his 
leadership throughout the years on this most important domestic 
program, Social Security. There is no program of greater importance and 
interest to the American people than Social Security. The distinguished 
Senator, Mr. Moynihan, as I said, throughout his career has played a 
critical role in the development, the preserving, and the strengthening 
of this important program. I thank him and congratulate him.
  As Senator Moynihan pointed out, the Senate is now turning to the 
vote to repeal the Social Security earnings limit, an important step in 
preparing Social Security for the 21st century. This repeal is good for 
seniors, it is good for America, and it is good government. As we have 
heard, the Social Security earnings limit was enacted 65 years ago to 
encourage older persons to retire during the Great Depression. But 
today, with Americans living longer, and the tightest labor market in 
30 years, this rule is not only outdated, but it harms both our senior 
citizens and the economy.
  Repealing the earnings limit will help improve the retirement 
security of seniors by giving them the choice to work longer and to 
save more. Abolishing the earnings limit will allow us to protect the 
Nation's economic gains of the past 17 years by encouraging our 
Nation's most experienced workers to continue working, not only for 
today but into the future.
  Finally, repealing the earnings limit is just plain good government. 
It will save the Social Security Administration money and reduce very 
common, frustrating mistakes in calculating benefits. So let me say, I 
urge each Senator to support this bill.
  I am happy to yield the remaining time to the distinguished assistant 
leader of the majority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleagues, Senator Roth 
and Senator Moynihan because they work so well together.
  Today, we are going to pass something that will have a positive 
impact on millions of Americans. I say millions--some people say there 
are only 800,000 people who are currently paying the Social Security 
earnings penalty. There are millions of people who want to work, maybe 
have to work, but basically their taxes are so punitive that they 
cannot work; it does not make sense to work. Their taxes are so high 
they have to work more for government than they work for themselves.
  These are senior citizens, not particularly wealthy people. You can 
be a senior citizen and have, as an individual, an earned income of 
$30,000. You are in the 28-percent tax bracket. Because of the earnings 
penalty on Social Security, that is an additional 33-percent tax 
bracket. Add those two together and you are at 61 percent. You have to 
pay Social Security tax. If you are self-employed, you add 15 percent 
to that. That is 76 percent, and you have not even paid taxes to the 
State. For most States, that is 6 or 7 percent.

  You can have a marginal tax rate of 80 percent; you work four times 
more for the Government than you do for yourself. That is way too high. 
This 33-percent penalty for seniors between the ages of 65 and 70 who 
want to have earned income--maybe need to have earned income--is long 
past overdue for repeal.
  I am delighted that today we are going to fulfill what the House has 
done. I compliment Chairman Archer in the House. I compliment Chairman 
Roth and Senator Moynihan. I remember Senator McCain speaking on this 
issue for years. I remember Senator Ashcroft making tireless speeches, 
saying we need to repeal the earnings penalty.
  Over the years, we have raised the amount people can save before the 
penalty takes effect, but the penalty still takes effect for any income 
above $17,000. The real solution is to repeal it. That is what we are 
going to do today. We are going to open up economic opportunity for 
millions of Americans who are at age 65 and maybe do not want to 
retire. They might be a Strom Thurmond; they who may have another 50 
years of very energetic hard work ahead of them and they don't want to 
say they want to retire. We should not force them to retire.
  The earnings penalty forces many of these people to retire--some of 
our most productive citizens in America. I think it is wrong. This tax 
penalty is wrong. We are going to repeal it today. We are repealing it 
with bipartisan support. It is going to become the law of the land.
  Again, I compliment our leader for proving we can get some good 
things done that will have a positive impact on millions--frankly, on 
all of us, because a lot of us want to work beyond the age of 65. Now 
we are telling seniors they can do so.
  Again, my congratulations to the leaders for making this happen. I 
think this will make Social Security policy better and, frankly, it 
will make economic policy better for all Americans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and urge my colleagues to vote yes 
on this bill.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the 
Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. The passage of this legislation 
is long overdue. The Social Security earnings test is bad for our 
economy and bad for individual senior Americans who wish to

[[Page S1535]]

continue in the workforce. I am extremely pleased that the Senate is 
moving to eliminate the earnings test.
  I am hopeful, however, that passage of this bill will not mark the 
end of thoughtful policy regarding the role of seniors in the American 
workforce. Senior workers are an invaluable resource for our nation. As 
the number of Americans of retirement age increases, the economy's need 
for senior workers will inevitably increase as well. We should 
encourage those seniors who wish to continue working by making certain 
that they are treated fairly by tax and retirement laws.
  Too often, government policy toward retirees has assumed that all 
seniors have the same needs, goals, and desires. Mr. President, each 
individual is different. Many seniors look forward to a leisurely 
retirement that allows them to pursue activities for which they did not 
have time when they were working. American seniors have earned this 
option, and trends over the last several decades that demonstrate the 
average senior is enjoying a healthier and more prosperous retirement 
are extremely encouraging.
  But other senior Americans wish to delay retirement for as long as 
possible. Many seniors who have communicated with me about this subject 
simply enjoy the stimulation that a workplace provides on a daily 
basis. Others are not ready to leave businesses or farms that they have 
spent their entire lives building. Still others wish to continue to 
contribute to the income of their families, children, or grandchildren. 
Regardless of their reasons for wanting to stay in the workplace, no 
senior should find that government policy is a disincentive or barrier 
to work.
  In addition to ensuring basic fairness to individuals, providing 
further incentives to senior workers makes good sense for our economy. 
Seniors who stay in the workforce continue to pay taxes on their 
earnings and continue to provide much-needed experience to the American 
economy. As our economy grows and the baby-boom generation approaches 
retirement age, we may experience more frequent labor shortages. 
Ultimately, a declining number of qualified workers could be 
detrimental to the economy. Adding incentives that reward older 
Americans for staying in the workforce could help alleviate such 
shortages while continuing to improve our economy and standard of 
living.
  Last month, with the support of Senators Breaux and Gregg, I 
introduced two pieces of legislation that would encourage American 
seniors to stay in the workforce. These bills, entitled the Retired 
Americans Right of Employment Acts (RARE I and RARE II), are based on 
the premise that many seniors want to work and their labor is 
invaluable to our economy and society. Both bills would repeal the 
earnings test, as we are seeking to do today. But they would go further 
by implementing specific tax and benefit changes that would reward 
seniors who choose to work.

  Among other provisions, both bills would phase in a formula allowing 
income earned after the retirement age to be counted in the calculation 
of an individual's Social Security benefits. Currently, Social Security 
benefits for most people are based on the average of the top 35 earning 
years prior to age 62. Allowing income earned after age 62 to be 
included in benefit calculations would increase the benefits of those 
seniors who choose to continue working.
  The two bills offer alternative methods to reduce the taxes of 
working seniors. RARE I would cut the FICA tax of seniors by 10 percent 
when they reach full retirement age. As a result, retirees would see 
their FICA tax reduced from 7.65 percent of their paycheck to 6.885 
percent. Because taxes are levied on the first dollar of wages earned, 
this tax reduction would benefit all income levels of retirees, 
including those who choose to work part-time.
  RARE II would provide individuals who have reached the full 
retirement age with a tax credit equal to 10 percent of the lesser of 
the amount of income tax owed or the earned income of the individual. 
This provision would effectively reward older Americans who continue to 
earn and to pay taxes after reaching retirement age.
  Mr. President, in closing, I want to reiterate my strong support for 
the underlying bill being discussed today. The elimination of the 
Social Security earnings test would be a huge step toward ending the 
disincentives for seniors to work if they choose. But I hope this is 
only a first step in adjusting policy governing seniors in the 
workplace. Other changes contained in the RARE bills, which I have 
described, as well as the repeal of the Clinton Administration's 1993 
tax on Social Security benefits, would reaffirm the importance of 
seniors in our society. The health of our economy and even our national 
strength will increasingly depend on retaining the services of 
productive seniors. We should begin constructing these policies now.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the time is right to repeal the Social 
Security earnings test. I ask my colleagues to join with me today in 
support of the passage of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work 
Act of 1999.
  We all know that reaching retirement age does not necessarily mean a 
person is ready to retire. It is good news that Americans are now 
living longer and healthier lives, and I believe that the Social 
Security system should not penalize those who want to work longer. I 
understand that many older workers choose to remain in the workforce 
because they need additional income or have no desire to stop working. 
I fully support this choice, and I believe that no one should face 
financial penalties for that personal decision.
  In South Dakota this year, 2000 people have seen their Social 
Security benefits reduced because they chose to continue working when 
they reached the age of 65. All told, Social Security withheld about $8 
million in Social Security payments last year from those South 
Dakotans. That works out to a loss of about $4000 in Social Security 
benefits for each of those 2000 South Dakotans. That is not right. 
Let's not penalize them for staying in the work force to achieve a 
better standard of living. I know many Americans over 65 in my state 
who could use that money to pay for health insurance, prescription 
drugs, and electric bills.
  H.R. 5 will not only help these 2000 workers who are not receiving 
their Social Security benefits, but also encourage those who want to 
work, but are not doing so now because they fear the earnings limit 
would consume most or all of their earned benefits. As baby boomers 
begin to retire, it is especially important that these older Americans 
who want to work be encouraged to do so. Our nation is celebrating 
record low unemployment. Let us seize this opportunity to recognize the 
skills, knowledge, and experience that people over 65 have to offer. I 
am pleased that Congress is on the verge of removing the earnings limit 
to encourage citizens in my state and across the country to continue 
making an important contribution to the American economy.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to build on the momentum created 
by this bipartisan bill to work toward Social Security reform. We can 
pass legislation this year that will extend the solvency of Social 
Security for 50 years by using the interest savings earned by paying 
down the debt. We should take that simple step this year on a 
bipartisan basis, just as we are passing this bill today.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support HR 5, the Senior 
Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. This very important legislation would 
help millions of American seniors who choose to, or must work after 
retirement.
  Under current law, the Social Security benefits of those seniors ages 
65 though 69 who continue to work will be reduced by $1 for each $3 of 
earnings over $17,000. In other words, they will be taxed at 33.3 
percent of their earnings above the threshold.
  However, the onerous tax burden on our seniors does not stop there. 
These seniors are also subject to a 15.3 percent payroll tax, and a 15 
percent income tax. Combined with the earnings test, these seniors are 
paying taxes of over 60 percent on their earnings from working. If 
their earnings bump up their income, their Social Security benefits are 
then taxed. The tax bite could take 68 to 91 percent of their 
additional earnings.
  Mr. President, this is absurd. We must correct this unfair tax burden 
on our seniors.
  When Social Security was set up 65 years ago during the Great 
Depression,

[[Page S1536]]

jobs were scarce, workers were younger and many could not find work to 
support their families. One of the intentions of the Social Security 
program was to encourage older workers to retire, so that younger 
workers could find a job.
  Today, our situation is dramatically different. The economic and 
demographic conditions in the U.S. are not what they were when Social 
Security was established. Our strong economy has created a tight labor 
market. After filling over 20 million new jobs during this economic 
expansion, we still have a job shortage, particularly skilled workers. 
It is projected that this shortage will continue for the next 5 to 10 
years.
  Lower birth rates and a longer life expectancy mean that the number 
and relative size of the older population is growing rapidly. The 
number of Americans over age 65 has grown from 8 percent in 1950 to 14 
percent in 1990 and is projected to reach 22 percent in 2030.
  This demographic change has triggered a serious Social Security 
crisis. In 1940 there were 100 workers to support 1 retiree. Today that 
ratio has dropped to 3 workers supporting 1 retiree. In less than 20 
years, that ratio will decrease to 2 to 1. As a result, we have a $20 
trillion unfunded Social Security liability.
  The earnings test penalty has worsened this situation. It discourages 
seniors from working, even though their skills are much needed in the 
labor market. If allowed to work without penalty, they will continue to 
pay payroll taxes into the Social Security system which will help us 
work toward solvency of the system.
  Another important reason we must get rid of the earnings test is that 
Social Security is a very poor investment for Americans. Americans pay 
a significant amount of payroll taxes through their working life but 
face low and declining returns from Social Security, and some receive 
less in benefits than they have paid in payroll taxes. Their Social 
Security benefits cannot even begin to meet their pre-retirement 
standard of living. Many seniors have no choice but to continue to 
work--and others want to work for the joy of it.
  Over the past 15 years, goods purchased mainly by seniors increased 6 
percentage points more than goods purchased by the general public. 
Their medical costs skyrocketed 156 percent.
  As inflation on medical and pharmaceutical goods continues to rise, 
older Americans' hard-earned Social Security benefits are worth less 
and less. Their purchasing power will continue to diminish.
  I believe the earnings test on Social Security benefits is wrong and 
unfair because Social Security benefits are earned benefits for many 
senior citizens. The Social Security benefits which working seniors are 
losing due to the earnings test penalty are benefits they have 
rightfully earned by contributing to the system throughout their 
working years before retiring. These are benefits they should not be 
losing just because they are trying to survive by supplementing their 
Social Security income. Reducing Social Security benefits upon 
additional earnings is just double taxation.

  As health care and other costs continue to grow, the incomes of more 
and more senior citizens are falling along with their standard of 
living. This earnings test hurts seniors who choose, or must work after 
retirement to maintain their standard of living or to pay for costly 
health insurance premiums, medical care, prescriptions and many other 
expenses which increase in retirement years. This is particularly true 
for seniors with lower-incomes who must work and depend on their earned 
income for survival.
  Mr. President, we cannot let this practice continue.
  Eliminating the earnings test on Social Security benefits would 
reverse this trend, and help responsible senior citizens. The federal 
government has entered into a sacred covenant with the American people 
to provide retirement benefits once contribution commitments are made. 
It is the government's contractual duty to honor that commitment. The 
government cannot and should not take money from seniors that is 
rightfully theirs.
  Mr. President, I'd like to briefly discuss the health of our Social 
Security system. Social Security benefits will exceed payroll taxes by 
2014 or soon.
  President Clinton claims he is saving Social Security by using the 
interest savings that will result from paying down the government debt 
held by the public. However, his proposal does not push back the date 
that Social Security will run a deficit by a single year, and the 
transfer from the general fund to Social Security does not cover a 
fraction of the shortfall.
  Mr. President, without reform, the unfunded liability of Social 
Security will crowd out all of our discretionary spending. It will 
create financial hardship for millions of baby boomers and impose a 
heavy burden on future generations. We must address this vitally 
important issue as quickly as we can.
  I believe the best way to fix Social Security is to move it from the 
current pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded one, and the immediate 
step we should take is to lock in every penny of the Social Security 
surplus safe from government spending, and put it toward Americans' 
retirement. My lockbox would sequester spending if re-estimates result 
in spending any of our Social Security surplus.
  In addition, we need to tell Americans the whole truth about Social 
Security since payroll taxes are the largest tax that many families 
will ever pay, accounting for up to one-eighth of the total lifetime 
income they will make.
  That's why I also support the Gregg amendment which would require the 
government to provide information on the financial status of the 
program. This amendment is along the same line of my legislation, S. 
1104, the Social Security Information Act. Reliable information on 
Social Security is crucial to enable Americans to better understand the 
value of their Social Security investment and to help them determine 
exactly how much they should supplement their expected Social Security 
benefits with other savings in order to have a certain level of 
retirement security.
  Mr. President, let me close by saying it is critical that we repeal 
the earnings test penalty. We owe our seniors nothing less than to 
remove this senseless provision and give them the opportunity to 
sustain and hopefully improve their standard of living by allowing them 
to work without additional tax penalties. It is equally important that, 
by continuing to pay into the Social Security system, our seniors will 
actually give us more time to reform it--which ultimately benefits 
everyone.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is taking action 
on the H.R. 5, the Senior Citizen's Freedom to Work Act of 2000. This 
legislation eliminates the earnings test for Social Security recipients 
between the full retirement age (currently 65) and age 69. The measure 
will be retroactive to January 1, 2000.
  I have long supported changing the Social Security earnings test, 
which the amount of income recipients may earn before their benefits 
are reduced. Under current law, recipients aged 65 through 69 can earn 
up to $17,000 per year without penalty. But beyond that, benefits are 
reduced by $1 for each $3 of earnings. This year, approximately 800,000 
seniors will lose benefits. Repealing the earnings test will allow 
older Americans who have skills and expertise to continue working and 
making a contribution to society and to our economy.
  I am concerned about the Social Security earnings test and realize 
the difficulties that many older Americans experience because of it. 
For many seniors, working beyond the age of 65 is necessary just to 
make ends meet. Changing the earnings limit will allow them to earn 
extra income without losing hard-earned Social Security benefits. They 
have spent a lifetime working for these benefits and they should get 
them, whether they choose to continue to work or not.
  I have supported past legislation to raise the earnings test limit. 
Today, I fully support this legislation to eliminate the earnings test 
for all individuals who have reached full retirement age.
  This bill is especially important to North Dakota because we have one 
of the highest rates of seniors receiving Social Security benefits.
  I am also pleased because this bill is fiscally responsible. In the 
long term, it will not have any financial impact on our Social Security 
trust fund.

[[Page S1537]]

  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today is a particularly important day for 
American seniors. With a unanimous vote, the Senate passed H.R. 5, the 
Senior Citizens' Freedom To Work Act which will abolish a Depression-
era Social Security restriction that lowers benefits paid to seniors 
ages 65 to 69 who earn more than a specified amount each year. Earlier 
this month the House passed H.R. 5 by a vote of 422 to 0. As a proud 
cosponsor of the Senate version of this bill, I am elated that Congress 
moved swiftly to pass this long overdue legislation.
  Presently, the Social Security earnings test reduces benefits $1 for 
every $3 over earnings of $17,000 for retirees age 65 to 69. Due to the 
cap on earnings, older Americans, many of whom live on fixed, modest-
incomes, are burdened with a 33.3 percent tax on their earned income. 
When this is combined with Federal, State, local and other Social 
Security taxes, it amounts to an atrocious 55-65 percent tax or even 
higher. Such a policy defies the principals of self-reliance and 
personal responsibility on which America was founded. Seniors who have 
substantial outside income from investments have never had a similar 
tax penalty to pay.
  By eliminating the retirement earnings test, older Americans can now 
decide whether and how much they want to work without a reduction in 
their current Social Security benefits.
  An estimated 800,000 Americans lost all or part of their Social 
Security benefits in 1999 because they were employed and earned more 
than the limit. Even a part-time job can put someone over the earnings 
limit. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the elimination of 
the earnings test will affect approximately 1,153,000 retirees and 
auxiliary retirees nationwide, including 3,462 seniors throughout South 
Dakota.
  I believe older Americans ages 65 through 69 should be able to work 
and supplement their Social Security without a benefit reduction, just 
as other beneficiaries can supplement, without restriction, their 
Social Security with pensions and unearned income.
  At a time when labor shortages loom on the horizon and people are 
living longer, we should encourage, not penalize, older workers.
  Faced with serious health care expenses, escalating prescription drug 
prices, long term care needs, and other expenses in caring for a spouse 
or other family members, older Americans are choosing to stay in the 
job market longer. By eliminating the earnings test today we have just 
improved the personal and financial well-being of thousands of seniors 
throughout South Dakota and our nation.
  I am very pleased that President Clinton is supportive of the 
legislation and has indicated that he will sign the bill into law 
immediately.
  Today marks a strong vote for older Americans. Seniors are one of our 
nation's most valuable resources and we should honor and respect them 
by providing the means necessary to live long, fulfilling lives without 
worrying about whether or not they can afford to pay their rent, 
heating bill, and other necessities. As we move forward with the 106th 
Congress, I look forward to working with my fellow colleagues to 
implement further programs and a strong legislative agenda which 
strengthens crucial programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and 
establishes prescription drug coverage, nursing home reforms, new 
efforts on long-term care, tools to fight crimes against seniors, new 
plans to secure retirements and protect pensions, and other initiatives 
that meet the needs of our growing population of seniors.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for too many years I have worked in 
support of repealing the unfair Annual Earnings Test on Social 
Security. Incredibly, working seniors currently forfeit one dollar of 
Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn over the earnings limit 
of $17,000.
  If an American spends a lifetime paying into the Social Security 
system with the guarantee that he or she will get their money when he 
or she turns 62 or 65 years old, no one should be able to take those 
benefits away simply because the beneficiary wants to keep working. Why 
should the federal government be discouraging those seniors who want to 
keep on working from doing so? As our country faces increasing demands 
for labor, we can ill afford to deprive ourselves of the skills and 
experience America's seniors have to offer. The federal government 
shouldn't be in the position of discouraging anyone from working: 
seniors should be allowed to make their own decisions.
  Over the past few weeks, I have listened to and read the comments of 
numerous Washington state seniors who lose a portion of their hard-
earned Social Security benefits simply because they do not wish to 
retire or stop working. I have been listening to these same comments 
for many years, and I can honestly say that today it looks as if common 
sense will finally prevail and a solution will pass the House and the 
Senate. Importantly, President Clinton recently changed his position on 
this issue and now says he will sign this legislation to abolish the 
Earnings Test.
  I will cast my vote for abolishing this unfair tax. Repeal of the 
Social Security Earnings Test is a victory for seniors and every 
generation of Americans.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues today--
Republicans and Democrats alike--in voting to repeal the Social 
security earnings test. For 75 years now, Congress has kept a provision 
in the Social Security program that hurts our seniors who continue to 
work. The Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act is a sensible measure. It 
will correct an injustice in our Social Security program, infuse our 
tight labor market with experienced workers, and most importantly, help 
hundreds of thousands of seniors become more financially secure.
  Currently, retirees drawing Social Security benefits are subject to 
an earnings test. This means that for seniors ages 65 to 69, benefits 
are deferred by $1 for every $3 that their earnings exceed $17,000. In 
my state, nearly 2,500 seniors are hurt by the Social Security earnings 
test. According to the Social Security Administration, the average 
amount of benefits lost per recipient in 1995 was $3,596. My state 
benefits from the contributions of these employees, substantively and 
economically; yet these individuals are being penalized for their 
efforts.
  It is now time for Congress to bring the Social Security program into 
a new era. Retiring the earnings test, not our seniors, is a first 
step.
  In 1935, when the Social Security program was established, the United 
States had a crowded labor field. The earnings test was designed to 
encourage seniors to leave the work force to open their jobs to younger 
people. But today the rationale for the test has faded. It's about time 
we replaced this antiquated provision.
  Indeed, no one today would seriously consider structuring the program 
to discourage older workers. Our unemployment rate is at an historic 
low. And our country is enjoying unprecedented economic prosperity. 
Seniors bring years of experience to the work force--knowledge and 
judgment that cannot be obtained from a textbook, but only from first-
hand experience. Employers today are seeking skilled, dependable, and 
honest employees. Many older Americans would be willing to fill this 
need if they were not faced with decreased Social Security benefits. 
The government should not tell people who want to work that they 
cannot, but this is exactly the message the earnings test sends to many 
seniors. This message is discriminatory and fundamentally wrong.
  Moreover, at a time when we are experiencing such phenomenal economic 
growth, many of our senior citizens are struggling to pay for everyday 
needs. This measure will help them. I have heard from hundreds of 
seniors from North Carolina who are struggling to pay their medical 
bills and daily living costs. By now, they have been working and paying 
Social Security taxes for decades. These same seniors are the ones who 
start to lose benefits because they continue to work, simply because 
they earn a salary that the government believes is too high for them.
  It must be said that this legislation is a patch to one problem in 
the Social Security system that is currently riddled with holes. If 
Congress does not start considering overall Social Security reform, we 
will eventually have a hole too big to fix. It is my hope that

[[Page S1538]]

the current momentum to fix small holes in the system will lead to a 
larger dialogue on how to save the Social Security program.
  But until then, the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act is a win-win 
measure. It lets seniors earn a higher salary without retribution. It 
keeps skilled employees in the workplace. It helps maintain a strong 
economy. It helps our seniors to afford today's cost of living. And 
finally, it's the right thing to do.
  This bill has a lot of benefits, and it costs the government nothing. 
I look forward to its quick passage in the Senate and to the positive 
effects that it will have for our country.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in my State of Michigan, we currently 
have less than a 3 percent rate of unemployment.
  We used to think that just the people entering and leaving the job 
market, as well as those switching jobs, would keep unemployment to a 
minimum of 5 percent.
  But our economy is exceptionally strong, and the demand for labor is 
through the roof. In fact, some companies in Michigan have threatened 
to leave the State because they can't find enough people to work.
  Yet throughout the United States, we encourage our seniors between 
the ages of 65 and 69 to not work because of the earnings test on their 
Social Security benefits.
  At the very time that we need experienced workers in the labor 
market, the government makes it uneconomical for our most experienced 
workers to stay in the work force.
  Under the current earnings test, Social Security beneficiaries under 
the age of 65 lose $1 of social Security benefits for every $2 they 
earn over $10,000 per year.
  And those under 70 lose $1 for every $3 earned over $17,000 of annual 
income.
  Not until they reach 70 years of age are seniors free to work again 
on their own terms.
  Seniors are being penalized by double taxation--and in this case, 
simply for working.
  I find it incredible that we force our seniors to forego over $3.9 
billion a year in Social Security benefits simply because they make 
more than $10,800 if they are under 65 and $17,000 if they are between 
65 and 69 years of age.
  But what is not seen is the income foregone by those seniors for whom 
the earnings test makes it uneconomical to work.
  A recent study by the Institute for Policy Innovation shows that your 
typical 67-year-old married senior, making let's say the American 
average of $37,000, could have a marginal tax rate of over 80 percent.
  This is a huge disincentive to continue working, even though we need 
these experienced seniors in our work force, many of them want to work, 
and they are able to do so.
  In fact, a recent study by the Urban Institute indicated that because 
of longer life expectancies and better medical care, a 65-year-old 
today is healthier than a 40-year-old was before World War II.
  This has the effect of forcing able workers out of the work force. In 
1948, 47 percent of men over 65 worked. Today, it's one-third of that 
with about 16 percent continuing to work.
  And if they do work, they limit how much they work because of the 
earnings test. In fact, 65 percent of those seniors that work, keep 
their total earnings under the earnings test limit in order to avoid 
the penalties.
  But if we repealed the earnings test, we could unleash the economic 
power of our seniors.
  The National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that repealing the 
earnings test on workers age 65 to 69 would increase the annual number 
of hours worked throughout the economy by 5.3 percent.
  That may not seem to be much, but it actually represents 63 million 
more hours worked per year, or the equivalent of almost 31,500 jobs.
  Because seniors would have more money to save, invest, and spend, 
it's estimated that overall gross domestic product would rise by $19.5 
billion, increasing the projected growth in disposable personal income 
by more than 5 percent.
  And this would ripple throughout the economy, adding $6.8 billion to 
the stock of U.S. capital invested in new jobs.
  Finally, the extra growth that would be brought about by this repeal 
would generate enough new tax collections to totally offset the higher 
Social Security benefit payments within 10 years.
  That is why I was proud to join Senator McCain last year in 
cosponsoring S. 279 to repeal this antiquated test and allow our 
seniors to keep all of their Social Security benefits. And that is why 
I will also support passage of H.R. 5.
  But I think we need to look at the broader issues of retirement 
security, including the taxation of Social Security benefits, and the 
forced depletions of individual retirement accounts.
  In 1993, the President forced through an increase on the amount of 
Social Security benefits subject to taxation from 50 to 85 percent for 
those singles making more than $34,000 and those couples making over 
$44,000.
  When coupled with the earnings test, these benefits taxes can punish 
some couples with a 103 percent marginal tax rate. These couples 
actually lose more than a dollar for making another dollar. Not only is 
this grossly unfair, it's also an even further disincentive for savings 
and work.
  But the government's raid on senior's retirements assets doesn't even 
stop there. It also levies a 50 percent tax on IRA savings when seniors 
fail to withdraw when Washington wants them withdrawn.
  Current law requires seniors to start withdrawing their IRA savings 
beginning at age 70\1/2\.
  And seniors must usually make these withdrawals in annual amounts 
large enough to deplete the entire IRA by the time they reach age 85.
  Failure to follow these rules earns a whopping 50 percent penalty.
  This withdrawal requirement can only be viewed as a punishment for 
those who plan and save for retirement. Even worse, seniors who live 
past 85 may find themselves short on funds because the Federal 
Government forced them to spend their own savings. That's not right, 
and it must be stopped.
  To remedy all of these gross disincentives to seniors planning and 
saving for their retirement, and staying active in the work force, I 
introduced the Senior Citizens' Financial Freedom Act, S. 2180.
  This legislation would accomplish three objectives:
  First, it would repeal the Social Security earnings test working 
penalty on seniors, just as the legislation before us today would.
  Second, it would roll back the Clinton administration's 1993 tax 
increase on Social Security benefits.
  Finally, it would increase the age when minimum IRA distributions 
must begin, from 70\1/2\ to 85.
  Passage of H.R. 5 is vitally important to the financial well being of 
our seniors who chose to remain in the work force.
  And I hope we will continue to work toward truly protecting the 
financial well-being of America's seniors by also addressing this year 
the other issues of Social Security benefits taxation and forced IRA 
withdrawals.
  With these two important pieces of legislation, we can really 
strengthen Social Security for our seniors in the most important place 
possible--their wallets.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senate is going to take an important 
and long overdue step to stop penalizing older workers in our Nation--
eliminating the Social Security earnings penalty. This is a change I 
have advocated for many years. So I am very pleased we are taking this 
important step.
  This legislation, H.R. 5, is an important step for a number of 
reasons. First, it is simply the right thing to do. There should not be 
a penalty for working.
  Second, we are now facing and will continue to face tight labor 
markets. In my State of Iowa, this is an acute problem in some areas. 
By eliminating the earnings penalty, experienced workers who were 
discouraged from continuing in or rejoining the work force will have a 
new incentive to work. The emergence of the Internet and home computers 
offers tremendous opportunities for seniors to work at home. Marrying 
these new job opportunities with a repeal of the earnings penalty will 
become even more important as the Baby Boomers retire.
  Third, a large number of older Americans need the income. Over half 
of today's workers have no pension plans

[[Page S1539]]

outside of Social Security. They are going to need additional sources 
of income to maintain their standard of living.
  Some critics have expressed concern that this change would have a 
negative budgetary impact. I believe that by attracting more Americans 
back into the work force, either on a full-time or part-time basis, it 
will strengthen Social Security and the federal budget. And I believe 
they will add to the productivity of our nation.
  I am pleased that the Senate has been able to come together on a 
strong bipartisan basis to pass this bill. The President has indicated 
his support and so it should become the law of the land in the next few 
weeks. That would be a good step forward for our Nation.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments on the 
Social Security earnings test elimination bill. Today I join my Senate 
colleagues in supporting important legislation that will benefit 
millions of American seniors who want to remain working after age 65 
without facing a reduction in their Social Security benefits.
  In America today there are roughly 800,000 Social Security recipients 
between the ages of 65 and 70. Under current law if you are one of 
those 800,000 Americans and you earn more than $17,000 this year you 
will begin to see a reduction, $1 in loss for every $3 earned over 
$17,000 in Social Security benefits. I think it is important to 
recognize that those being penalized are those who have been paying 
into Social Security their entire working lives. I have long 
disapproved of this punitive system that places restrictions on a 
person's right to work, and an employer's ability to hire the right 
person for the job. Too often Social Security is viewed as a handout, 
but for the vast majority of Americans this is an earned benefit that 
should not be subject to Depression-era work restrictions.
  The Members of this body are familiar with the numerous obstacles 
facing employers, particularly small business owners, in these times of 
near full employment. In my home State of Colorado, our small 
businesses, hospitality and tourism employers are struggling to find 
experienced, qualified individuals even in these times of prosperity. 
Here in the Senate we have looked at increasing the number of guest 
workers visas and streamlining the visa process in an effort to provide 
employers with an opportunity to reach employees. While we will still 
consider these efforts, the passage of the Social Security earnings 
test elimination bill will allow employers to tap an eager and rich 
population of employees already living in every community in our State. 
Importantly, this legislation will put an end to a depressing practice 
that has forced working seniors to leave their jobs mid-year once their 
earnings threshold has been reached. Not only will America's working 
seniors be spared unnecessary grief, but these seniors and their 
employers will be free to develop stable, life-long working 
relationships.
  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this legislation 
will cost $22.7 billion over the next 10 years. I understand that 
actuaries from the Social Security Administration have reported that 
this cost will be negligible over the long term. I mention this solely 
in the context that as we pass this legislation we recognize that this 
measure is associated with a cost. Congress must budget appropriately 
in response to this cost. Repealing the earnings limit is an idea whose 
time has come, whose time came years ago. Part of constructing good 
public policy is making hard choices. I hope that my colleagues will 
recognize that if we are not willing to assume the responsibilities of 
these costs in other areas of the budget we run the risk of continued 
fiscal irresponsibility that threatens Social Security and a balanced 
Federal budget.
  Like many of my colleagues in the Senate today I had the good fortune 
to work on a precursor to this legislation when I served in the House 
of Representatives. During the 104th Congress I voted in favor of H.R. 
2491, the budget reconciliation bill that carried a number of 
provisions outlined in the Contract with America. One of these 
provisions was the gradual increase of the Social Security earnings 
limit. In December 1995, President Clinton vetoed this legislation. I 
am thankful that today the Senate will pass this legislation 
overwhelmingly, insuring relief and increased economic freedom for 
America's seniors.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, when the Social Security system was 
established, a retirement test, also referred to as an earnings test, 
was made part of the criteria for determining an individual's benefits. 
This criterion was established because Social Security benefits are 
intended to replace, in part, earnings lost by an individual or family 
because of retirement, disability, or death. Therefore, benefits are 
withheld from individuals who show by their substantial earnings from 
work that they are not in fact ``retired''.
  What this means today is that recipients aged 62-65 could earn up to 
$10,080 annually without having their benefits affected, and those 
between 65-69 could earn up to $17,000 a year. For earnings above these 
limits, recipients aged 62-65 lose $1 in benefits for each $2 of 
earnings while those between 65 and 69 lose $1 in benefits for each $3 
in earnings. The earnings test does not apply to recipients age 70 and 
over, and the exempt limits increase each year at the same rate as 
average wages in the economy. Currently, it is estimated that there are 
approximately 600,000 recipients age 65-69 affected by the earnings 
limit test.
  Today we are repealing the earnings limit for people between the full 
retirement age and age 69, giving them the opportunity for increased 
financial security, and providing an increase in skilled workers during 
this tight labor market.
  Removing the earnings limit will provide seniors with greater 
independence and financial security. Today, too many Americans struggle 
through their retirement years trying to make ends meet. The steps we 
take today will allow seniors to work longer, and depend on their 
savings less, giving them more security into their later years. In our 
modern workplace it makes no sense to penalize workers for staying in 
the workforce longer. Congress works hard to encourage people to plan 
their retirement years thoughtfully, and removing the earnings limit 
will give working families one more tool for planning their financial 
future.
  This move is especially timely in our tight labor market and booming 
economy. Removing the earnings limit will allow experienced workers to 
be able to stay in the workforce. I have heard from several business 
owners in Wisconsin who are desperate for skilled workers in a number 
of industries. While the long term answer to the skilled worker 
shortage is increased worker training and education, encouraging older 
workers to remain in the workforce will certainly help meet the current 
demand. Proven, experienced, mature workers will help our economy 
maintain its momentum.
  We should not feel too jubilant, however, about today's 
accomplishment. Comprehensive Social Security Reform is still 
necessary. Today's changes will do nothing to hold off the coming 
crisis that will begin when we start drawing down the Social Security 
Trust fund in 2014. Congress needs to deal with this soon, otherwise we 
are shirking our duty to the American people.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to urge all my colleagues to 
join me in supporting the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. It is 
high time we eliminated this Depression-era provision which penalizes 
motivated senior citizens for working to augment their Social Security 
income.
  As the law currently stands, if a person between the ages of 65 and 
69 earns more than $17,000 per year, their Social Security benefits are 
reduced by $1 for every $3 they earn above $17,000. That just isn't 
right. Ours is a society which values hard work; only our Government 
would devise a scheme to penalize people for working.
  Before too long, in 2025, Montana will have the third largest 
proportion of senior citizens in the Nation. This growth rate is 
nationwide, however. Our country is aging and the programs which our 
parents relied on in their golden years need to change if they are to 
keep pace with the changing face of American society.
  Most of the senior citizens affected by this unfair provision are 
those who can afford it the least. These are the very people who 
struggle to make ends meet every month. Many may face the impossible 
decision of putting food on

[[Page S1540]]

their tables or prescriptions in their drug cabinets. We expect 
retirees to augment their Social Security income with money from 
outside resources but then turn around and penalize them for working. 
Isn't it about time to bring consistency into Social Security? 
Eliminating the Social Security earnings limit is one important step in 
reforming the laws which affect our senior citizens.
  I urge the Senate to follow the House of Representatives by 
expediting passage of this important legislation. Working seniors 
deserve no less.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act. This bill will do away 
with the Social Security earnings test for those individuals between 
the ages of 65 to 69. The earnings test has proved to be a disincentive 
for able and healthy senior citizens to be a productive part of the 
workforce. On March 1, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 5 by 
a vote of 422-0. Moreover, the administration has expressed its support 
for the bill. While I believe the amendment offered by Senator Kerrey 
had merit, attaching it to this bill would have delayed enactment of 
this important legislation. Therefore, it is my belief that we should 
pass this bill immediately and send it to the President for his 
approval.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want to express my strong support for 
repealing the Social Security Earnings Test for working seniors. Many 
of my colleagues and I have been working together for the past 12 years 
to pass this legislation. At long last, the Senate is going to retire 
the Social Security Earnings Test.
  The Social Security Earnings Test is a 70 year old dinosaur of a law 
which was initiated to insure that Social Security benefits were 
granted specifically to retired persons. Today, unfortunately, economic 
reality dictates the need for many senior citizens to continue working 
in order to achieve a basic standard of living. The Social Security 
Earnings Test stands as a roadblock to independence for tens of 
thousands of seniors throughout the United States. Furthermore, 
America's seniors represent a wealth of talent and skill. A national 
policy which discourages them from working is simply counterproductive.
  Clearly, few other states have been as impacted by the unfair Social 
Security Earnings Test as the people in my home state of Florida. I've 
seen first-hand the impact upon Seniors of laws which limit income. We 
have already seen the impact caused by President Clinton's 1993 tax 
hike on Seniors, when he raised the Social Security benefit tax from 
50% up to 85%. When are we, as a nation, going to stop penalizing 
success?
  It's not a group of greedy millionaires who are being impacted by the 
earnings test restrictions. It's lower and moderate income Seniors who 
need some relief from their government to simply survive. In Florida, 
we are talking about grandparents who live on Social Security plus any 
outside work they can get. And if you have grandma in the hospital or a 
nursing home fighting Alzheimer's Disease, and grandpa has go find some 
work to pay the bills, the Social Security Earnings Test is simply 
another hurdle they have to overcome.
  Several years ago, I was visiting a worksite in Safety Harbor, 
Florida where I met with a group of working Seniors. I asked them why 
they were working past the traditional retirement age. Some said they 
simply wanted to have a reason to get out of the house and do something 
productive. Others said they needed the additional income to take care 
of a loved one. Still others said they wanted to maintain a certain 
lifestyle without Federal interference.
  But I was most struck by one gentleman who said to me, ``Senator, we 
live in a throw away society. Don't let them throw us away.'' What this 
gentleman was saying was that the message the Earnings Test sends is 
that society no longer needs you. How can we, as a society, say such a 
thing? Clearly, we shouldn't.
  Finally, consider this thought. Baseball fans might remember my 
grandfather, Connie Mack, who spent many years in major league 
baseball. In 1929, he managed the World Champion Philadelphia 
Athletics. In 1929, he was 66 years old. Suppose he had succumbed to 
the idea that, at that age, there was no purpose for pursuing one's 
ideas, one's dreams in life. Suppose he had been told by our nation 
that he was no longer of value to society. He might not have had the 
opportunity to produce that great team. Fortunately, we didn't have a 
law which could have forced him into retirement.
  The Federal government is sending a message to working Seniors that 
they are over the hill. The only thing that is over the hill is the 
Earnings Test. We need to retire the Earnings Test, not our Seniors.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Who seeks time?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we yield back any remaining time.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, we yield back any remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, under the 
previous order, the clerk will read the bill for the third time.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.-
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 42 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The bill (H.R. 5), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
previous order be postponed for 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this is a moment of high achievement. Is 
there anybody about who can remember when a substantive piece of 
legislation affecting millions of Americans and dealing with the Social 
Security Act would pass this Chamber 100-0? I can't in my 24 years.
  In my 24 years, I have not seen the like.
  I congratulate the chairman who had the wisdom to bring up the 
matter, hold it at the desk, and do it this way.
  When the President gets back, I am sure the first thing he will do is 
sign it, or we can put it on a plane and send it to meet him halfway in 
Geneva.
  But congratulations.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member, 
Senator Moynihan, for his kind and gracious but too generous remarks. I 
know we were able to get this accomplished through his leadership. As I 
said earlier, I do not only want to congratulate him for his role 
today, but for his continuing role in his many years of service in the 
Senate. I thank him for his leadership, for his contribution, and for 
his steadiness on this most important matter.

[[Page S1541]]

  I also say to my distinguished colleague that it is important we 
recognize the staff who worked so hard on this historic measure on the 
majority side.
  I thank Frank Polk, Alec Vachon of the majority staff; on the 
minority side, David Podoff and Jon Resnick. I also thank David Koitz 
of the Congressional Research Service, Ruth Ernst of the Senate 
Legislative Counsel, and Kathy Ruffing of the Congressional Budget 
Office. Frankly, if it had not been for their hours of long staff work, 
this historic bill would not have been possible.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________