[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 28, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1441-H1447]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              SENIOR CITIZENS' FREEDOM TO WORK ACT OF 2000

  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
at any time today to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 5, with a 
Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House a motion offered 
by the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, or his designee, 
that the House concur in the Senate amendment, that the Senate 
amendment and the motion be considered as read; that the motion be 
debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, or their designees; 
and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the motion 
to final adoption without intervening motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent request 
just agreed to, 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.


                       Motion Offered by Mr. Shaw

  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
  The text of the motion is as follows:

       Mr. Shaw moves to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 5.

  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

       Senate amendment:
       Page 2, line 1, strike out all after ``SECTION'' over to 
     and including line 3 on page 7 and insert:

      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.

       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), 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. NONAPPLICATION OF RULES FOR COMPUTATION OF EXEMPT 
                   AMOUNT FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE ATTAINED 
                   RETIREMENT AGE.

       (a) In General.--Section 203(f)(8) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) Notwithstanding subparagraph (D), no deductions in 
     benefits shall be made under subsection (b) with respect to 
     the earnings of any individual in any month beginning with 
     the month in which the individual attains retirement age (as 
     defined in section 216(l)).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 203(f)(9) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(9)) is amended by striking 
     ``and (8)(D),'' and inserting ``(8)(D), and (8)(E),''.

     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 by striking ``or suffered 
     deductions under section 203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal to 
     the amount of such benefit'' and inserting ``or, if so 
     entitled, did not receive benefits pursuant to a request by 
     such individual that benefits not be paid''.

[[Page H1442]]

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     taxable years ending after December 31, 1999.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House today, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  (Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)


                             General Leave

  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 5, legislation to repeal the 
earnings penalty for hard-working seniors age 65 and over.
  Madam Speaker, I am especially pleased that the Senate acted quickly 
and unanimously in support of this important legislation. The technical 
changes made in the Senate improve on the legislation passed 
unanimously by this House, and I urge all Members to once again support 
this excellent bill.
  Due to this quick work, seniors will soon receive all the benefits 
that they are owed, even if they continue to work after reaching the 
age of 65. That is their choice. As the name of our legislation 
suggests, they deserve the freedom to choose to work without losing 
Social Security benefits.
  It is worth noting that many seniors now affected by the earnings 
limit will receive back payments from months this year that they have 
lost their Social Security benefits. That will be a welcome relief for 
many, including some who have lost Social Security benefits for years 
due to this unfair penalty. Seniors can save this money for their 
future, use it to help with their grandchildren's college education, or 
buy prescription drugs. Again, it is their money and it should be their 
choice.
  Madam Speaker, ending the earnings penalty is the right thing to do. 
It is also an affordable thing to do, as the Social Security 
Administration's independent actuaries have told us. They agree this 
legislation will not affect the soundness of the Social Security 
program and its trust funds.
  We still must address Social Security's long-term financial 
imbalance, but we were very careful to ensure this legislation does not 
make that task any more difficult than it already is.
  I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam 
Johnson), our colleague, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Peterson) who first introduced this legislation at the beginning of 
this Congress. I also congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Archer) for his years of tireless work in relaxing and now repealing 
the earnings penalty. He is a personal testament to what hard-working 
seniors can do. In large part, passing this legislation is a tribute to 
his tireless devotion to helping our Nation's taxpayers, including the 
seniors who have spent decades working to support their families, their 
businesses, and this great country.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this outstanding 
legislation. Our hard-working seniors deserve no less. I would also 
like to pay tribute to the minority side and thank the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) 
for making this really a landmark bipartisan bill and one that every 
Member of the House can be very proud to support.
  Mr. Speaker, since there will be no House-Senate conference, and the 
Senate manager's amendment to H.R. 5 proceeded without a full committee 
report being filed by the Finance Committee, I believe a brief 
explanation is in order of the differences between the legislation 
before us today and the version of H.R. 5 that was approved by the 
House on March 1, 2000.
  First, some background is needed. Under current law there are two 
separate senior earnings limits: a stricter limit that affects those 
who start drawing Social Security benefits before reaching the full 
retirement age (which is currently age 65) and a more lenient limit 
affecting seniors who have reached the full retirement age. After 
reaching age 70, seniors are no longer affected by an earnings limit. 
The stricter earnings limit is $10,080 this year, with a 50% benefit 
offset for earnings above the limit. The more lenient limit is $17,000, 
with a 33% benefit offset for earnings above the limit. H.R. 5 repeals 
the earnings limit for seniors who reach the full retirement age.
  The legislation before the House today is slightly modified from the 
version that passed unanimously on March 1 with respect to the earnings 
limit for the first months of the calendar year during which a senior 
reaches the full retirement age. For seniors turning 65 in 2000, the 
issue is what earnings limit will apply for months prior to their 65th 
birthday (that is, while they are still 64)? Under the legislation 
previously approved by the House, the more lenient limit would apply 
for such months for seniors who turn 65 in 2000; for seniors who reach 
the full retirement age in future years, the stricter limit would apply 
during those months. Under the legislation we are considering today, 
the more lenient limit would apply for such months in all years.
  I am pleased that the House is supporting this change today, which 
has the effect of slightly broadening the relief from the earnings 
penalty afforded by the version of H.R. 5 the House has already passed. 
It is worth noting that this change will not affect Social Security's 
long-run financial soundness, just as the underlying H.R. 5 would not 
affect program solvency. This change is certainly in keeping with the 
spirit of H.R. 5, which is designed to help seniors who want or have to 
work to better support themselves and their families. These hardworking 
seniors deserve to keep the benefits they have paid for, as this 
legislation provides.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), chairman 
of the Committee on Ways and Means, for the cooperation that they gave 
to us in the minority in indicating that this would be a priority piece 
of legislation. It gave those of us on the Committee on Ways and Means 
the opportunity to get the support of our Members on this side of the 
aisle and to demonstrate how cooperation can have both sides of the 
aisle working a lot more closely.
  We hope that this sign of cooperation means that before this year 
ends, that we will have the opportunity to show that there are plenty 
of differences between our parties and how we achieve the goals, and we 
do not challenge each other's intent in terms of what is good for this 
country, but certainly there should be a lot of things that we can 
agree upon. I think it would be healthy and it would be the right 
political thing for us as an institution to bring those things forward, 
Democrats and Republicans, to show the House, to show the other body, 
and indeed to show the President and the country that we are a body 
that can work.
  This is a good piece of legislation. It is long overdue. The manner 
in which it has received overwhelming support is just indicative of 
what we can do when we put our minds to it.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my 
time to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, and that he may 
control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to just reiterate what the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), ranking member on the Committee 
on Ways and Means, has said. First of all, I want to commend the 
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer) for his bipartisan approach on 
this legislation. And, of course, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for his leadership on the Democratic side.
  I want to pay particular thanks and commendation to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social 
Security. I think he did a tremendous job on moving the bill from the 
subcommittee

[[Page H1443]]

 to the full committee and the floor of the House.
  Obviously, Democrats and Republicans working together made sure that 
the other body kept their amendments to a minimum. We just appreciate 
the cooperation and the bipartisan spirit, I think, that both sides of 
the aisle have had. But I do want to take that moment to make that 
observation.
  Madam Speaker, I would just like to very briefly reiterate some of 
the things that have been said before. The Senate had two technical 
amendments to our legislation. Both were very technical in nature and 
actually improved the basic underlying legislation.
  As a result of that, we think that this bill should have, as it had 
when it left the House, unanimous approval. 422 Members voted for it 
and no Member voted against it.
  This will go a long way in encouraging senior citizens who are so 
needed when the unemployment rate is under 5 percent, to stay in the 
workforce. These are people that undoubtedly have years and years of 
experience and a wealth of knowledge to pass on to their co-workers, 
and to ensure that they can stay in the workforce and garner the same 
wages without any penalty is something that the Congress is now about 
to do in sending this bill to the President.
  Certainly, I think it is a major achievement. Obviously, we have a 
long ways to go in terms of ultimately the comprehensive Social 
Security reform. And I think the gentleman from Florida and myself and 
others such as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) that have been 
working on comprehensive reform know that that is a task that looms 
before us. This action, in and of itself, should not deter us from 
trying to grapple with that very difficult and complex subject. And we 
know that there is partisan undertones to it. We also know that it is 
very difficult to deal with. But we are going to have to address that 
particular issue.
  So, again, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this conference 
report so we can send it immediately to the President. And, again, I 
want to commend all individual Members who have worked on this 
legislation, including, I might add, I saw him come in, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, and, of course, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) on 
the Democratic side who were the original two cosponsors of this 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleagues for all their 
hard work on this bill. I am very pleased to be here today to see this 
bill through another step toward becoming law.
  Our vote today signals the end of the Social Security retirement 
earnings test for people who have reached the normal retirement age. 
This is a remarkable event because as the title of the bill indicates, 
we are freeing our seniors from the work limits imposed by current law.
  No longer will the most experienced members of our labor force have 
to experience a reduction in their Social Security benefits if they 
choose to work. No longer will seniors have to calculate just how many 
months and days each year they can work without hitting that earnings 
limits.
  This is good for senior citizens who want to work, good for our 
workforce which benefits from the experience and knowledge of older 
workers, and of course good for the economy.
  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 between the ages of 65 and 69 had some or all of their 
benefits withheld because of the retirement earnings tests.
  By allowing beneficiaries to work without suffering a reduction in 
benefits, more older workers may decide to remain in, or to return to, 
the labor force.
  Repealing the retirement earnings test will not affect Social 
Security's finances over the long run and would not change the date by 
which the Social Security Trust Funds are projected to be exhausted. 
Repealing the retirement earnings test for beneficiaries above the 
normal retirement age has a short-run cost, but over the long run, that 
cost is entirely offset.
  Further, repealing the retirement earnings test will make the Social 
Security program easier and less expensive to administer. The Social 
Security Administration estimates that savings from the cost of 
administering the earnings test could be as high as $100 million.
  I am particularly pleased that the only modification to the bill that 
the Senate accepted was a relatively minor one and one that improves 
the bill. The amendment adopted by the Senate changes the way in which 
the bill applies to Social Security beneficiaries during the year in 
which they reach the normal retirement age and ensures that no one will 
be worse off under this bill than under current law. I am certain that 
no Member of the House will have an objection to this change and I look 
forward to sending this bill quickly to the President for his 
signature.
  I'd like to point out that not a single Member of Congress has voted 
against this bill, a clear testament to the bipartisan support it has 
received. When the bill was first considered by the House, it passed 
422-0.
  When the bill was considered by the Senate, it passed 100-0. I expect 
the outcome of our vote today to be the same.
  Additionally, our support for H.R. 5 sends a clear signal that by 
working together, Democrats and Republicans, we can accomplish much 
more than we could by working at odds.
  Over the past several weeks, as this bill moved through the Ways and 
Means Committee, the House floor, and the Senate, Members have set 
aside their differences so that this bill could proceed and we could 
achieve a victory for seniors who need to work without penalty. I am 
proud of our accomplishment.
  I am extremely pleased that the Congress has addressed the earnings 
test in a bipartisan manner, and I remain hopeful that the Congress 
might address other much-needed Social Security legislation in the same 
fashion to deal with the shortfall that the system will face in the 
coming decades.
  Again, I want to thank my colleagues again for all their hard work. 
This is truly an historic day and a big victory for our senior 
citizens.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a respected member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social 
Security, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), my 
distinguished colleague, for their extraordinary efforts as well as my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  Madam Speaker, 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, we do 
not want them anymore. The earnings limit that was created 60 years ago 
is a relic of Depression era economics that says that seniors should 
make room for younger workers. But we all know, seniors add more to the 
workforce and more to the economy than they could ever take away. They 
add their years of experience and their talents.
  H.R. 5 repeals the earnings limit which unfairly punishes seniors who 
earn more than $17,000 a year. That is not a lot. This legislation has 
received virtually unanimous support in the House and Senate, but more 
importantly, a ground swell of support from our constituents. After 
all, a 65-year-old who works as a barber or a cashier currently loses 
$500 in benefits just because they have earned $18,500 a year. That is 
absurd. This arbitrary limit serves as a barrier to many low- and 
middle-income seniors who need to work in order to improve their 
quality of life or even to make ends meet.
  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 earnings limit.

                              {time}  1715

  My own State of Pennsylvania ranks sixth with the number of seniors 
adversely affected by that earnings limit. It is important that 
Congress protect the dignity of retirement. The time has come for us to 
unshackle the creative energies of America's seniors.
  Today, by supporting this legislation, Congress says to seniors, you 
may choose to work, choose to remain part of the productive economy, 
and choose to share your talents, and we will not punish you.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Matsui) for yielding me this time and for his work on bringing 
this legislation forward and the gentleman from

[[Page H1444]]

Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social 
Security.
  This is a very important piece of legislation. It will be enacted, I 
think, very shortly once we complete our action and it is forwarded to 
the President. It will affect 800,000 seniors who have had their Social 
Security checks reduced just because they decided to continue to work. 
That makes no sense at all.
  We need more workers in the workforce, not less. In today's economy 
and with the shrinking workforce that we have of more people retiring 
and less people working, it makes common economic sense to allow those 
65 years of age who want to work to be able to work.
  Without this legislation, the marginal tax rate is 33 percent. That 
is unacceptable. That is why we are changing it. It is interesting that 
this particular legislation will have no impact on the long-term 
solvency of the Social Security system, for it is a plus in having 
people work and contributing to the system.
  It also benefits women more than men, because women's work history is 
not as strong, generally, as men. This will allow women to be able to 
continue to work without being penalized under the Social Security 
system.
  Madam Speaker, this legislation becomes effective January 1. It is 
retroactive to the current year, as it should be, so that individuals 
in this current year will be able to get their full Social Security 
benefits without the reduction for their work.
  As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), Chair of the Subcommittee 
on Social Security, pointed out, we are able to do this even though we 
cannot bring forward at this point comprehensive Social Security 
reform. I think we would all like to do that. We know that we need to 
deal with the Social Security system in a broader context, but we have 
an agreement on this very important piece of legislation, so we are 
bringing that forward. We are doing it in a bipartisan way.
  Madam Speaker, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the 
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, said, we should use 
this as a model to work together, Democrats and Republicans, to bring 
other legislation forward.
  I think about the need for seniors for prescription drugs. We may not 
be able to agree on Medicare reform; but we can agree, I would hope, on 
prescription drugs.
  Let us in a bipartisan way bring that forward, which will also help 
our seniors.
  This is a good day for seniors. It is a good day for our Nation. I 
congratulate all involved.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means 
and one of the original sponsors of H.R. 5.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank all on both sides of 
the aisle for their support.
  Today, 800,000 seniors are one step closer to gaining their freedom 
to work. It sounds unbelievable, does it not? To think that, since 
1935, when Social Security was first proposed, we have been penalizing 
our seniors for working. That is right. Since the inception of the 
Social Security system, our seniors have lost $1 in benefits for every 
$3 they earn over a set amount.
  Currently, as was stated, seniors may only earn $17,000 before losing 
their benefits.
  But today, thanks to the hard work and dedication of the gentleman 
from Texas (Chairman Archer); Speaker Hastert; the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social 
Security, we find ourselves ready to pass the Senior Citizens' Freedom 
To Work Act, a bill I introduced last year.
  I know that 64,500 seniors in Texas alone, including Tony Santos and 
his family, whom I spoke of earlier, are going to celebrate their new-
found freedom to work.
  I fought in both Korea and Vietnam for freedom, and I believe that 
includes the freedom for our seniors to work without being penalized by 
the Federal Government.
  Our seniors are dedicated, experienced workers who have endured this 
Depression-era law for far too long. We are in a new century, 60 years 
past the Great Depression, where laws passed in 1935 are no longer 
relevant.
  This Nation was built by generations of Americans who believed in the 
free enterprise system. In the words of Thomas Edison, ``There is no 
substitute for hard work.'' This legislation will make sure that our 
seniors have the freedom to work, save, and invest in a better America 
for tomorrow.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the distinguished ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on Agriculture, who has been really one of the leaders in the 
whole Social Security reform issue.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the leadership of him and 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) on this effort and other efforts 
regarding Social Security.
  I strongly support repeal of the Social Security earnings limit. In 
fact, repeal of the Social Security earnings limit has been part of the 
comprehensive Social Security legislation that the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and I introduced in the last two Congresses.
  However, I do want to take this time to reiterate my disappointment 
that we are considering legislation to increase Social Security 
benefits without even discussing the long-term financial challenges 
facing Social Security. We should have spent the last year working on a 
comprehensive plan to strengthen Social Security that would restore 
solvency, reduce unfunded liabilities, give workers greater control of 
their retirement income, improve the safety net, and reward work.
  But we, both the President and Congress, have ignored our opportunity 
to deal with the long-term challenges facing Social Security.
  Later this week, the Social Security trustees will issue their annual 
report which will show that the short-term outlook for Social Security 
has improved slightly. We cannot afford to let this good news distract 
us from the problems that remain. While the short-term outlook for the 
Social Security Trust Fund may be improved, the long-term problems and 
the pressures facing the rest of the budget may actually be worse.
  When the Senate considered this legislation, Senator Judd Gregg 
proposed an amendment which would have made a modest step in advancing 
the discussion about the challenges facing Social Security among policy 
makers and the public. The Gregg amendment would have required the 
commissioner of Social Security to provide the public and policy makers 
with easily understood and readily available information about the 
financial challenges facing Social Security. The purpose of the 
amendment was simply to encourage a more honest discussion of the 
challenges facing Social Security.
  Unfortunately, the Senate did not have time to discuss these issues 
when it considered the earnings bill. However, the Senate Finance 
Committee chairman did indicate his willingness to work with Senator 
Gregg on this issue later this year.
  I would respectfully encourage the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), 
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security, to 
conduct hearings on these recommendations so that they may receive the 
attention they deserve.
  More importantly, I encourage all of my colleagues to remember that 
we still have serious financial problems facing Social Security that 
must be addressed. So while all Members should vote for the earnings 
limit repeal today for the reasons we have so eloquently heard made 
already, we should not forget that we still have much hard work to do 
in making sure that Social Security remains financially sound for our 
children and for our grandchildren.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security from our Committee on 
Ways and Means, for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam 
Johnson) lamenting a long-term solution to the Social Security 
challenges that we

[[Page H1445]]

face. But I think a word is in order to put this debate and this 
challenge in context. One of the elemental lessons we learn in civics 
class is that the President proposes; the Congress disposes.
  Sadly, executive leadership has been lacking and, indeed, missing 
when it comes to a serious, long-term solution of Social Security 
challenges we face.
  Now it is true the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), along with 
the gentleman from Arizona, have one remedy that they have proposed. 
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the 
subcommittee, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman 
of the full committee, likewise, have a long-term solution.
  But, again, the missing ingredient, sadly, is effective leadership 
from the administration; and it looks like it will take a verdict of 
the people on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November 
to make that change.
  However, Madam Speaker, it is well worth asking the question, what 
took us so long to correct the injustice that at long last this House 
will correct tonight? Since the mid-1930s, since the advent of the 
Social Security program, those seniors who chose to work past 
retirement age have been penalized to the tune of $1 out of every $3 of 
benefits earned, simply because they chose to work.
  Now, with a labor shortage, with so many senior Americans, healthy, 
willing and able to work, at long last, this House has moved to correct 
this inequity.
  Again, Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleagues on the left who join 
with us at long last in this bipartisan effort. But, again, Madam 
Speaker, the question that so many Americans will continue to ask is, 
why did it take so long? Even as we deal with the responsible question 
of a long-term remedy for Social Security, the question remains, why 
did it take the denizens of the left so long to join with us?
  Even as we extend the hand of bipartisanship, we welcome now this 
new-found coalition. We hope that it will result in other moves to 
restore tax fairness and balance for all Americans. But this important 
step we take, and we welcome the newcomers to this endeavor with the 
hand of bipartisanship.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, one of the issues I think that the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) raised of why are we doing this now, if we would 
have done it 3 or 4 years ago, we would have had either taken it out of 
Defense or perhaps other domestic programs or else increased the 
deficit. We have a surplus now. As a result of that, we were able to do 
it without cutting other programs, including the Defense budget.
  In addition, I would just add that, over the length of the Social 
Security program itself, we will not see any lost revenues because 
there is a pick up of revenues in terms of the credit that is given.
  So the reason we did it is quite simple, we have a surplus. We did 
not have a surplus before.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MATSUI. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Madam Speaker, the only reason I rise is to ask if the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) would respond to a question.
  Mr. MATSUI. Yes, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth), the previous speaker, indicated that there was no initiative 
coming from this administration on this proposal. I believe the 
gentleman from California served during the Bush administration and 
Reagan administration. Does he recall similar legislation coming down 
from either President Reagan or President Bush asking Congress to 
repeal the earnings limit?
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I think President Reagan did, but I do not 
know if President Bush did. I am not quite sure.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Okay, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I think the old adage comes to mind of never ask a 
question that you do not know the answer to.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Mr. ARCHER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, today is a great day for hundreds of thousands of 
working seniors across this country. It is also a special day for me 
personally, because it is a culmination of my 27-year effort to repeal 
the earnings limit.
  In fact, I introduced a bill to do so in 1973, and we have taken out 
of the archives a copy of that bill, H.R. 10148. The reason to repeal 
the earnings penalty then was the same as it is today, it is simply 
wrong.
  Twenty-seven years is a long time to wait for me. But I am more 
thrilled that working seniors will not have to wait any longer to be 
free from this punishing tax.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), chairman of the subcommittee on 
Social Security, for their tireless efforts on this bill.
  The Social Security earnings limit is not only wrong, it is unfair, 
and it is backwards.

                              {time}  1730

  The earnings penalty actually cuts Social Security benefits from many 
working seniors over the age of 65 and gives them the highest effective 
tax rate of their entire lives at a time when senior citizens should be 
realizing lower taxes. It discourages them from working. And why in the 
world would we want to discourage any American, whether they are 16 or 
67, from working?
  Clearly, repealing this penalty is the right thing to do. More 
seniors are choosing to work today past their retirement for many 
reasons: for their own financial needs, to help their families or their 
grandchildren through school, or for their own personal fulfillment. 
The point is Americans are living longer now and older Americans can 
and do make a great contribution to our society. They should not be 
punished.
  In addition, repealing the earnings penalty will now unleash the 
productivity of one of the most experienced and talented workforces in 
this country at a time when our growing economy needs it and will need 
even more of it in the new century. This is clearly a win-win for 
everyone, which is why the bill today enjoys widespread bipartisan 
support.
  In summary, repealing the earnings penalty is based on the 
fundamental principles of fairness and freedom. Seniors can now be free 
to work without penalty and be treated fairly by a program that they 
paid into their entire lives.
  The victory today goes to the hundreds of thousands of older 
Americans who do not see retirement as an end but as a new beginning.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains on 
either side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw) has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Matsui) has 19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today in enthusiastic support for H.R. 5, the Senior 
Citizens' Freedom to Work Act.
  It is really a joy to be on the floor and be debating this bill in 
concert with the minority. It is a great feeling that we all believe 
this is something that needs to be changed for the fairness of our 
Nation's valued seniors.
  The Social Security earnings penalty is yet another aspect of the 
Social Security System that just no longer applies to today's society. 
It is a 60-year old system. It was written in the 1930s, and it just 
does not work any longer, and that is why we unite today in wanting to 
change this provision.
  Seniors are living longer, healthier lives and we need their strength 
and their experience in our communities. We need their examples and 
their institutional memories to provide the example to young new 
workers who are moving into the job market.

[[Page H1446]]

  In my State, Washington State, some of our very best workers right 
now are sitting in rocking chairs because they cannot afford the loss 
of their Social Security income that would come with their continuing 
in their jobs. Thirteen thousand seniors in my State are being forced 
to choose between the jobs that they love or need and losing the 
retirement income for which they have worked all their lives. This is 
not only wrong, as our chairman said, but it keeps an intelligent and 
productive part of the 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 economic and military 
superpower. It is time that we honor their contributions to America by 
allowing them to continue to give one of the most precious gifts of all 
to us: Their work ethic.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very important 
bill.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today to strongly support the Senate amendments for 
H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act.
  This modified bill removes earnings limits for working seniors who 
receive Social Security. For too many years seniors aged 65 to 69, who 
chose to continue to work, had their Social Security benefits deducted 
by $1 for every $3 earned when their total earnings exceeded $12,500 
annually.
  The 104th Congress, with my support, made a needed change, raising 
the earnings limit to $30,000 by the year 2002. This year's earnings 
limit went up to $17,000. I have long believed that more needed to be 
done on this issue. Ever since coming to Washington in our 93rd 
Congress, I have introduced legislation to either raise the earnings 
limit or eliminate it all together.
  The Social Security earnings limit only serves to discourage seniors 
from working and diminishes their potential impact on society. It is a 
condescending regulation. It conveys a message that seniors have 
nothing to contribute and are better off not serving in the workforce. 
And, of course, that is not true.
  It is gratifying the President has voiced his support for eliminating 
the earnings limit. I commend the Committee on Ways and Means for their 
attention to this issue; and, likewise, the Senate should be commended 
for their rapid attention in bringing the measure to the floor, making 
their legislation retroactive to December 31, 1999, so that those 
seniors who turn 65 this year may take full advantage of this bill's 
benefits.
  Accordingly, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join in 
supporting this worthy legislation.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 5.
  I am proud that today we are moving forward in eliminating the Social 
Security earnings limit. Today, one of the biggest problems facing our 
country is not lack of jobs but lack of workers. This is in direct 
contrast to the 1930s, when the earnings limit was enacted and imposed 
a tax on working seniors.
  H.R. 5 is important to seniors in the State of Michigan, where nearly 
653,000 adults age 65 and older depend on Social Security to make up 
half their total income. At least one in 11 seniors in my State are 
still working. These seniors have earned their Social Security benefits 
through a lifetime of contributions, and the government does not have 
the right to impose a 33 percent tax on them.
  The earnings limit is unfair and discriminates against working 
seniors. No retiree should be penalized for choosing to work. Our 
proposal would eliminate this tax penalty on earnings and would allow 
seniors to collect their full Social Security benefits if they choose 
to work. After all, it is their money.
  I am pleased that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are 
supporting this legislation. It is time to stop penalizing our seniors 
with such an unjust tax, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
H.R. 5.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Weller), a respected member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Madam Speaker, what a great day. We have legislation 
before us that is all about fairness and it is legislation, I believe, 
that will pass with overwhelming bipartisan support.
  In Illinois there are 800,000 senior citizens between the ages of 65 
and 70 who, because of their circumstances, either want to continue 
working or need to work because their savings and retirement plans did 
not work out quite the way that they had wanted. But these seniors 
suffer what is called the Social Security earnings penalty limit. 
Essentially, their Social Security benefits are taxed away if they 
continue working. That is just wrong.
  This has gone on for far too long. In fact, this was put into place 
back in the 1930s to discourage senior citizens from working. We are 
fortunate today to have a pretty good economy. But many times employers 
who are looking for workers are told by senior citizens who would like 
to work that if they are hired and they begin working, they are going 
to lose their Social Security.
  I am sure my colleagues can recall conversations they have had with 
their neighbors or constituents where that has been a statement that 
they have heard. In my home State of Illinois, 58,000 senior citizens 
between the ages of 65 and 70 are currently punished because they are 
working. They are losing almost one-third of their Social Security 
benefits if they make more than $17,000 a year. Essentially, they are 
being taxed at Donald Trump's rates. That is not right. That is not 
fair.
  Senior citizens today are working longer; they are living longer; and 
they want to be active longer, but our Tax Code punishes them. That is 
just wrong. It is an issue of fairness. Just like elimination of the 
marriage tax penalty, where 25 million married couples pay higher taxes 
just because they are married. This is a case where, if a senior 
citizen wishes to continue working, they must pay higher taxes and lose 
their Social Security benefits.
  My colleagues, this legislation passed the House with a unanimous 
vote, it passed the Senate with a unanimous vote. Let us send this 
legislation with this little modification to the President. I am 
pleased the President is going to sign this legislation. It is nice to 
see a bipartisan effort work around here.
  My colleagues, it is all about fairness. Let us vote today to 
eliminate the Social Security earnings limit. Please vote ``aye.''
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), an esteemed member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means.
  (Mr. McCRERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Social Security for yielding me this time.
  As I was listening to speakers here on the floor extol the virtues of 
this legislation, I was reminded of what I think is an old Chinese 
proverb that I am going to paraphrase, that victory has many fathers, 
defeat is an orphan. We are all claiming credit for this bill, which is 
good for us all to claim credit for something that the Congress is 
doing and makes sense. It is just common sense not to penalize seniors 
who make work.
  But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) is not the only one who 
took this as a personal project. When I first came to Congress in the 
spring of 1988 as a Member of the 100th Congress, I was adopted by my 
colleagues who were elected in the regular election which constituted 
the 100th Congress. And in one of our early meetings as a class, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who was a member of our class, 
came up with the idea for a class project. And our class project was to 
introduce legislation and fight to repeal the earnings limit for 
seniors, for

[[Page H1447]]

Social Security recipients. So we took that upon ourselves to do, and 
we introduced legislation.
  So I rise today to give the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and 
the class of the 100th Congress our due credit for pushing this issue 
for the last 12 years and, finally today, we gain victory here on the 
House floor.
  But surely every member of the Committee on Ways and Means who saw 
the benefit of finally doing away with this antiquated law deserves 
credit; and I do not mind at all Democrats, Republicans, everybody in 
the House coming to the floor and taking credit for doing this.
  It is certainly a happy day for seniors in this country, and I think 
a happy day for the Congress to finally do something that makes a lot 
of good old-fashioned common sense to all of us in this country but 
particularly our seniors, our Social Security recipients.
  I thank the Chair for yielding and encourage him to keep up the good 
work.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I feel it is a blessing that many people today are 
able to continue working and leading productive lives when they reach 
their golden years. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the 
Senate amendments to this bill.
  Productivity helps give meaning to life. For many it helps prolong 
life.

                              {time}  1745

  We should honor our seniors, not deny them what is rightfully theirs. 
The earnings penalty is a disincentive to work. In today's world, many 
seniors need the extra income, particularly when burdened with the high 
cost of prescription drugs and other essential needs. With so many 
seniors needing every single penny, Madam Speaker, we must help them in 
any way we can.
  It is about time that we reach out and help our mothers, our fathers, 
and all those who have helped to shape this Nation. Currently, the 
amount of income withheld from Georgia beneficiaries exceeds $91.2 
million yearly and more than $4.2 billion is withheld nationally. This 
measure will not only put money in the pockets of nearly 17,000 
Georgians but more than 700,000 seniors nationwide.
  Let us send this bill to the President and eliminate this burdensome 
earnings penalty.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would again just urge my colleagues to vote for the 
conference report. Only two changes were made that were technical in 
nature. Obviously, we want to move this bill on to the President, who 
strongly supports this legislation.
  Again, I want to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
a job well done and for the bipartisan cooperation I think that we saw 
on both sides of the aisle. That is why we were able to get 422 votes 
when the bill left the House. I am sure the vote will be unanimous 
here.
  So, again, I urge a yes vote.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, when I was in my district this last weekend, an older 
lady was working where we were eating, and she was waiting on tables. I 
had helped her some years ago with a matter concerning her son, who is 
very badly retarded on an SSI matter.
  I mentioned it to her, and I asked her her age. Her age is a little 
above 65 but below 70. She is working waiting on tables, very hard work 
for someone that age, on her feet all day long, never complains. And 
yet we are taxing her at such an unconscionable rate. I told her that 
we were going to be passing this and that she would not only no longer 
be penalized but that she was going to receive back the penalties that 
she has incurred from the first of this year.
  I do not know whether she really believed me or not, but I am going 
to be very pleased to go home and tell her that indeed we did. And then 
I will go home again and tell her indeed that the President joined with 
this Congress and signed this great piece of legislation.
  This is a first step, only a first step, towards Social Security 
reform, but it is one that is purely one of fairness. It is so unfair 
for us to have continued to penalize older workers just simply because 
they were between the age of 65 and 70, saying that they could not keep 
their entire benefit. So many of them had to work. Whether they were 
waiting on tables, whether they were working in construction, no matter 
what they were doing, these wonderful people were working, many because 
they just wanted to work and many because, as the case of Mary, she had 
to work.
  This is very important that we stay together on this legislation. And 
I also want to compliment the other body. That is something we do not 
hear very often in this House is compliments for the other body, but 
they kept this legislation clean.
  The President asked for it to be clean. We asked for it to be clean, 
and they obliged us and they passed a clean bill. So I think this is 
really a landmark day for this House. We are coming together in 
complete cooperation with the Democrats in the White House and with the 
Republicans controlling the legislative branch.
  It is a wonderful day, and I would urge all Members to vote yes and 
make this again a unanimous statement by this House of Representatives 
showing our commitment to American seniors.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), 
the ranking member on the Democratic side, and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel).
  Of course, again, I want to compliment the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Archer), who has steadfastly stood for elimination of the earnings 
penalty for many, many years now, as he demonstrated on the House floor 
earlier.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of today, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw) to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 5.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________