[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.
____________________